Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Security United States

TSA Orders Searches of Valet Parked Car At Airport 453

Posted by Soulskill
from the one-step-forward,-one-step-back dept.
schwit1 writes "Laurie Iacuzza walked to her waiting car at the Greater Rochester International Airport after returning from a trip and that's when she found it — a notice saying her car was inspected after she left for her flight. She said, 'I was furious. They never mentioned it to me when I booked the valet or when I picked up the car or when I dropped it off.' Iacuzza's car was inspected by valet attendants on orders from the TSA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Orders Searches of Valet Parked Car At Airport

Comments Filter:
  • And the story is...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:20AM (#44327189)

    Valet parked cars may remain in front of the busy area of the airport for a while before being parked.

    Already-parked cars aren't near the airport.

    If you're going to park a car full of explosives, you can either create a small crater in a car park, or you will go for the airport - so cars that are left outside are checked.

    Yes, people who are parking the cars should be informed beforehand. That way they can choose to park themselves and make their own way to the terminal building if they don't want their car searched.

    • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:21AM (#44327215)

      The problem is when they damage your car they will deny it and you will get nothing.

      If they don't just steal everything inside the car as well.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by noh8rz9 (2716595)
        the AC's analogy fials because you could just as easily do such an act with just stopping yoru car at the airport. this whole thing is very violating because wehn you use a valet you trust that they won't mess with your stuff. if they can't do that the whole valet thing goes away. i disagree with harrier and that the problem isn't when they damage it, the damage is the breach of trust.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bickerdyke (670000)

        And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??

        May I remind you that you are not allowed to use locks that are not easy to open (read. useless) on your suitcase?

        • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:38AM (#44327455)

          It is not much different. Though people do expect it to be, since they often leave last minute valuables locked in the trunk of their cars.

          You can actually prevent those sorts of thefts by use of a gun, not by pointing it at the TSA, but by checking a firearm. Lots of photographers do this to protect their equipment. You can just buy an old useless firearm for pennies at a gun show, weld it up to make it non-functional and then check it as a firearm and place your valuables in the same storage device.

          This is of course not going to work with international travel.

          • by Imagix (695350) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:43AM (#44327523)

            weld it up to make it non-functional

            Be careful what you advise... up in Canada this would actually make it _more_ illegal (oddly enough). By welding it so it is non-functional, that changes the class of firearm from Non-restricted (loosely: rifles) or Restricted (loosely: handguns) to Prohibited (it's now a replica firearm....). Be sure to consult appropriate legal advice before attempting this stunt.

            • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:45AM (#44327563)

              Which is why I advised against international travel.

              Also I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on slashdot, if you want legal counsel go pay your own bloodsucker. Before attempting this stunt besure to consult with your lawyer, the TSA, DHS, all local law enforcement, a Rabbi, a Priest and a duck.

            • by Zirbert (1936162) on Friday July 19, 2013 @11:04AM (#44327841) Homepage

              in Canada this would actually make it _more_ illegal (oddly enough). By welding it so it is non-functional, that changes the class of firearm from Non-restricted (loosely: rifles) or Restricted (loosely: handguns) to Prohibited (it's now a replica firearm....). Be sure to consult appropriate legal advice before attempting this stunt.

              Under Canadian law, deactivated firearms (i.e., those welded up to be non-functional) are a separate legal category from replica firearms. Replica firearms are prohibited devices, deactivated firearms are chunks of metal with no legal status. They have very different legal consequences, despite being indistinguishable without close physical examination (which most police officers will not be trained or interested enough to do).

              This makes no sense whatsoever, but is how Canada's firearms laws actually work.

              Verification sources: Canada's Firearms Act [justice.gc.ca] and the Canadian Firearm's Program's call centre (1-800-731-4000 from Canada and the U.S.).

            • by sjames (1099)

              More commonly they use a starter pistol which, in spite of being incapable of firing a projectile by design, is classified as a firearm.

        • by jedidiah (1196) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:39AM (#44327471) Homepage

          > And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??

