Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security said Monday that the acting administrator for the Transportation Security Administration would be reassigned, following a report that airport screeners failed to detect explosives and weapons in nearly every test that an undercover team conducted at dozens of airports.
According to a report based on an internal investigation, "red teams" with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General were able to get banned items through the screening process in 67 out of 70 tests it conducted across the nation
Shocking, I know. The TSA at this point almost seems like nothing more than a gigantic federal jobs program. Employees don't need any education or experience, don't really need to create any value, and get union benefits.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
It would seem that if there is any validity to these tests than there have been virtually no attempts to take bombs on planes since the TSA has been checking...
It would also seem extremely ill-advised to report these findings to everyone so the terrorists can be more motivated to try...
Alternatively, the TSA could be very effective and so it could be a baiting exercise to get the terrorists to try so they can be caught...
Either way, it would seem this announcement is putting the flying public at risk unnecessarily...
Pointedstick wrote:
Shocking, I know. The TSA at this point almost seems like nothing more than a gigantic federal jobs program. Employees don't need any education or experience, don't really need to create any value, and get union benefits.
You have to give the TSA more credit. It successfully violates the 4th Amendment more than any other federal agency while doing ZERO to make anyone safer.
PP67 wrote:
It would seem that if there is any validity to these tests than there have been virtually no attempts to take bombs on planes since the TSA has been checking...
I don't remember bombs going off on planes before the TSA started checking either.
PP67 wrote:It would also seem extremely ill-advised to report these findings to everyone so the terrorists can be more motivated to try...
The terrorists are already well aware.
PP67 wrote:
Alternatively, the TSA could be very effective and so it could be a baiting exercise to get the terrorists to try so they can be caught...
Either way, it would seem this announcement is putting the flying public at risk unnecessarily...
Yeah I wouldn't feel comfortable if the TSA were TRYING to lure terrorists into bringing bombs on planes either.
In a world of ever-increasing financial intangibility and government imposition, I tend to expect otherwise.
As I recall, the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters as weapons because they weren't prohibited at the time.
A sophisticated terrorist plot isn't going to presuppose a prohibited item will be successfully smuggled through security. It's better to just operate within the rules and target weaknesses in the existing security protocols.
There are already countless improvised weapons on almost every commercial flight that are hiding in plain sight. For example, you could remove the handle from a carry on roller bag and lash a MacBook Air computer to it and you would have a nice little battle axe.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Pointedstick wrote:
Shocking, I know. The TSA at this point almost seems like nothing more than a gigantic federal jobs program. Employees don't need any education or experience, don't really need to create any value, and get union benefits.
You have to give the TSA more credit. It successfully violates the 4th Amendment more than any other federal agency while doing ZERO to make anyone safer.
PP67 wrote:
It would seem that if there is any validity to these tests than there have been virtually no attempts to take bombs on planes since the TSA has been checking...
I don't remember bombs going off on planes before the TSA started checking either.
PP67 wrote:It would also seem extremely ill-advised to report these findings to everyone so the terrorists can be more motivated to try...
The terrorists are already well aware.
PP67 wrote:
Alternatively, the TSA could be very effective and so it could be a baiting exercise to get the terrorists to try so they can be caught...
Either way, it would seem this announcement is putting the flying public at risk unnecessarily...
Yeah I wouldn't feel comfortable if the TSA were TRYING to lure terrorists into bringing bombs on planes either.
TSA violates the 4th Amendment the most? I wouldn't be so sure. A public airport could in some ways be considered a "special" type of public area that needs additional security (like white house tours and court houses... though I'm not using very "legalese" language here)... especially considering the reasonable purview of the government to regulate interstate commerce (eg, flights over state borders). I'm not saying I approve of the TSA's practices, but it's all relatively up-front and obvious to anyone who wants to fly. Simply by flying, you are in a very material way engaging in a quasi public transit system and interstate commerce. By me sending an email to someone I trust with regards to my distrust of government and knowledge of an NSA program that they don't want revealed, I am not... I'm engaging in free speech across internet waves that I consider to be and have the right to be secure.
