Government Study Finds TSA Misconduct Up 26% In 3 Years 196
rullywowr writes "CNN reports that a recent government study found TSA misconduct has risen sharply in three years. Most have heard of the problems such as stealing, but the report also notes that some employees are sleeping on the job, taking bribes, and letting friends/family through the checkpoints without screening."
Study of my own (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm conducting a "highly" scientific study of my own.
Please reply here if you are surprised by these news...
Re:Study of my own (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, i thought it would be higher than 26%...
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Says "i kan reed".
Re: (Score:2)
Because of course you are the true arbiter of all that is good and bad behavior.
Some bad behavior is obvious and not at all subjective.
It is easy to see why this happened. It is because the poster pakar (813627) had no idea what the number meant, but he felt that he just had to comment on the number anyways. Its plainly stupid behavior.
When you dont understand something, the good and right course of action is to question, not to comment. This is obvious. In his 9 words post, he managed to fulfill every single definition of the word stupid. [merriam-webster.com] Not just one of them.. all of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Study of my own (Score:5, Funny)
I am very surprised. [youtube.com]
All fine and good. (Score:5, Insightful)
While not specifically mentioned in the report, notable cases of theft by TSA agents include a 2012 case in which two former employees pleaded guilty to stealing $40,000 from a checked bag at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport, and a 2011 guilty plea from an officer who admitted stealing between $10,000 and $30,000 from travelers at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
And what does the poor schmoe who had his travel money stolen? Did the TSA make all those people whole?
Doubt it.
More then likely the local agent supervisor threw a from at them and told them to fill it out and mail it in and if they objected further, they would be threatened or at the very least, their balls busted by being "detained" and missing their flight. And for those who haven't flown in the last decade, flights are always booked to the max so good luck getting on the next flight - or the next - or the next - or the....
They are not all bad. It's just the 99% of them who make the other 1% look bad, is all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would you check that kind of money?
Why not just put it in your carry on?
$10,000 is a stack of $100s thinner than a deck of cards. So $40,000 fits in a coat or even a couple pockets and no problem fitting it in carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you check that kind of money?
Why not just put it in your carry on?
$10,000 is a stack of $100s thinner than a deck of cards. So $40,000 fits in a coat or even a couple pockets and no problem fitting it in carry on.
If you put it in your pocket, TSA will make you remove it and send it through the x-ray machine on its own, so not only will it be subject to theft by TSA, but by any passenger that gets through the scanner before you.
If you put it in your carry-on bag, TSA can open that bag too - nothing is stopping a dishonest employee from opening it away from your sight.
Re: (Score:2)
That would all be on camera. Far safer than checked baggage.
Re:All fine and good. (Score:5, Informative)
Unless, of course, the agent bribes his supervisor to look the other way (and/or block the camera(s)) while he steals the cash:
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tsa-agent-michael-arato-admits-stealing-passengers-security-checks-bribes-article-1.136272 [nydailynews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Still more work for them than stealing from your checked luggage.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a question that should not be asked of anyone in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
If you want to carry cash, have fun I do it all the time. Checking cash is moronic, you are begging for it to be stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you check that kind of money?
2 years ago I was flying to Bolivia with a group that included a local journalist to cover the trip. The cheap arsed flight went through 3 intermediate stops in central america before getting to our destination. I didn't know it before we left, but the journalist had packed a brand new, high end, Canon DLSR in her checked luggage which was to be her main camera on the trip, and kept her back-up video camera in hand luggage. Guess what didn't make it to the destination? Some people just have no clue, a
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch, including layovers in other nations just makes this scream of naivety on the part of that journalist. Hopefully she took this lesson to heart.
I check nothing of value, when hand over my bags at the airport I expect to never see them again. Each time they manage to arrive, much less on time I view as a blessing. I have had too much stuff "lost" to do anything else. Once they managed to "lose" beer bottles that were packed in a socks, two on each one over the base the other over the top. Magically they
Re: (Score:2)
2 years ago I was flying to Bolivia with a group that included a local journalist to cover the trip. The cheap arsed flight went through 3 intermediate stops in central america before getting to our destination. I didn't know it before we left, but the journalist had packed a brand new, high end, Canon DLSR in her checked luggage which was to be her main camera on the trip, and kept her back-up video camera in hand luggage. Guess what didn't make it to the destination?
Gaddamn, why do you folks put up with that kind of shit? If Greyhound or Amtrak lost someone's baggage (especially baggage containing rather expensive equipment), they'd have a shitfit and someone would lose their job, so why do y'all put up with it when it comes to sky-buses?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All fine and good. (Score:4, Informative)
It is not illegal to carry that much cash. It is illegal to cross the border without declaring it, but that is all.