          Your car isn't being packed into a pressurized metal cylinder that will be flying through the air with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and hundreds of people on board.

          There isn't even the pretense of a public safety issue with a car parked at the airport.

          • If you have never heard of car bombs, you should start watching international news. Or remember Oklahoma city. Blowing up that car pretty much effected safety for those people inside the building.

            • by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Friday July 19, 2013 @11:02AM (#44327803)
              9-11 wasn't a car bomb. Why are we trying to stop every possible bad thing? We weren't doing this before 9-11.

              But for fun, how many car bombs have been detonated or even attempted to be detonated in the US at an airport valet parking lot? I'm guessing less than 2 and likely zero.

              Lets stop actual threats and not people just fishing for something to justify their jobs.
              • by Jawnn (445279)

                9-11 wasn't a car bomb. Why are we trying to stop every possible bad thing?

                Yeah, pretty much. Cuz, ya know, the public is a-scared of teh terrorists and we can do anything we want if we add "to prevent terrorism" to the end of it.

            • by pla (258480) on Friday July 19, 2013 @11:32AM (#44328181) Journal
              If you have never heard of car bombs, you should start watching international news.

              You can't hide a car bomb big enough to cause serious damage to anything outside the car. Successful attacks against structures have, without exception, used unmarked vans and dark-tinted SUVs for a reason.

              A valet, entirely without conducting a formal search, can instantly tell whether or not a car poses an explosive threat to the airport. The act of helping the passenger get their bags from the trunk and then driving the car to the long-term lot automatically rules out any plausible hiding spots for enough explosives to make it into a WMD or national security issue.

              Not to say, of course, that you couldn't fit enough somewhere in the body of the car to seriously damage the car itself, any occupants, and perhaps break a few windows of nearby cars - The Boston Marathon bombing proved roughly what you can do with a small well-placed bomb; but "Lot Z3" doesn't exactly equal the finish line of a marathon in terms of the number of squishy pink sacks of meat available for embedding shrapnel in.
        • And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ?? May I remind you that you are not allowed to use locks that are not easy to open (read. useless) on your suitcase?

          My car is not being loaded into the cargo hold of the aircraft.

          As for locks, I could use a suitcase made of 1/4" thick steel plate, weld the damned thing shut and encase it in 2' of concrete if I choose to do so. If it's not going onto an aircraft, I can lock it however I want.

          (As an aside, you CAN use locks that are not easy to open, but that may prevent them from being loaded onto the aircraft, or being loaded without the lock being damaged)

        • by Dcnjoe60 (682885)

          And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??

          May I remind you that you are not allowed to use locks that are not easy to open (read. useless) on your suitcase?

          Your car isn't going on the plane, so it can't be used to bring down an aircraft.

      • by snookerdoodle (123851) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:31AM (#44327349)

        They can do that already. Without giving you notice. Without the TSA telling them to do anything.

        The news isn't that valets have access to your car. The news is that the TSA is having them search it.

      • do burn outs

        change radio presets

        the nicer the car and the lower the tip the more of stuff like that happens.

        • by Golddess (1361003)
          Having never let a valet park my car, I never realized it was customary to tip the valet. But now knowing that it is, wouldn't you tip them when they bring your car back? Tipping when you drop the car off, to me, seems like it'd be like tipping your waiter/waitress when they seat you.
    • by LouTheTroll (1093917) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:30AM (#44327331)
      Living in Rochester, I actually caught this on a local news station and there was a lot more information. The concern (and perhaps the story) isn't so much the searching (as their rational is that those vehicles are often parked at the entrance and exit lanes blah blah blah) but that the searching is being done by the valets instead of TSA or law enforcement. These individuals (at the moment) are not trained and have no oversight. So when the thefts and such start occurring, you have zero recourse and absolutely no hope of resolution. The point being that we have can assume some level of trust with TSA and law enforcement as they have oversight and procedures to reduce these type of theft events but there's nothing in place with this valet program in Rochester atm. (And please don't flame me about assume a level of trust with the TSA and law enforcement, I'm just trying to provide more information and some context.)
      • 96.5 interviewed the guy that broke the news story this morning, and one of their big questions was "Do the valets know what the hell to even look for?" and "What would happen if I left a copy of the Koran on the dash or papers written in Arabic on the seat?".