To me, the NSA is FAR worse. Lying to the public about spying on information that gives them, and their masters, FAR more individual leverage over people, whether they're terrorists or just disagree with folks. Or the program of spying on the emails of journalists...
Obviously we're disagreeing over details here, but to me, while TSA supposed violations of the 4th amendment could be considered a violation of our individual liberties, the NSA's violations are far more nefarious in nature, used for far more nefarious actual and potential means, and are not just a threat to individual liberty, but a catastrophic self-fulfilling threat to our check/balance system of government... and since catastrophic risks are what our government exists for first-and-foremost (otherwise, what the hell are they even doing there?), then this is a far-bigger problem than someone flipping through your stuff at an airport.
This goes back to something MG mentioned in a different thread to me that I wanted to address, but didn't. He was saying how "guns are the defense of yester-year" or something like that, which is something I totally agree with. The 2nd Amendment is SO over-exaggerated as a "tyranny-defense" tool in this day and age... a right not just to defend individual liberty in one specific area, but one that actually limiting the government's self-fulfilling ability to gain more power and work with less checks/balances. The 1st and 4th Amendments are FAR more important, IMO. Respecting the freedom of the press, and not calling for the arrests of journalists and spying on their mail. Not being able to arbitrarily make someone's life miserable without due process (or at least a declaration of war to at least lay your intentions and enemy out on the table for all to see). Our ability to know more about our government than "it" (more like the agents inside of it) knows about us is crucial, especially when they can use a given power to make one's life a living-hell without much in the way of process and in complete secrecy.
Last edited by moda0306 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
That kind of logic, moda, legitimizes any possible government intrusion as long as you know about it beforehand. 99% tax rates? You choose to be exposed to them by working. Death penalty for being a Muslim? Well, you can just choose another religion.
These examples are purposely ridiculous, but I hope you can see how they illustrate that your position has no limiting principle attached to it and ignores the actual effects of the objectionable policies. I dislike the NSA as much as the next guy but the TSA clowns humiliate me in a very visible way and have done so many times over the past 14 years. Meanwhile, the NSA's harms are largely invisible. If I hadn't read about the program, I'd likely never notice it.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Pointedstick wrote:
That kind of logic, moda, legitimizes any possible government intrusion as long as you know about it beforehand. 99% tax rates? You choose to be exposed to them by working. Death penalty for being a Muslim? Well, you can just choose another religion.
These examples are purposely ridiculous, but I hope you can see how they illustrate that your position has no limiting principle attached to it and ignores the actual effects of the objectionable policies. I dislike the NSA as much as the next guy but the TSA clowns humiliate me in a very visible way and have done so many times over the past 14 years. Meanwhile, the NSA's harms are largely invisible. If I hadn't read about the program, I'd likely never notice it.
They're both bad, but the underlying problem is even worse.
Namely, we don't get to decide what the government does. They decide that, and we have no recourse but to other parts of the same government.
We can't make them follow the rules they are supposedly bound by, so is it any wonder that they often don't follow them?
I didn't say as long as it's obvious and pre-told to you that it is ok. We are arguing about matters of degree here. And the "limiting principle" may not always be overtly stated but it doesn't mean it exists.
For instance, "coercion violates my rights" has no limiting principle that allows for ANY government to exist. However, I don't think it's a bad thing to have that as one of the MAIN drivers of moral/political philosophy as you attempt to develop limiting principles (such as, I'd imagine, the need to defend yourself against outside and inside threats to your rights that are of a much more catastrophic and/or random nature than a properly organized and structured government).
In the case of the constitution in general, and certain amendments more than others, in particular, the idea is that even though (and possibly BECAUSE) the government is a coercive entity, there is a difference between the most tyrannical vs the most utilitarian structures of government, and if we're going to have one violate our rights to protect them, it should lean towards the latter.