They can attempt to confiscate it, but they can do the same to your bank account.
Re: (Score:3)
It's illegal to carry that much cash
Bullshit. People like you are the reason we get "misunderstandings" all the time. Do you work in "law enforcement"? It's not illegal to carry a million dollars in cash. It is illegal to enter the country WITHOUT DECLARING IT. If you do not declare over $10,000, you will probably get it confiscated. However if you declare it, there is no law against carrying it.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to get my flame on toward you, then I noticed your sig... Shame the petition is expired.
Re: (Score:2)
I do the same, but I tend to carry large amounts of cash in sealed envelopes where a pick pocket will not get to it like my front pocket or zipped inside an inner pocket in a light coat I have zipped up. To me large is only 5-10% of the amount we are talking about here.
I am aware of this need for cash, I like to go to Mexico and outside the tourist traps or big cities not a lot of places had ATMs and precious few take Credit Cards.
I have never had trouble explaining it as vacation money, but i have never ex
Re: (Score:2)
And what does the poor schmoe who had his travel money stolen? Did the TSA make all those people whole?
Years ago I was flying into the US with a locked Pelican case full of expensive camera equipment. Sometime after I entered the US, the TSA cut the locks off and searched the case (and thoughtfully put the remains of the locks back inside the case along with a pamphlet explaining what had happened). They made no attempt to re-secure the case. When I finally received the case a camera was missing (*) and I have no idea if it was the TSA or someone else who stole it, but the TSA definitely empowered the thi
Re:All fine and good. (Score:4, Informative)
Travelers in the USA with that kind of gear will often check a starting pistol or flare gun, as those have to be properly locked.
Obviously international travel makes this harder. You should consult your lawyer, doctor, priest, rabbi, mullah and several small children before you attempt this. I am not a lawyer nor have I ever pretended to be one to sleep with women.
Re: (Score:2)
Because in "What does", "does" is a helping verb, a very common construction in English grammar. "What does he drive?" "What does he eat?" "What does he wear?". The only different here is that the main verb is, by coincidence, the same word as the helping verb, only doing different duty: "What does he do?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is a sex tourist? Is there a country called sex?
It's a tourist who goes to a country specifically in order to have sex with some one who is most likely a minor. Sex tourism [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"What the hell is a sex tourist? Is there a country called sex?"
It's far away, only reachable by Tripper-Clipper.
Re: (Score:2)
We've got many of towns with this kind of name in Canada. Bangor, Dildo, Climax, Placentia, Come-By-Chance, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
We've got many of towns with this kind of name in Canada. Bangor, Dildo, Climax, Placentia, Come-By-Chance, etc.
To the state just south of me is one that is one of those "almost but not quite names". When making my quarterly trip on I84 to visit family in Eastern Oregon, I always have to do the Beavis and Butthead laugh as I pass the sign for Condon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many bad agents never get caught?
I if we define bad agent as having ever stolen from passengers the number is much higher.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not really a defense of the TSA. If they're missing that many incidences before they finally get rid of the employee, that's pretty serious incompetence and definitely negligent.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for one item at least "letting friends/family through without a screening" let's be honest with ourselves. We're mad that someone doesn't have to wait in the line with the rest of us. The guy knows his highschool pal isn't an Islamic terrorist...
Why is it that statement reminds me of when Jeffrey Dahmer was captured?
Oh, that's right, it's dead along the lines of the interviews with his neighbors and friends:
"Such a nice, quiet boy."
"Jeff? That guy'd never hurt a fly."
"Known him for years, never would imagine he was capable of such horrors."
Yes, let's be honest with ourselves, and admit that if a stranger is suspect, everyone you know probably is as well.
Broader problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we could probably just say this across the board in our government...
Re: (Score:2)
Because, you know, your assumptions are obviously true without having any sort of data backing like the story.
Re: (Score:2)
They're at least as reliable as anything coming out of the NSA's publicity arm, the past four administrations, and various other elements of the government. Sure, there are good agencies here and there, but the norm is corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but "guesses" that are basically restatements of a political party's idea of moral rectitude are to be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we could probably just say this across the board in humanity
FTFY. TSA employees are human too.
Re:Broader problem (Score:5, Funny)
I think we could probably just say this across the board in humanity
FTFY. TSA employees are human too.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Humanity without accountability.