        I don't oppose them giving a quick glance around the interior of the car (you did give them permission to get inside) or underneath it, but opening the trunk is going too far in my opinion.

        • by Zordak (123132)

          I don't oppose them giving a quick glance around the interior of the car (you did give them permission to get inside) or underneath it, but opening the trunk is going too far in my opinion.

          I think the concern is that the TSA is deputizing valets to search cars without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. You gave a valet permission to enter your car to park it, not a TSA agent permission to search it. If a government agent asks permission to enter your car (or house), the answer should always be "no." And as somebody pointed out below, if you happen to have a copy or the Koran in your car, when Sparky reports that to the TSA, they are almost sure to strip the thing down looking for th

      • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:39AM (#44327479) Homepage Journal

        Living in Rochester, I actually caught this on a local news station and there was a lot more information. The concern... [is] that the searching is being done by the valets instead of TSA or law enforcement. These individuals (at the moment) are not trained and have no oversight.

        Wait, I thought you said the TSA wasn't doing the searches...

      • Oh this might very well have been instigated by the Airport and not the TSA. We have a history of craziness here. See this recap of a Director driving drunk in Airport vehicles and another spending Airport funds on cigars and strippers: http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg48963.html [californiaaviation.org]
      • These individuals (at the moment) are not trained and have no oversight. So when the thefts and such start occurring, you have zero recourse and absolutely no hope of resolution.

        My suggestion would be an introduction of laws that make theft by anyone authorised to make searches a crime that is punished much more than ordinary theft. Let's say if a police officer with a search warrant enters your house (legally) and steals money from their home, they should be automatically punished a lot harder than a burglar doing the same thing. Same for someone searching luggage at an airport. Lots of one-handed TSA employees on the airport who got caught once; when you're caught twice you lose

    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:33AM (#44327375) Homepage Journal

      The story is ... that the current government is, in theory, authorized by the People, under certain conditions. One of those conditions is specified in the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      The current group of people calling themselves that government (is it really?) has written some stuff down called the USAPATRIOT ACT which says that this condition is no longer relevant. "So, then," the logician asks, "what authorizes that government?" Mao says it's the willingness to aggressively shoot people in the head, which decent people decline to do.

      This may all be for the best, ultimately, though. Carlin's hyperbole [youtube.com] has a sound basis. Most people today don't feel that they have to fight for their liberty - they think there's a system in place to protect it. As these things become more common, they may finally realize that it's all a rouse to fleece them of their property, while denying their modern hybrid serf/helot/slave status. Unfortunately, it's going to have to get much uglier before they come to that realization. It'll happen eventually and it won't be pretty. But hopefully, society takes the next step at that point and evolves a better replacement system.

    • by swb (14022)

      I hate to get flagged by the NSA for some kind of conspiracy charge, but it's not a very complicated tactical challenge to figure out how to use a car to damage at the airport without using the valet service.

      If you're just looking for a place to have an explosion, every airport I've ever been to allows you to drive right up to the terminal building. Even better is that these areas are designed on purpose to allow for large vehicles to drive up there, unlike the parking area valets use.

      So maximum damage is

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday July 19, 2013 @11:14AM (#44327959)

      If you're going to park a car full of explosives, you can either create a small crater in a car park, or you will go for the airport - so cars that are left outside are checked.

      But the airports were rapidly remodeled after 9/11, and have since been built such that a car exploding in the drop off area would only be slightly more lethal than a car exploding in a parking lot. They street is not close to where people are congregated. Some people would be killed who were walking through the doors, but the same is true of the parking lot. The psychological effect is equivalent as well. "Terrorist attack at airport (parking lot)" is going to cause about as much panic among idiots as "Terrorist attack at airport (doors)." The fact that your chances of dying from someone texting and driving on the way TO the airport is many times higher than dying from a car bomb either way won't matter to most.