I can't imagine there's a whole lot of disagreement on that last paragraph.
But this isn't just about preventing tyranny of the majority over the minority. It's actually structuring government in a way that prevents tyranny of the agents of government, as they're going to be "checked" and "balanced" into doing their jobs more fairly and with less natural bias when you put a Mexican Standoff into the structure of government making sure people WITHIN the government are doing their job... no more, no less. Some amendments actually help to stave-off the disintegration of that structure. The 1st and 4th come to mind. Hell, even the 2nd if you look far back enough. These aren't just to protect individual "rights" against the utilitarian-or-not will of agents of government or the majority of the population. They're actually there to protect the agents within government from becoming more powerful than the ultimate check on them... the citizens... and all the self-fulfilling Un-utilitarian garbage that comes along with that (simply put... "absolute power corrupts, absolutely").
Sure, the TSA may embarrass us a bit. Personally, the most embarrassing thing I've had to do is expose my feet, but I understand where the embarrassment comes from, and it's a valid complaint... though it DOES beg the question of what right government has to EVER search someone coming into a "government zone" of particular safety considerations. I'm not saying I have an answer, but should we be able to visit a courthouse without a scan/search? Congress? The White House? FBI HQ?
Trolling our internet history might not be as obvious and embarrassing, but due to the fact that it was all SECRET, and that the government can do things in the name of National Security that don't require due process, and that there is NO oversight of the programs within the NSA, there's SO much more potential for abuse/false-accusation/planting/murder/character-assassination/etc. Obviously I'm sort of "arguing from results" rather than "rights" right now, but these Amendments are not just arguments about rights, but what FF's saw as the RESULTS of letting government limit speech and search people's stuff willy-nilly. It wasn't just fond feelings about individuality of the person, but disgust at the toxifying effect of letting government do certain things to the very structure of government and checks/balances themselves.
I've exposed myself to the arguments of Glenn Greenwald and Dan Carlin on the topic of privacy and certain elements of the constitution and what government has done recently... it's opened my eyes to the fact that what gun advocates say about the 2nd Amendment is actually true... just perhaps far-more true today about other Amendments. That it's not just about protecting the individual. It's about protecting us ALL from the catastrophic utilitarian risk of unchecked power. That perhaps sounds a little conspiracy theorist... but I'd encourage folks to read/listen to what they both have to say about the current state of the federal government spy state. Greenwald is technically more intellectual about it (and less "radio-talk-show," but Carlin is the one that got me thinking more about it, and probably has certain historical perspective that Greenwald doesn't communicate quite as well.
To me, the TSA, BECAUSE of what an obvious nuisance it is, is far less of a threat than the NSA to my freedom. Though I don't think it is a conscious element of either the agents of government or the critics of the TSA, it's sort of like when the magician tries to get you to pay attention to one thing to help avoid being seen doing something far-more instrumental to his trick somewhere else. Secretive, unchecked violations of my rights are truly the greatest threat to freedom. Not directly, but indirectly... though VERY directly for certain people who are journalists, or whose opinions of the U.S. government are just a little too nasty to not send a drone after them (obviously, for now, in foreign countries).
Lastly, this NSA stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum (though, surely, neither does the TSA stuff). It happens in world where the government can order death by drone of anyone outside the U.S. for any reason. It's in a world where there are very, very shaky grounds for any due process for anyone labelled a "terrorist." It's in a world where those few in the media (like Glenn Greenwald) who still provide an actual check to government (rather than just being a partisan lap-dog like Fox or MSNBC) are being SPIED upon, and the government can get a leg up on the chit chat within the media of what might get released, and get in front of it to either discredit the journalist or blunt the blow of the release and retain power, preventing the clear accusation and conviction of LYING to congress or the American people. If the TSA is going to do something sloppy, annoying, intrusive, etc, they're pretty much limited to doing it in a very wide-open way that can draw the ire of public opinion quickly... or at least the majority of its intrusions and/or failures are going to have that trait. That's almost a positive trait from a public-accountability standpoint, as weird as that is to say. PS, your "embarrassment," and that of those like you, is actually a good thing! It creates a natural check on government.
