TSA Effectiveness and Efficiency

[Sam]

I'm not at all convinced.

[Starlight]

I don't believe it's an appropriate response to spend our lives terrified of terrorism, or sacrifice freedoms willy-nilly for the sake or perceived security. The national security apparatus has gone way way way way way way way too far.

It's a non-proportional response which doesn't make any sense relative to the frequency of the event. More American citizens die overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism. Americans within the US are more likely to be killed by their own furniture than by terrorism. Terrorism is simply not such a serious threat as to warrant a trillion-dollar response.

And you mention "US-bound planes" as a target. Well there isn't much the TSA terrorists can do by making children cry at US airports that will prevent inbound planes being targeted, is there?

[Cow Poke]

That is the point. Terrorists have to make adjustments, have to make new designs, have to try and circumvent evolving security. Unless and until terrorists stop trying to bring down planes, security like the TSA will be necessary and will be relatively effective simply by its continued existence. No one is arguing that the TSA is great or perfectly effective but I guarantee you'd be a lot more upset by its absence.

The TSA is HORRIBLY inefficient. And the reason that grandmothers in wheelchairs have to be "felt up" by low-paid poorly trained individuals is because liberals are scared to death to do anything that even remotely looks like profiling.

[Starlight]

is because liberals are scared to death

Er, it's the conservatives who are generally the ultra-paranoid ones. Half the Republican base seems to be constantly high on paranoia, and always wants more defense spending, more spying on everyone, and more Muslim nations invaded.

to do anything that even remotely looks like profiling.

I think you'd find that nearly every liberal country in the world does profiling. You're making me roll my eyes when you suggest that liberals in general are against profiling. But 'profiling' can mean a variety of things, and there's some nuance involved in terms of what types are reasonable and what aren't.

[Cow Poke]

Er, it's the conservatives who are generally the ultra-paranoid ones. Half the Republican base seems to be constantly high on paranoia, and always wants more defense spending, more spying on everyone, and more Muslim nations invaded.

With regards to the pofiling of terrorists?

I think you'd find that nearly every liberal country in the world does profiling.

I'm aware - when I was in Israel, it was abundantly clear that the Israeli soldiers were profiling.

You're making me roll my eyes when you suggest that liberals in general are against profiling.

Um.... please note that my frame of reference is here in the US, and I don't always take your worldview into consideration.

But 'profiling' can mean a variety of things, and there's some nuance involved in terms of what types are reasonable and what aren't.

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

And I might add that it makes me TERRIBLY uneasy that you and I are, at least on some points on this, "on the same page".

[Cow Poke]

The really sad and dumb thing is that this restriction is based on scientific data showing it would take >100ml of liquid explosives to cause serious harm. So what do they do? Allow you as many individual containers of <100ml as you like. In their world 90 + 90 + 90 < 100ml.

This is like The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 that requires banks to report currency transactions in excess of $10,000 USD (or equivalent). So drug dealers and money launderers know they can make multiple transactions smaller than that....

[Starlight]

And I might add that it makes me TERRIBLY uneasy that you and I are, at least on some points on this, "on the same page".

Occasionally you and common sense do overlap. Better make sure it doesn't happen too often though, or you might become a liberal... (cue scary music)

[One Bad Pig]

This is like The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 that requires banks to report currency transactions in excess of $10,000 USD (or equivalent). So drug dealers and money launderers know they can make multiple transactions smaller than that....

Banks also report if people seem to be making many transactions just under the limit, which is what brought down Dennis Hastert.

[Starlight]

This is like The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 that requires banks to report currency transactions in excess of $10,000 USD (or equivalent). So drug dealers and money launderers know they can make multiple transactions smaller than that....

Yes, although behind the scenes they nearly always have computer algorithms running to flag any set of payments over a short period that total more than $10,000. And if they see a set of payments for $9,999, then basically all the warning alarms go off.

Whereas, when travelling with my mum, she nearly always has >10 items of '100ml or less' in their recommended little snap-lock bags for inspection. And on multiple occasions the security response to my mum holding out a bag with >10 items in it for their inspection has been to be super-happy and say "Everyone can I have your attention. ~holds up mum's snap-lock bag of everything~ Look everyone, this person's done in right! They actually followed our put-them-in-a-clear-plastic-bag instructions! All you people should learn from her!"

[Cow Poke]

Banks also report if people seem to be making many transactions just under the limit, which is what brought down Dennis Hastert.

Yeah, I'd think somebody would be smart enough to know that, if they're publicly saying $10,000, they'd be watching for anything even remotely close to that.

[Cow Poke]

Whereas, when travelling with my mum, she nearly always has >10 items of '100ml or less' in their recommended little snap-lock bags for inspection. And on multiple occasions the security response to my mum holding out a bag with >10 items in it for their inspection has been to be super-happy and say "Everyone can I have your attention. ~holds up mum's snap-lock bag of everything~ Look everyone, this person's done in right! They actually followed our put-them-in-a-clear-plastic-bag instructions! All you people should learn from her!"

Yeah, I rarely run into any TSA employees who have even a hint of that type of humor or personality.

I DID run into a male TSA employee once, however, who seemed quite cheerful, and I asked him, "why is it that I get flagged for 'extra scrutiny' almost every time I travel?'". He looked around, like an overly obvious "I'm about to tell you a secret" gesture, then proceeded to explain that my ticket is in my name with my middle initial, but my driver's license has my middle name. I made the adjustment on my United frequent flyer account, and that solved that problem. Now I almost always "breeze through" security, only to wait for my wife who has been sidelined because her titanium knees have, once again, identified her as a potential terrorist.

[Jedidiah]

Titanium knees are great in many ways, but not at the airport security farce.

[Cow Poke]

I like how former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer John R Schindler puts it, regarding profiling...

Many regular travelers are irritated by the TSA. They dislike having to remove their shoes and belts and liquids even though it's obvious they pose no threat. I've never seen a nun get a pat-down, but I, like most frequent fliers, have witnessed TSA silliness on multiple occasions. And I have been subjected to interrogation by TSA officials while traveling for the U.S. government, carrying a diplomatic passport, even as foreigners who looked like extras in a B-movie about Al Qaeda went on their way, unquestioned.

... and his perspective on the effectiveness of the TSA....

[Starlight]

I'm curious as to what sort of an "interrogation" he received. Apart from the generalized people-bothering faux-security procedures present at every airport, the only border officials I recall ever personally asking me any questions was in Canada, where they appeared paranoid that I might be coming to their country in order to get a job rather than merely for a holiday.

[Cow Poke]

I'm curious as to what sort of an "interrogation" he received.

That may well be an exaggeration on his part, but I once tried to get through security with just my passport, because my drivers license had just expired. Even though a current US passport is clearly legal for travel even within the US, the idiot "interrogator" was fixated on the fact that I was not traveling internationally, and, therefore, she needed to see my drivers license. I offered my concealed carry permit, which is also legal, but that just totally freaked her out, and she began berating me about having a gun (which I clearly did not).

Apart from the generalized people-bothering faux-security procedures present at every airport, the only border officials I recall ever personally asking me any questions was in Canada, where they appeared paranoid that I might be coming to their country in order to get a job rather than merely for a holiday.

I can understand why that would be a grave concern to the Canadians.