      TSA has meanwhile set up security to where there are gigantic lines of human bodies before security. A backpack bomb in the line before the nude-scanners is the security risk if there is one. Fortunately, the only ones dumber than TSA are the terrorists, and they don't seem to have figured this out. However, TSA has been creating the gigantic lines for over a decade. Eventually, even the terrorists are going to realize that a small bomb right before security is more likely to "succeed" than trying to gain control of the plane or detonate a car bomb.

      Again, this is still far less dangerous than the drive TO the airport, I'm just annoyed that a line I'm told to wait in "for my safety" does the exact opposite and is wasting an insane amount of tax dollars that could be going towards actual useful things. Such as research, lowering the debt, or really anything else the government spends money on.

    • by Matt.Battey (1741550) on Friday July 19, 2013 @11:50AM (#44328405)

      Anybody thought to wonder why the car was searched by the valet service instead of the the TSA itself?

      The very reason is because the contents of your car has long been held protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution {Jay-Z even wrote a song about it, 99 Problems :) }. Where as, common law has set, the yet non-SCOTUS challenged precedent, that private security firms may check your baggage with x-rays and magnetometers (otherwise referred to as non-unreasonable means) when you enter the secured portion of an air-port, to protect the persons and private assets operated there. In no situation, has it ever been shown that the Government of the United States may search the person or materials or vehicle of every individual, unless entering or exiting the country (which falls under export law, under which you would be considered a "smuggler"). Because doing so assumes that there is a reasonable belief that every single person is some how operating in a criminal manner. (BTW: This is also why the NSA search warrants, if challenged would be shown to be invalid.)

  • by Builder (103701) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:20AM (#44327199)

    This is the problem with more and more property being private and subject to conditions. On true public ground things like the 4th amendment matter. On private property, you're subject to the whims of the owners.

  • Outrageous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jason777 (557591) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:23AM (#44327253)
    This country is out of control. We have no more 4th amendment. Pretty soon the TSA will be expanding their highway searches from commercial trucks to every passenger car. Your freedom is gone. That being said, I would never trust my car to a valet. I park it myself. You are just asking for trouble otherwise.
  • We'll be hearing about the TSA searching us while they drive around in vans equipped with backscatter x-ray scanners. Oh, wait [slashdot.org], that's old news. .
  • by scotts13 (1371443) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:24AM (#44327265)

    According to the article, the valets themselves. Mot TSA agents, minimum wage, no-background-check valets. They're the last people to be in the car, and they decide where to park them. Anyone else see the two glaring problems here?

  • liability (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    oh, so the poor valet schmuck who finds a bomb, and it gets detonated, is the one who will suffer loss of limbs and/or life? I'd hate to be paid minimum wage doing two jobs - one of them being a bomb detector.

    • Re:liability (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SJHillman (1966756) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:40AM (#44327483)

      The valet is instructed to look in the trunk when they first get the car. So just set the bomb to detonate when the trunk is opened. That way you guarantee 1) you will be safely away from your bomb and 2) the car will be right where you want it to be when the bomb goes off

  • by cervesaebraciator (2352888) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:26AM (#44327287)
    FTA:

    We found out it happened to her because she valet parked her car. Those are the only cars that get inspected. So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?

    They'd probably like to be able to search any car that comes to the airport. Even so, I imagine they restrict searches to valet parked cars for two reasons: 1) they've the keys in hand and so it's easy; 2) more importantly, some lawyer probably told them that they could make the case in court that valet parked cars have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

    • by hogghogg (791053)
      I think this is probably right -- the idea is that a valet-parked car has had its interior presented to a valet, voluntarily. But what about the trunk? Did the valets open the trunk? I think the owner of the car *does* have a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt the contents of the trunk. IANAL
      • Once you've voluntarily handed the valet the means of getting into the trunk (i.e. the keys), I think it likely they'd argue you cannot even expect privacy there.