There isn't that natural check when the president uses phone data provided by the NSA to kill someone in Yemen via drone strike who was guilty of nothing other than talking to 3 or 4 people considered terrorists, killing tons of children in the process, and then secretly off-loading the act to a Yemen-government strike against terrorists within the country (as-described by Jeremy Scahill in his book, "Dirty Wars"... another guy I'd HIGHLY recommend listening to on the topic of the NSA and more-so how that power bleeds into the "war" (undeclared by congress) on "terror" (an act that has not-yet been defined by the U.S. government).
Last edited by moda0306 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
All they do is make us take off our shoes and belt and they might pat us down or ask us to go through the x-ray machine, which we may decline to do if we wish.
I think of the TSA as just a bunch of harmless idiots. What bothers me a lot more are some of those cops out there who view intimidating and harassing citizens as sport.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
I flew on Memorial Day and forgot to put my key ring in my suitcase like I usually do. It has a Swiss Army knife on it which is always useful to have when you're travelling.
So I was worried about getting caught with it and showed it to the TSA officer before I got in line thinking maybe I could get it through. They said no, I would have to turn it into them so I handed it to her. Now I wonder why I didn't just dump it in the garbage can that was right beside her. She got a free Swiss Army knife out of it and she even told me she has gotten a lot of them. Maybe she can start a business on the side selling them.
I tried telling her that if there is a terrorist on the plane, it might be good if I have a knife because I'll be able to fight them off but she put her finger to her lips to hush me and warned me not to say anything like that.
MediumTex wrote:
What is it that we don't like about the TSA?
All they do is make us take off our shoes and belt and they might pat us down or ask us to go through the x-ray machine, which we may decline to do if we wish.
I think of the TSA as just a bunch of harmless idiots. What bothers me a lot more are some of those cops out there who view intimidating and harassing citizens as sport.
This!
Though I'd put the secretive spying of the NSA (and our other defensive branches of the federal government's use of that information) ahead of the cops as a threat. It's just harder to notice.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
Libertarian666 wrote:
They're both bad, but the underlying problem is even worse.
Namely, we don't get to decide what the government does. They decide that, and we have no recourse but to other parts of the same government.
We can't make them follow the rules they are supposedly bound by, so is it any wonder that they often don't follow them?
Golly, I think we finally agree upon something for once. Gesundheit!
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
MediumTex wrote:
All they do is make us take off our shoes and belt and they might pat us down or ask us to go through the x-ray machine, which we may decline to do if we wish.
But they're not just "x-ray machines". They're ionizing radiation cancer inducers. The one that looks like a teleportation capsule from The Fly remake, that is.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
moda0306 wrote:
TSA violates the 4th Amendment the most? I wouldn't be so sure.
Point taken.
Stewardship wrote:
You have to give the TSA more credit. It successfully violates the 4th Amendment more than any other federal agency while doing ZERO to make anyone safer.
In a world of ever-increasing financial intangibility and government imposition, I tend to expect otherwise.
MediumTex wrote:
What is it that we don't like about the TSA?
What is it that we don't like about discarding the 4th Amendment?
MediumTex wrote:All they do is make us take off our shoes and belt and they might pat us down or ask us to go through the x-ray machine, which we may decline to do if we wish.
I think of the TSA as just a bunch of harmless idiots. What bothers me a lot more are some of those cops out there who view intimidating and harassing citizens as sport.
In a world of ever-increasing financial intangibility and government imposition, I tend to expect otherwise.
MediumTex wrote:
What is it that we don't like about the TSA?
What is it that we don't like about discarding the 4th Amendment?
