I don't agree with a lot of what this article says, because it seems like a deliberately narrow and skewed view, but I do think that much of what the TSA does is negative PR. Security is of course, necessary but I truly do not think that most of the TSA's procedures are effective in providing security at the level they claim. I have personally seen TSA agents chatting away while things that by their definition are objectionable pass through the scanner. If the TSA were serious about providing security, then I would think that TSA agents would receive intensive counter-terrorism training and that they would carry firearms. They do not. Furthermore, there are already firearms on board some flights, in the possession of air (sky) marshals. Yes, those people are vetted but it's not inconceivable that one of them could snap or have a really terrible day, or else have someone take control of their weapon by some misfortune or happenstance. There are many documented transgressions by TSA agents and personally, I think that airline security needs an overhaul, if it's to be truly effective. In my view, the main reason why there isn't more outrage against the TSA is that most people see it as a very occasional inconvenience as they don't fly often. Think about the 3 oz. rule. Let's say that the kind of liquid explosive that the TSA uses to justify this rule is an option that terrorists would choose. Well, given that many planes are capable of carrying hundreds of passengers, could a large enough group of passengers not simply carry all the material needed to construct a device secreted amongst them? How about "no-fly" lists? Given the sheer number of people flying everyday, how well do they ensure that people who coincidentally have the same name as legitimate persons of interest are clear to fly? Yes, most of the evidence is anecdotal, but the number of anecdotes is high enough to warrant this line of questioning. Furthermore, there have been abuses of "no-fly' lists in the past, including one officer (who I believe was from the UK) who placed his wife on such a list so that she would be barred from visiting him and discovering that he had a woman on the side. For delicate work involving decision making, humans are still the most effective way to go, especially in matters of security. The problem (one of them) is that they are human and they get tired, bored, and have their own motivations and interests and so are bound to make mistakes. When that quality is spread over thousands of individuals, it will undoubtedly have an impact on the intended security measures. Add that to the poor training and pay that many TSA agents receive and I think that the argument against the TSA as it is, becomes more apparent.
The argument is that power corrupts. But someone has to have power, and I'd rather it be government employees who make us take our shoes off than people with guns who make our planes fly into buildings. Yes, the 3 oz. rule is probably misguided. Yes, TSA employees hoarded x-rays of semi-naked women. Yes, they aren't all particularly committed to their jobs. No, this does not mean the organization shouldn't exist, or that it is comprised of "terrorists," or that it doesn't fulfill a useful function. Those who call for the dismantling of the TSA must provide an alternative. Pre-2001 airport security is not an option. Period.
I don't quite think that "power corrupts" is the argument. To me, it seems like the power vested in the TSA is most often misused because the TSA personnel are under-trained and of dubious quality due to lack of rigor in the hiring and selection process. Of course, the cheapest and easiest way to give people the impression of security, power and authority is to have a lot of bodies on the ground. But, consider the stress involved with the job as well as the sheer volume of people they have to screen. I don't think the average TSA agent is reliably up to the task. My argument is: if you're going to have a TSA, quit fucking around and do it right so that real, tangible security is present and available, because what exists now is a gigantic waste of time and money and greatly empowers a number of people who by and large, are unaccustomed to having authority, much less using it effectively and ethically. As for the "terrorist" thing. I never subscribed to that, but I do think that the TSA makes inexperienced passengers more fearful as well as any passengers who might resemble "persons of interest" which often seems to be blatant racial profiling.
I think you're right, but remember the utter lack of qualification one needs to become a police officer in this country and despair over the TSA ever becoming a more effective force. In 1995 it was pretty easy to bring a gun on a plane, for anyone, and now it's almost impossible! I've never personally experienced safety lapses from TSA agents I've encountered; on the contrary they all seem over-zealous in the execution of their jobs. (However on two occasions I've "subverted" the system due to extenuating circumstances and on both they've been understanding and humane.) I would agree that anyone (say a child) first encountering the TSA security measures would be frightened and have a bad experience, but that seems like a price that has to be paid. Racial profiling is a separate argument. Using stereotypes is efficient, unfortunately. I'm also completely sure that at some level the TSA higher-ups have instructed the agents on the ground to profile on the basis of race. There's blame to go around there, maybe, but it's different blame.because what exists now is a gigantic waste of time and money
See, this is where I disagree. People motivated at flouting the system will find a way. There is already speculation that non-metallic guns have been developed. And while you may have "subverted" the system on two occasions, well, you are white are you not? I don't really think that the argument that using stereotypes being efficient is a very strong argument. That's like saying that dynamite fishing is a good way to fish because the total number of fish 'caught' using this method is higher than more targeted methods. While it may be true that catching persons of interest is vital to national security, but I am willing to wager that they have "caught" far fewer legitimate persons of interest than they profess to have at the cost of banning a much higher number of people from flying. Yeah, not flying at all is safer than flying, but not living is also less risky than living.In 1995 it was pretty easy to bring a gun on a plane, for anyone, and now it's almost impossible!
