|
PT6A posted:I agree the TSA is hosed. I don't think that's really under debate. I just think, based partially on the fact that I'm Canadian, that the solution isn't to decentralize the TSA to the states and/or private organizations, but rather to look at the problems that exist and fix them within the context of improving the operation of a federal agency. I agree that it's ridiculous that they're essentially self-policing, and can set rules almost arbitrarily, but I still cannot understand why the genesis of those problems is related to the fact they are a federal agency. It's a complete non-sequitur in my mind. How is this a non-sequitor? Prior to the TSA, some government agency would set a bunch of regulations for pre-flight security. Airlines would write a bunch of contracts. Then they'd hire private security companies to enforce those contracts. The companies wouldn't have any say in regulation, because they're private. And they'd get externally policed because, as private companies, they'd be subject to lawsuits and competition. The TSA has the power to set regulations because they're a federal agency. Private organizations obviously don't have the power to do this. The TSA is also self-policing because, as a federal agency, they'll get a bunch of protections against civil suits. Take this story, where the TSA forced a woman to use pliers to remove her piercings while male officers snickered in the background: quote:LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- The Transportation Security Administration said Friday its officers at a Texas airport appear to have properly followed procedures when they allegedly forced a woman to remove her nipple rings -- one with pliers -- but acknowledged the procedures should be changed. If a private security company did that, they'd be sued to hell and back. But because the TSA guys are nominally federal agents, the woman's lawyer is asking for an apology. The final problem, scope creep, in my opinion, happens because the guy who gets to say "we need extra regulations" is also the guy who gets to use those extra regulations to justify an expansion of his organization. --- We could, if we wanted, have federally-employed screeners. But I think it would work a lot better if we created a divide between the regulation-creating agency, and the agency that provided the screening.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:06 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 07:07 |
|
|
Ahh, VIPR, let's throw everyone for a loop and screen people as they're getting OFF the train.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:08 |
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Couldn't a dedicated enough terrorist just put a glass blade under his flesh? Gonna hurt like hell but if you're dedicated enough to hijacking a plane it should be possible. Depends. A pat down or mm scan might catch that, depending on where it was. Lord knows it would not be the most effective way to get a shard of glass aboard an aircraft at a major airport. A sufficiently dedicated terrorist cell is going to beat the TSA, much in the same way that they would defeat most security agencies, by doing something nuts that almost no one thought would ever happen. That's not the whole of what TSA does though. Stopping people from bringing dangerous things aboard airplanes, even if they have no intention of using them, is a noble goal. A federal agency, rather than a private company, is the best way to accomplish that. Programs like VIPR are patently ridiculous and the 180 million or so they spent on it was a waste for sure. Its still not a good reason to privatize airport security.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:10 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:We could, if we wanted, have federally-employed screeners. But I think it would work a lot better if we created a divide between the regulation-creating agency, and the agency that provided the screening. This was exactly my point. I agree 100% that the TSA needs massive restructuring, and possibly to be split into multiple agencies. I just think that it's still best done within the context of a federal agency. The problems with the TSA stem from a loving retarded structure, not that they are managed federally.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:12 |
|
|
Not sure why they are pushing the backscatter machine so much, according to the TSA workers I know it's easy to cheat an they sneak things through it for fun when they have down time (making TSA agents themselves a security risk since they know all the exploits). I guess when you spend all that money on a technology you kind of have to stick it.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:12 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Depends. A pat down or mm scan might catch that, depending on where it was. Lord knows it would not be the most effective way to get a shard of glass aboard an aircraft at a major airport. A sufficiently dedicated terrorist cell is going to beat the TSA, much in the same way that they would defeat most security agencies, by doing something nuts that almost no one thought would ever happen. That's not the whole of what TSA does though. I have no intention of arguing for the privatization of airport security, but we still should be looking back, nearly 11 years on, and changing the TSA, disconnecting them from Homeland Security, which is another botched operation. TSA needs a major review, not just for budget cutting but the extensive security issues they fail to solve or choose to ignore.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:12 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Stopping people from bringing dangerous things aboard airplanes, even if they have no intention of using them, is a noble goal. A federal agency, rather than a private company, is the best way to accomplish that. Programs like VIPR are patently ridiculous and the 180 million or so they spent on it was a waste for sure. Its still not a good reason to privatize airport security. You've provided no evidence of this whereas it's been shown time and again why it's a bad thing that a federal agency is in charge of both creating the regulations and carrying them out as it pertains to security.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:12 |