At least a private security firm would be accountable on the bottom line. If they were driving away customers with bad policy they'd be replaced. When a government agency does a bad job they get more money to "fix" the problems.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think you can. In fact the attitude that "you will find this everywhere" is exactly what encourages this sort of behavior. I think that most government employees (like most private industry employees) are honest. I think we need to fight strongly against the idea that theft and corruption by an arm of the government is OK, or we will wind up in a situation where everyone does it. There are quite a few countries where this is true already - and I don't want to live in any of them.
Theft and abu
Re: (Score:2)
I think that most government employees (like most private industry employees) are honest.
I find that comical. Or maybe not. Maybe they're completely honest, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what they're doing is good for a society that supposedly loves freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that corruption is a problem, but it is not all pervasive and we need to focus on where we do have problems. What I fear is that people will come to accept that "government is corrupt" which quickly leads to " nothing we can do". Once you do have very broad corruption it is extremely difficult to fix without a revolution.
Que surprise? (Score:2)
You mean the US Government's attempt to corner the market in minimum wage, untrained rent-a-cops in airports is a spectacular cluster-fuck? ...
But look at all the good they've done!
Like the economy!
Oops!
Err...Like the budget!
Uhh...
Social Security!
Yeah. I'll just shut up now...
Re:Que surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is wrong with social security?
It is fully funded for decades and simply upping the cut for contributions with inflation would extend it even further.
Collecting from folks who take $1 salaries and get stock instead would help even more.
Not sure if serious. (Score:2)
Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about that it is being run by a trustee that broke the trust by using it to write IOUs so that it could use the trust fund like a slush fund?
I have far less problem with SS which is implemented as a segregated tax all its own for a single purpose, than I am with with a fake segregated tax that really just siphons out into the main pool....they very one it was supposed to be segregated from.
If any other trust fund trustee operated the fund the same way that the federal government has operated the SS trus
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but even using this flawed methodology it will be sound for many decades.
A politician once suggested such a lock box, the american people mocked him and elected an anti-intellectual pretend cowboy. Mind you since he has degrees from the same elitist schools he was railing against he was clearly just acting for the cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Talking Carter/Reagan? If so, then I would also like to point out that the anti-intellectual pretend cowboy also used rather treasonous tactics to influence the election in his favor.... the same tactics that were recently revealed as having been used over a decade earlier by Nixon.
(that is, colluding with an external entity to sink negotiations, while promising the same a better deal under the new administration of he gets elected)
Re: (Score:2)
Think later, but much the same setup.
Gore/G.W.Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Same gang of conspirators all three times too actually.
Re:Que surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is wrong with social security?
Absolutely everything? To start with, there is the fact I'm going to pay tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, probably) of dollars into it and won't see a single dime of it back, because it will be bankrupt a decade or more before I'll even come closer to considering retiring. The system is inherently and utterly broken in a world were people are living longer and having fewer children. It cannot remain viable unless there are far fewer people retired than working, which, with the modern birthrate and age of living, is impossible. The only people who will benefit from the system are those who are already retired or relatively close to it. People under 30 or so? Won't see a dime from it. People in their 40s are likely to retire, only to discover the money drying up soon after.
Social Security was devised in a world with radically different demographics than the current one. Unless our society undergoes a massive reversion (which would have negative impacts in other areas), it's a totally non-viable system.
Re:Que surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be paying out 71% in 2047 so exactly how young are you?
Re: (Score:3)
It will be paying out 71% in 2047 so exactly how young are you?
I'm in my 30s and I have over 30 years until I hit social security age. So it'll be about 2047 when I am even eligible to collect my first cent... I've been contributing to social security for over 16 years now, and the last 6+ I've been capped out at the max contribution.
Re: (Score:2)
To start with, there is the fact I'm going to pay tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, probably) of dollars into it and won't see a single dime of it back, because it will be bankrupt
There are a half-dozen ways this can be fixed, most of them relatively painless. There are many easy ways to fix this problem, but our incompetent politicians have failed to choose any of them to fix it.
Every year that passes it becomes more and more painful to fix.
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with social security?
Absolutely everything? To start with, there is the fact I'm going to pay tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, probably) of dollars into it and won't see a single dime of it back, because it will be bankrupt a decade or more before I'll even come closer to considering retiring. The system is inherently and utterly broken in a world were people are living longer and having fewer children. It cannot remain viable unless there are far fewer people retired than working, which, with the modern birthrate and age of living, is impossible. The only people who will benefit from the system are those who are already retired or relatively close to it. People under 30 or so? Won't see a dime from it. People in their 40s are likely to retire, only to discover the money drying up soon after.
Social Security was devised in a world with radically different demographics than the current one. Unless our society undergoes a massive reversion (which would have negative impacts in other areas), it's a totally non-viable system.