Yeah I've read about the 3D-printable, non-metallic guns. It's an escalation thing -- just because it's possible that soon people will be able to shoot up planes again does not mean we should have been letting them do it easily for the last 15 years. Logical fallacy. I'm white. It wasn't like that, though. I just mean that I've anecdotally had a thoroughly decent experience with the TSA. A close friend of mine is Pakistani and he gets pulled out every time he flies in that direction. Wasn't trying to disprove any sort of racial bias; it exists. Racial profiling is a separate argument. If TSA officers do indulge in it (evidence suggests they do), it's surely because they've been ordered to. The allocation of blame for the sexual misconduct allegations etc. and for using racial profiling belong separately.
Did you click the link? It's not about 3D printable guns, which though non-metallic are not exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I was talking about the rumors of ceramic guns developed by the CIA. Most of my experiences with TSA have been at points of entry to the U.S. which tend to be busier airports. Certainly I understand that my view of the TSA is not representative of all individual TSA agents, but I stand by what I say.
I didn't, because I've heard of that. I was saying that yeah not only is that possible, it may soon be printable. And yeah, it really just depends. I'm white, you may not be, it's hard to talk about the TSA because really we're talking about two different organizations when we come at it from two different racial perspectives.Did you click the link? It's not about 3D printable guns, which though non-metallic are not exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. I was talking about the rumors of ceramic guns developed by the CIA.
And they would have to get together, and mix them, and the passengers would know what's up. Passengers have stopped the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and a few other incidents of rowdy passengers though not terrorists. In fact all terror acts in flight have been stopped by the passengers since 9/11. I think the idea is, sure, they could get enough of it on board, but they will stand out like sore thumbs and have to get together to mix it or whatever. People would step in. It prevents one or two people from being able to carry it out, and now requires a much larger group of people. It's a deterrent.Think about the 3 oz. rule. Let's say that the kind of liquid explosive that the TSA uses to justify this rule is an option that terrorists would choose. Well, given that many planes are capable of carrying hundreds of passengers, could a large enough group of passengers not simply carry all the material needed to construct a device secreted amongst them?
Really? What if they all deposited those 3 oz. samples in a compartment in a designated bathroom, where a designated person would assemble the device? On a transatlantic or transpacific flight, there's plenty of time to do all that without arousing suspicion. Also, c'mon man. The shoe bomber? That dude was asking to get caught. Yeah, it's a deterrent, but I really think it's mostly a deterrent for people already disinclined to kill themselves and others. I maintain that if someone really wants to do something on a commercial aircraft, they will find a way to do it, given sufficient motivation.
A fair point actually, hadn't though of that. Careful, you're probably on a watch list now though. :) True, but the point remains he was taken down and subdued but passengers, regardless of how dangerous he actually was or not. In a post 9/11 world people won't sit there just assuming it's a normal hijacking anymore, they will most likely act. If it was a repeat of 9/11 and some guys with box cutters I'm guessing they would be in for a beating. I totally agree. Also, I think maybe you misunderstood. I'm not Pro-TSA, and I do think they go quite overboard and agree this stuff isn't protecting us, plus like we saw the other day, it's only creating lines at security which themselves become a new target. They don't even HAVE to get on the plane anymore, they can just attack that. This happened in Russia a few years ago with devastating consequences, granted it was an arrivals area, but same principle. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12268662 So again, I may be critical of that anarchist article, but only because they seem to be treating this guy a hero. And although I don't think the TSAs overreach is warranted, I certainly wouldn't call them a "terrorist organization" and say they deserve to be attacked and killed because of what they do. That's just disgusting. These anarchist groups have all these naive and idealistic views of how to take the government down, but no constructive ways to actually fix it or make it better.Really? What if they all deposited those 3 oz. samples in a compartment in a designated bathroom, where a designated person would assemble the device? On a transatlantic or transpacific flight, there's plenty of time to do all that without arousing suspicion.
Also, c'mon man. The shoe bomber? That dude was asking to get caught.
I maintain that if someone really wants to do something on a commercial aircraft, they will find a way to do it, given sufficient motivation.
You might be right, for all I know. That would be damned inconvenient. Knock on wood! I didn't think you were pro-TSA, just trying to shore up my point. I'm not aligned with the intent or thrust of this article either, but I can see where the line of thought comes from. Again, to me it seems overly simplistic and as you say naive and idealistic. When I was younger, the idea of taking down the establishment to create something shiny, new and ideal was very appealing, as it is to many young people. One complaint I do have about our current political system is that real, effective change often takes a long time to accomplish and the length of political terms, while necessary, do sometimes create roadblocks as some politicians jockey for the public's favor by making promises constructed out of half-truths and outright fabrications all while re-framing and twisting issues to divert funds to their own interests. I don't have any answers, but my observation is that a lot of the time, it's us getting in our own way to the benefit of someone who has their hands on the strings with a much better map of the political landscape. As you say, hijackings have been stopped by the public in the post 9/11 world and it seems to me that real security for the public will come with active public participation rather than making demands of politicians, who are likely to (by necessity or choice) choose the cheapest option, which is bound to under-deliver.Careful, you're probably on a watch list now though. :)
I totally agree. Also, I think maybe you misunderstood. I'm not Pro-TSA, and I do think they go quite overboard and agree this stuff isn't protecting us, plus like we saw the other day, it's only creating lines at security which themselves become a new target.