|
|
Can't we all just accept that occasionally planes are going to blow up but that statistically it's improbable that it's going to happen to us individually, cancel the TSA, trust air marshals to do their jobs, and move on with our lives?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:12 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Stopping people from bringing dangerous things aboard airplanes, even if they have no intention of using them, is a noble goal. A federal agency, rather than a private company, is the best way to accomplish that. Programs like VIPR are patently ridiculous and the 180 million or so they spent on it was a waste for sure. Its still not a good reason to privatize airport security. As a country, we've tried both types of security. In what ways do you think TSA-security is better than previous way we did things? It seems vastly worse now.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:13 |
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Couldn't a dedicated enough terrorist just put a glass blade under his flesh? Gonna hurt like hell but if you're dedicated enough to hijacking a plane it should be possible. That is silly... If he wants a glass blade, he could walk through security without anything and then buy a big bottle of booze at the tax free and break it against something, now there is a glass blade (or maybe even two). If he buys a bottle of perfume, then he has something to spray people in the eyes before stabbing them as well...
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:14 |
|
|
Has anyone ever proven that those xray scanners they use on people is truly safe? I mean, I know of many many times that they will say something is safe and years later its found to cause cancer or some other horrible illness.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:14 |
|
|
Negerlepper posted:That is silly... If he wants a glass blade, he could walk through security without anything and then buy a big bottle of booze at the tax free and break it against something, now there is a glass blade (or maybe even two). Too hard. Just eat the glass and vomit it up in the lavatory. Morally Inept posted:Has anyone ever proven that those xray scanners they use on people is truly safe? I mean, I know of many many times that they will say something is safe and years later its found to cause cancer or some other horrible illness. They're totally safe and good for increased profits.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:15 |
|
|
Morally Inept posted:Has anyone ever proven that those xray scanners they use on people is truly safe? I mean, I know of many many times that they will say something is safe and years later its found to cause cancer or some other horrible illness. They tested them...they are less than safe to say the least. The TSA is actually dumping a ton of them right now.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:18 |
|
|
PT6A posted:This was exactly my point. I agree 100% that the TSA needs massive restructuring, and possibly to be split into multiple agencies. I just think that it's still best done within the context of a federal agency. The problems with the TSA stem from a loving retarded structure, not that they are managed federally. I disagree. falcon2424 posted:The TSA is also self-policing because, as a federal agency, they'll get a bunch of protections against civil suits. This is a problem with having federal employees doing the scans. I don't object to some federal agency setting the standards. But, all else equal, I have very little faith in the government's ability to self-police. Since screeners don't need to be pseudo-law-enforcement, we shouldn't give them pseudo-law-enforcement status.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:18 |
|
|
Except they don't do poo poo, case in point - Airline Employees using commercial flights to smuggle drugs. This seems to happen at least once a year and it could've just as easily been weapons into airports, or bombs. The entire back-end is a weak point full of minimum wage, minimally screened employees with enough access to do a ton of damage. Hell, a fry cook at an airport greasy spoon has more dangerous poo poo than the 9/11 hijackers did and its airplane door reinforcement that would stop that, not the TSA. Then add on that their security theater causes an enormous security concern by lieu of it's very existence, a huge mass of humanity trapped in a concrete box with limited exits before the checkpoint.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:21 |
|
|