        Mind you, I don't think people surrender their reasonable expectation of privacy by using a valet. It would be different if uniformed TSA agents were acting as valets and you handed them your keys, but that is not the case here. This is more like living in an apartment building and having the maintenance staff, who came in to fix a leaky toilet, t

        • by Muad'Dave (255648)

          Once you've voluntarily handed the valet the means of getting into the trunk (i.e. the keys), I think it likely they'd argue you cannot even expect privacy there.

          So if I give a restaurant coat-check person my coat and my house keys are in my coat pocket, I shouldn't complain when they go root thru my house? For that matter, I shouldn't be upset if they rifle thru my coat pockets in the first place?

          Similarly, If I hand a waiter my credit card (the means to access my bank account/credit balance), I shouldn't

      • My landlord has keys to my apartment, but I still have a reasonable expectation for him not to just show up in the middle of the night. Likewise, I have a domain admin account but I'm expected not to go snooping through every file share. Just because someone has access in order to do a specific job doesn't mean they have permission, implicit or explicit, to do other things.

    • It's restricted to valet cars because 1) they're left in front of the terminal for up to an hour while other cars are in the middle of a mostly unpopulated parking lot.

    • FTA:

      We found out it happened to her because she valet parked her car. Those are the only cars that get inspected. So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?

      They'd probably like to be able to search any car that comes to the airport. Even so, I imagine they restrict searches to valet parked cars for two reasons: 1) they've the keys in hand and so it's easy; 2) more importantly, some lawyer probably told them that they could make the case in court that valet parked cars have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

      What bullshit - just because I give one person permission to park my car does not imply that I'm also giving them and the whole goddamn world permission to go through my shit.

      Just one more reason you'll never find me in an airport. I'll fuckin' walk to another continent before I let some high-school dropout rifle through my personal effects.

      • If my guess is right about their reason, I couldn't agree more with your objection. But this is the reason you sometimes find police "safety" inspections in poor neighborhoods. If you let them in to check and make sure everything is okay in your house then they can argue you've consented to a search. Of course, their standards for consent are sometimes comparable to those of an unscrupulous drunken frat boy, but this is why the wise deny consent to the police in so many words from the beginning.
  • Ron Paul 2016! (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by stevegee58 (1179505)
    He may not live past his first term but at least he'll shut down the TSA.
  • http://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map [aclu.org]

    Rochester isn't on this map, but I'm sure its in there...

  • This whole operation falls apart at the words "TSA Regulations." There's no acceptable justification for routine searches of these cars under the fourth amendment. They're not getting on the planes, therefore the (already questionable) reasoning being used to have passengers searched doesn't apply here at all.

  • by reboot246 (623534) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:35AM (#44327401) Homepage
    All this does is give the TSA a new place from which to steal. Don't leave anything of value in your car; it may (probably) won't be there when you get back. Without a crowd watching them, the agents will be even more tempted to take what isn't theirs.
    • The agents aren't the ones searching the car. And somehow, even though it's untrained valets, I trust them more than if it were TSA agents...

  • by Herder Of Code (2989779) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:36AM (#44327423)
    Am I the only one who think it odd that the TSA is looking for terrorists that.. use Valet parking?
  • i wonder how long it will take for somebody to start rigging their trunk with some sort of oh Powder Bomb (which would engulf the valet with glowing talc). Of course i would be polite and have the trunk taped shut and a bumper sticker stating "Contents can not be inspected without owner present".

  • Don't take your car to the airport unless a family member or good friend drives it home for you. Other option is just take a cab.
  • Well I don't mind most of the security measures taken by the TSA, I do have a problem when they blind search someones space. If your going to search a car after someone leaves then fine but at least tell them your going to do it. If you tell me your going to search my car when I book my trip, or when I park the car and I'm given time to prep the car then I don't have an issue. I've had cases where I've had control substances ( not drugs ) in my car, if a TSA agent found those then what was going to hap
    • Not to mention that it's not even the TSA doing the searches. It's the valets. At least we can require TSA agents to have some general knowledge of what they're looking for and have some oversight to prevent this from being a "Grab Anything Valuable In The Trunk" program. I'd have less trust that valets would have that training/oversight. (And my trust of TSA agents is pretty low to begin with.)