MediumTex wrote:All they do is make us take off our shoes and belt and they might pat us down or ask us to go through the x-ray machine, which we may decline to do if we wish.
I think of the TSA as just a bunch of harmless idiots. What bothers me a lot more are some of those cops out there who view intimidating and harassing citizens as sport.
What kind of airport security arrangement would you like to see? The TSA's approach is not terribly out of step with what the rest of the world is doing. It's sort of annoying and stupid, but it takes up like 15 minutes of my day when I travel. It doesn't seem like it's worth getting too upset about--it's just a bunch of low level bureaucrats taking a Barney Fife approach to trying to keep air travel safe. It's not any more wasteful or dumb than living politicians voting to build expensive monuments to dead politicians.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
MediumTex wrote:
I think of the TSA as just a bunch of harmless idiots.
Me too. Except for the harmless part.
The problem comes when I mistakenly endeavor to reasonably explain to them why they are wrong. Twice that has almost landed me in zip-ties. Fortunately, I was able to sense it just before it happened, and apologized and said "my mistake".
The agent said that they don't accept passport cards and I pointed out that the TSA web page listed passport cards as number 2 on the accepted forms of ID - right after passport books. This went on for about 5 minutes before I realized I was about to be hauled off. Then I said "I have another ID, issued by the same federal agency 'The Department of State', would you prefer that?' After some hesitancy, I showed my passport book and they let me through.
The second time, I explained that they shouldn't confiscate my Swiss multi-tool or my titanium butter knife. The multi-tool had no blade and all of the tools were under 7" in length - as clearly specified on the TSA web page. The butter knife was explicitly called out on the TSA web page - as all knives are prohibited except round nosed butter knives.
I thought I was being reasonable and helpful in pointing the agents to their own published regulations.
That is really not a good plan with armed idiots.
From now on - I just smile and throw away my butter knives and multi-tools and show whatever ID they want.
I know that if I were in a Mexican airport, I would just nod and acquiesce, and hand over my shit and buy new stuff when I have a chance. The reason I would do that in Mexico is because I have no doubt that any trouble on my part would end up with me having the worst of it.
I've finally gotten over the delusion that it would be any different in the USA.
Mark Leavy wrote:
I've finally gotten over the delusion that it would be any different in the USA.
Bingo. That's what we don't like about the TSA. They have utterly shattered that and a few other pleasant illusions we like to believe about or society. I've had similar experiences. The published rules don't matter; doing whatever is necessary to please the person in charge of your life for 5 minutes is all that matters. And I guess, even though I jump through hoops just like the rest of the sane people do, I think it's a damn shame.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Mark Leavy wrote:
I've finally gotten over the delusion that it would be any different in the USA.
Bingo. That's what we don't like about the TSA. They have utterly shattered that and a few other pleasant illusions we like to believe about or society. I've had similar experiences. The published rules don't matter; doing whatever is necessary to please the person in charge of your life for 5 minutes is all that matters. And I guess, even though I jump through hoops just like the rest of the sane people do, I think it's a damn shame.
So we would still have a TSA, they would just be less moronic and follow their own rules?
I think that we have to be realistic about what we are hoping for.
The TSA just doesn't leave much of an imprint on my life, and it only takes a few minutes of planning to completely neutralize the effect of their stupidity on me.
Maybe my training and experience as a lawyer helps me more than I realize in some of those situations as well, since I feel like I can usually make arguments on the fly that will find traction in even the simplest minds.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
MediumTex wrote:
I think that we have to be realistic about what we are hoping for.
The TSA just doesn't leave much of an imprint on my life, and it only takes a few minutes of planning to completely neutralize the effect of their stupidity on me.
Maybe my training and experience as a lawyer helps me more than I realize in some of those situations as well, since I feel like I can usually make arguments on the fly that will find traction in even the simplest minds.