OlmanRiver posted:This thread is great for figuring out who are the Shills and anti rights people are. I don't know, I fly internationally a few times a year and while the TSA is annoying I just don't really have a huge sense of outrage when a male TSA agent asks me if he can pat me down and feels near my nuts. He asked me specifically for every spot on the pat down like "I'm gonna have to feel your upper thighs is that okay? I'm going to have to feel near your butt with the back of my hand, is that okay?" Maybe it's because every time I snuck drugs past a police officer patting me down and searching me I stuck em right there. Honestly the TSA guy didn't even really actually nut check me. I opted out of the crazy Xray machine scans so they did one of the thorough pat downs instead, but didn't take me through a metal detector or scan me with a wand, so if I wanted I could still sneak a small knife or whatever in. I'm all for rights and stuff and the TSA has some serious issues but drat dude. I'd rather be safer than worry about you getting mad because someone's hand went near your naughty parts. dj_clawson posted:Can't we all just accept that occasionally planes are going to blow up but that statistically it's improbable that it's going to happen to us individually, cancel the TSA, trust air marshals to do their jobs, and move on with our lives? It's only statistically improbable because there is security in place (however easy it is to get past if you really wanted to)? If there was literally no protection just like the city bus the rate of plane hijacking/violence will probably go up. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 20:28 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:23 |
|
|
dj_clawson posted:Can't we all just accept that occasionally planes are going to blow up but that statistically it's improbable that it's going to happen to us individually, cancel the TSA, trust air marshals to do their jobs, and move on with our lives? What's an air marshal going to do when there's an IED sitting in the cargo hold ala PAN AM 103? He'll be easier to identify on the ground and that's about it.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:25 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:As a country, we've tried both types of security. In what ways do you think TSA-security is better than previous way we did things? All security got vastly more onerous after 9/11, you have conflated that reactionary policy with the TSA in your mind. The reason that security got stringent after 9/11 was because no one wanted that to happen again and people are reactionary. poo poo even the taking your shoes off because of the shoebomb plot predates the TSA. The TSA was the government's reaction that took time and was implemented in 2002. If you want to play the "which is better" game, that is really hard to discern. Even if you genuinely think that the gamut from Rent-A-Cops to Blackwater (or whatever they are called now) are going to be more accountable and somehow less power tripping than the TSA, you aren't going to see much of a change in procedures. Nor in the way you address them, the TSA can be, and has been sued on various grounds, sometimes successfully, other times not so much. I suppose you could use the number of successful plane bombings/hijackings originating from U.S. airports pre and post-TSA. But I cannot find that data at the moment, and even if I could there are so many other factors involved (the economy being the biggest) I don't think it would be a good metric.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:27 |
|
|
If anything plane hijackings were more common pre 9/11. I haven't heard of a single one of a US flight post 9/11 whereas I can definitely remember some hijacked planes going to the Caribbean or whatever in the 90s. A cursory look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...raft_hijackings seems to indicate the number of hijackings went down a lot after 9/11 worldwide. Probably less to do with additional security vs when your plane gets hijacked pre 9/11 you're not expecting to get blown up.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:31 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:If anything plane hijackings were more common pre 9/11. I haven't heard of a single one of a US flight post 9/11 whereas I can definitely remember some hijacked planes going to the Caribbean or whatever in the 90s. I suspect the heavy armored door has more to do with that than airport security.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:32 |
|
|
Probably but it's still dumb to say "look poo poo was so good back in the 90s, let's just go back to that!"
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:34 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I suspect the heavy armored door has more to do with that than airport security. Heavily armored door definitely was a good idea, although I have fond memories of getting to see the cockpit as a kid that modern kids won't have  The other huge factor was the sea change in intent. If a airplane hijacker made it known their intent was to crash the plane, they'd often be overpowered by the passengers/crew, if they didn't it used to be assumed it was a kidnapping, and it was best to just comply. Now the assumption is that they mean to kill everyone aboard, which has done wonders for cutting down on people hijacking planes successfully. increased security on the ground has provably lowered the number of people who make it onto the plane with intent to bomb/hijack though. Just not inside the U.S. (or at least not inside the U.S. that has been commonly reported)
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:36 |
|
|
Today I learned from a bunch of Aspergers that there's something wrong with you if you value your personal space and aren't particularly enthusiastic about getting felt up by an agent of some governmental white-elephant that needs to resort to blogs to justify its existence. Thanks, goons!