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:46AM (#44327579)
    Well if they're turning a valet parking invitation into a free inspection, there's also nothing stopping you from putting these 100dB contact-break alarms [newegg.com] on basically everything including the trunk, glove compartment, etc. Let's see how mister TSA wanna-be likes his job when he gets 100 decibels in his face any time he touches anything but the steering wheel.

    I live in an apartment and it has one of those pathetically insecure chicken wire cages upstairs for additional storage. A $1 wire clipper and you can steal everyone's stuff so I put 4 of those contact break alarms under a cardboard box containing my stuff. Then I drew an arrow and "do not move or touch - pressure-sensitive alarm will sound" and that's the last thing anyone will steal. It'd work just as well for car searches except put the alarm on the inside so instead of a deterrent, it's a punishment of sorts.
  • All of the cars that I've purchased in the past 20 years come with a valet key.

    I wonder what would happen if you used that?

  • Why valet? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kilfarsnar (561956) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:52AM (#44327653)
    If I had a bomb or other nefarious contraband in my car and wanted to do harm at an airport, why the hell would I valet the car? This is one more example of TSA and other nation security state powers being used for infringing on the rights of people. I mean really...
    • by AK Marc (707885)

      If I had a bomb or other nefarious contraband in my car and wanted to do harm at an airport, why the hell would I valet the car?

      Because it's the only way to leave your car unattended in close proximity to the terminal building. The TSA still assumes you are a McVeigh "park and run" bomber, not a 9/11 "fie for the cause" bomber. Just put the bomb in the trunk, drive in through the wall of the terminal, and detonate

      Actually, the most effective attack would be to have the bomb in the largest carry-on available, and detonate it in the security line. Do your one attack while 5 others hit other airports, and you'd close airports for a

  • Not the TSA (Score:3, Informative)

    by JelloJoe (977764) on Friday July 19, 2013 @11:19AM (#44328015)
    The TSA is not involved in the Rochester airport. Little known fact, but airports are allowed to hire private security companies to do the passenger screening again as long as they follow TSA guidelines.
  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:26PM (#44329667)
    Iacuzza rhymes with Yakuza. That's too obvious a connection for the TSA to ignore.
  • by jklovanc (1603149) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:35PM (#44329791)

    “I was furious. They never mentioned it to me when I booked the valet or when I picked up the car or when I dropped it off.”

    Most people don't read signs. It worked at a festival and that had a camping area. There was a rule that no glass was allowed in the camping area as it was an athletic field. Many times when I told people to put away the glass they replied that no one told them glass was not allowed. This was even though the following had been done to inform them;
    1. It was in the release they signed.
    2. It was in 4 in high letters within 5 feet of the venue entrance.
    3. It was in 4 in high letters within 2 feet of the camping entrance
    4. It was in 1 inch high letters on a 2'x4' placard, that displayed all the rules, next to the camping entrance
    The sign was probably up there but she just didn't read it. This "they didn't tell me" excuse is more indication of the lack of personal responsibility. Inform yourself, read signs, look things up, stop making excuses.

  • by jklovanc (1603149) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:44PM (#44329913)

    The searches are concerned with bombs. Any adult would be suspicious about a bunch of sticks with the explosive has-mat logo on it or a bunch of drums with wires running out of them. I bet the valets are told to contact security if they find something suspicious. It does not take training to do that. Is it perfect? No. Might it be helpful? Yes. Might it help stave of the claim that the TSA failed to use every available asset to protect airport security? Definitely. I can just see the headline;

    TSA fails again to secure airports as massive bomb explodes in valet parking.

  • by Dan667 (564390) on Friday July 19, 2013 @01:57PM (#44330099)
    Just like mccarthyism dying, it took people a while to wake up that hunting communists would eventually mean them too. Hopefully, with the nsa spying story we have turned the corner and can start to dismantle the tsa.

Lend money to a bad debtor and he will hate you.

Working...