I'm in complete agreement with you MT. I know my rant didn't come across that way - but it was just my own learning process. A hard pill to swallow, but I prefer not to butt my head against things that I think "should be" versus "what things are".
It's a simple thing for me to read these folks and tell them what they want to hear. And from a utility standpoint, it makes no sense whatsoever to do anything other than that.
There's just a little piece inside of me that hurts when I do it though. I travel a lot - with every thing I own. And it is all in a small carry on bag. I don't own a lot - and every thing I own is useful to me in some way, and I've done my research and I know it's all legal.
But now, I suck it up and let them take what they will. It's different every time. I can't predict it. But I don't own much and everything has been carefully purchased and everything they take is an affront to me. A theft of one of the very few physical things I own.
For some reason, I sort of expect this when I travel overseas - and it doesn't bother me as much. It really shouldn't be any different when it happens in the USA, but somehow it feels different to me.
MediumTex wrote:
I think that we have to be realistic about what we are hoping for.
The TSA just doesn't leave much of an imprint on my life, and it only takes a few minutes of planning to completely neutralize the effect of their stupidity on me.
Maybe my training and experience as a lawyer helps me more than I realize in some of those situations as well, since I feel like I can usually make arguments on the fly that will find traction in even the simplest minds.
I'm in complete agreement with you MT. I know my rant didn't come across that way - but it was just my own learning process. A hard pill to swallow, but I prefer not to butt my head against things that I think "should be" versus "what things are".
It's a simple thing for me to read these folks and tell them what they want to hear. And from a utility standpoint, it makes no sense whatsoever to do anything other than that.
There's just a little piece inside of me that hurts when I do it though. I travel a lot - with every thing I own. And it is all in a small carry on bag. I don't own a lot - and every thing I own is useful to me in some way, and I've done my research and I know it's all legal.
But now, I suck it up and let them take what they will. It's different every time. I can't predict it. But I don't own much and everything has been carefully purchased and everything they take is an affront to me. A theft of one of the very few physical things I own.
For some reason, I sort of expect this when I travel overseas - and it doesn't bother me as much. It really shouldn't be any different when it happens in the USA, but somehow it feels different to me.
But I've gotten over it. Really I have...
What level of outrage would you feel if a racoon turned over your trash cans and made a big mess in your yard?
Do you have a higher level of outrage toward the TSA than you would toward the racoon? If so, why? Why give the TSA such power to influence your moods? Why not just interact with them the same way you might a hungry racoon (which is no real threat if you take basic precautions)?
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
MediumTex wrote:
What level of outrage would you feel if a racoon turned over your trash cans and made a big mess in your yard?
Do you have a higher level of outrage toward the TSA than you would toward the racoon? If so, why? Why give the TSA such power to influence your moods? Why not just interact with them the same way you might a hungry racoon (which is no real threat if you take basic precautions)?
My frustration (now) is only with myself.
It's a progression.
I've never gotten mad at stray dogs.
I used to get frustrated with rambunctious kids, but I got over that while still young. That's just what kids do.
I used to get frustrated at people that walked three abreast on the sidewalk. But, really, some people just aren't aware and my life goes better if I own that knowledge and respond in some way where we both happily move on.
I [used] to get frustrated at TSA agents, but [now] I realize that they are just another hazard to be sidestepped on the road of life.
I still feel slightly less awesome when it is not sunny outside. But I know that is just me and not the sun's fault. I'm working on that one.
Simonjester wrote:
its to bad there is no sure fire way to mail your stuff to yourself, like a outgoing mail slot at the TSA counter.... i suppose if you get to a incompetent TSA agent and they wont let something through, you could drop it in an envelope add stamps and an address, and hand it off to some trust worthy looking traveler going in the other direction ... if they steal it instead of dropping it in the mail you only loose a few stamps more than you would have lost anyway..
The TSA at this point almost seems like nothing more than a gigantic federal jobs program. Employees don't need any education or experience, don't really need to create any value, and get union benefits.