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:38 |
|
|
You should be able to be patted down for weapons everywhere except near where your legs meet together, which is also coincidentally the best place to sneak drugs/weapons. Otherwise it constitutes a undue human rights breach on your part. Cool dude. You must just be trolling because apart from the fact that you don't have to be enthusiastic about going through security, you're ignoring the rest of the thread showing that airport security, while of course having serious flaws, does do some good.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:41 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Even if you genuinely think that the gamut from Rent-A-Cops to Blackwater (or whatever they are called now) are going to be more accountable and somehow less power tripping than the TSA, you aren't going to see much of a change in procedures. Nor in the way you address them, the TSA can be, and has been sued on various grounds, sometimes successfully, other times not so much. Yes, they are more accountable. I've been really explicit as to why. There are fewer barriers to civil suits against private companies than there are to civil suits against federal agencies. Notably, private companies can face punitive damages. Also, the government doesn't need to worry about "Respondeat Superior" Liability The fact that sometimes the TSA fucks up so egregiously that they can get sued, even given their protections as an federal agency, doesn't change how the law works here.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:42 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:increased security on the ground has provably lowered the number of people who make it onto the plane with intent to bomb/hijack though. Just not inside the U.S. (or at least not inside the U.S. that has been commonly reported) Could you show us some stories where the TSA caught terrorists before they got on a plane?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:43 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Could you show us some stories where the TSA caught terrorists before they got on a plane? I don't care about terrorists. That's a buzz word and it's bullshit and we all know it. I am worried about the dumbass who brought a weapon on board and is now drunk and disorderly like happens all the loving time on public transport. Did you not see the last page where they show all the loaded guns the TSA finds?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:45 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I'm all for rights and stuff and the TSA has some serious issues but drat dude. I'd rather be safer than worry about you getting mad because someone's hand went near your naughty parts. If someone's going to grab my nuts, it better be for more than the illusion of safety. Moridin920 posted:I don't care about terrorists. That's a buzz word and it's bullshit and we all know it. I am worried about the dumbass who brought a weapon on board and is now drunk and disorderly like happens all the loving time on public transport. Did you not see the last page where they show all the loaded guns the TSA finds? You're saying this like weapons weren't confiscated before the TSA existed. The TSA's existance is also heavily justified by terrorism, so you can't just throw it out.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:45 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I don't know, I fly internationally a few times a year and while the TSA is annoying I just don't really have a huge sense of outrage when a male TSA agent asks me if he can pat me down and feels near my nuts. You are not really safer. Next time you fly, look around after you have been through security. There are alot of things that can be used as a weapon. Even something innocent-looking like a newspaper can put someone's eyes out or crush bone with a little physics. (If you roll the newspaper tightly into a cylinder then you can jab people with the ends and it can actually do a great deal of damage, with some training you can easily thrust a rolled up magazine or newspaper into someone's face and eject some teeth or push a eye far into the socket. a short google shows that Bear Grylls was able to break glass on a door to gain entry using a rolled up newspaper. someone who want's to hijack a plane probably expects to die, so they are probably motivated to train using something unusual. And there are tons of things, and most are even allowed into the plane even if you hold it in plain sight. TSA don't make it safer by rubbing your nuts and stroking your shaft, the hijackers will just walk through the scanner and then find weaponry.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:46 |
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:If someone's going to grab my nuts, it better be for more than the illusion of safety. They aren't grabbing your nuts, they're feeling your inner upper thigh? Negerlepper posted:You are not really safer. Next time you fly, look around after you have been through security. TSA don't make it safer by rubbing your nuts and stroking your shaft, the hijackers will just walk through the scanner and then find weaponry. I know. One of my favorite mental activities to pass the time is look for ways to circumvent security and bring dangerous poo poo on board. Hell, they let me bring a 6-pack of glass tallboys on the plane once. But like I said, I'm not really worried about a terrorist or someone who is willing to go that far to do their thing. You won't ever stop someone if they are willing to sacrifice that much, including presidential assassins. Does that mean we should just say "gently caress it, no security." ? Moridin920 fucked around with this message at Feb 22, 2013 around 20:48 |
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:46 |
|
|
The next attack on an airline by a terrorist isn't going to be a hijacking. Surface to Air missile will be the next thing.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:46 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:They aren't grabbing your nuts, they're feeling your inner upper thigh? Did you miss this? http://www.theatlantic.com/national...sistance/65390/
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:48 |
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:Did you miss this? Shocking, the TSA needs to be trained a lot better to not act like minimum-wage assholes. Maybe raise the minimum wage so a minimum wage job isn't such a joke. All I see there is hand goes up thigh until it meets resistance. Unless you're stark naked that isn't going to be your testicles, that's going to be where the pant legs are stitched together. Besides that article is two years old. I opted out and got patted down less than a week ago, and they didn't nut check me or give me any crap whatsoever about opting out. The guy was pretty nice even, I made some small talk.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:51 |
|
|
o prbl posted:Today I learned from a bunch of Aspergers that there's something wrong with you if you value your personal space and aren't particularly enthusiastic about getting felt up by an agent of some governmental white-elephant that needs to resort to blogs to justify its existence. Thanks, goons! Got'drat airport security trying to get at my dangly bits! It's not like pat-downs find dangerous stuff or anything. I'd love to be on the flight carrying a drunk rear end in a top hat wielding one of the many guns they get off people. Also "hurr aspergers" is lovely and "Goon hivemind!  " is dumb.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:51 |
|
|
I don't get how you can say that the TSA has never stopped any dangerous activities. Because dangerous activities haven't happened (with the TSA in force)? They've already shown that they stop an assload of loaded guns. I don't want those damned guns on my plane. The TSA needs to be improved, not eradicated.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:52 |
|
|
Pick posted:They've already shown that they stop an assload of loaded guns. I don't want those damned guns on my plane. No, that's the price you pay for having your crotch area in a protected sphere don't you see?
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:53 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Could you show us some stories where the TSA caught terrorists before they got on a plane? Could you read and maybe use a little bit of cognitive function? I was speaking globally there, hence why I pointed out "not in the U.S." To the best of my knowledge the TSA has not caught any terrorists before they got on a plane. Agencies abroad have (and we should probably be looking to their procedures when creating better guidelines for the TSA). That said there also hasn't been a terrorist incident on a plane leaving from a U.S. airport since the TSA came about, so there's also that. They have however caught plenty of people trying to smuggle weapons and explosives aboard for a variety of reasons, which to me is a really drat good argument in their favor, although apparently some people would be happier if there were guns and explosives aboard their aircrafts with them. Moridin920 posted:All I see there is hand goes up thigh until it meets resistance. Unless you're stark naked that isn't going to be your testicles, that's going to be where the pant legs are stitched together. You underestimate just how massive my balls are goon sir.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:58 |
|
|
Delorence Fickle posted:What's an air marshal going to do when there's an IED sitting in the cargo hold ala PAN AM 103? I'm not saying we should have no security. Israel does a pretty good job of airport security and even demands additional security when you're flying TO Israel FROM an international airport in that airport, but I've never been patted down by an Israeli security guard because I was wearing bulky clothing. Hell, they even let me on with a knife on my bag once, because they were like, "Uh, whatever, you're clearly not a terrorist." And I wasn't.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 20:59 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Shocking, the TSA needs to be trained a lot better to not act like minimum-wage assholes. Maybe raise the minimum wage so a minimum wage job isn't such a joke. I provide evidence discounting your assertion and you come back with an anecdote. Pro.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 21:00 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 07:07 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:They have however caught plenty of people trying to smuggle weapons and explosives aboard for a variety of reasons, which to me is a really drat good argument in their favor, although apparently some people would be happier if there were guns and explosives aboard their aircrafts with them. Why do people keep repeating the same things? None of those guns would've made it onto the planes without the TSA either.
|
| # ? Feb 22, 2013 21:02 |
|