You know, when I was a kid that said we'd run out of gas by the time I was an adult. And guess what? We haven't yet.
Quit fucking crying, SS will be there when you get older.
in fact, you are more likely to get Flying Cars then a collapse of SS.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't retirement fund.
I'm investing in my debt. Going to pay off my mortgage in 3 years. I make $65k/year. I'm paying off a full mortgage on a house in 3 years.
Going to invest in savings after that. You know, have $500/mo expenses, put $2000/mo in bank. Keep some, spend some. I'll spend enough to live a life of luxury (I do now, but I'm very good at maximizing the effectiveness of my spending), because youth is wasted on the young and I don't want to save up enough money being miserable my whole
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are not stupid, they just don't have as much as you.
Your income is well above the median and I am going to guess your upbringing led you to this outcome. Good on you, but this is simply not an option for most. I am doing something quite similar, but I am not going to pretend it is an option for most people. That would be disingenuous and not factual. No matter how smart you are, you will not be doing this on $25k a year. Lots of people simply did not have the opportunities I had growing up nor t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we should hold pensioner gladiatorial combats instead, let them fight it out, all of them. Those 1% would make bad sport as they wouldn't last long, oh well ;P.
Re: (Score:2)
The security screeners make between around $23000 to $35000 plus locality pay. That is not minimum wage. 40 hour per week minimum wage job pays only $15000 a year.
Re: (Score:2)
It is damn low though. It is mall rent a cop pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But their point was to impugn the TSA agents by mocking them as mininum wage earners which they aren't. Now a number of themdefinitely deserve criticism but not based on something so silly.
Re:Que surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think the fact that they are paid like mall security is something to mock?
They are supposed to be this professional force of protection for our nation's airports and we pay them like the guy guarding the Orange Julius. One of these things is not like the other.
Re:Que surprise? (Score:4, Informative)
Hey now, calling them "rent-a-cops" is a unfair... to security guards.
I prefer to refer to airport screeners as "TSA-holes".
Recently in an airport. (Score:4, Interesting)
. It was the typical experience that everyone has come to expect. But once it is over, you're free to roam the "Secured" area of the airport. I don;t know how often this happens, but as we were getting ready to board the airplane, Three TSA agents showed up in their hands of blue, (One too many for a good firefly reference.)
Anyway, it was announced that the TSA would be doing random luggage checks as we boarded the plane. I watched what was happening and the "random" checks were that they stopped everyone with a backpack and/or large purse. No one with a regular wheely-carry on luggage was randomly checked. I observed about 30 people board the plane and "predicted which people ahead of me were randomly selected. As my turn to board the plane approached, I stepped in line and said to the agent, "Some back at the regular checkpoint not doing his job and taking a nap?" The TSA guys scowled at me, physically pulled me aside, and went through every article of clothing and compartment of my regular luggage carry-on. At least he attempted to fold everything back and put it in the way it came out.
I should have asked him for a piece of paper saying my luggage was checked by the TSA,
I wonder if they are trying to police up their "faults" by doing even more checks past where we are used to them happening?
Re:Recently in an airport. (Score:4, Interesting)
I traveled via plan; I went through the security checkpoint..
. It was the typical experience that everyone has come to expect. But once it is over, you're free to roam the "Secured" area of the airport. I don;t know how often this happens, but as we were getting ready to board the airplane, Three TSA agents showed up in their hands of blue, (One too many for a good firefly reference.)
Anyway, it was announced that the TSA would be doing random luggage checks as we boarded the plane. I watched what was happening and the "random" checks were that they stopped everyone with a backpack and/or large purse.
I've been through that too, and the most ridiculous part is that they announce it ahead of time and in an open boarding area, so anyone that was planning on carrying contraband on board would just skip that flight and call the airline to say their car broke down so they need to cancel their ticket and rebook on a later flight.
What's the point of the additional screening if people are allowed to opt-out by skipping the flight?
Re: (Score:2)
Or just go to the bathroom, miss the flight and get on the next one. A simple case of travelers diarrhea would be totally believeable.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been through that too, and the most ridiculous part is that they announce it ahead of time and in an open boarding area, so anyone that was planning on carrying contraband on board would just skip that flight and call the airline to say their car broke down so they need to cancel their ticket and rebook on a later flight.
I've been in some large airports, but if you know of one where you need to drive from the check-in counter through the security checkpoint and then to the gate, I'd like to hear of it. Otherwise, how could your car breaking down after you get to the departure gate where this announcement is made make you miss the flight?
Got sick or simply missed the flight, perhaps, but you'll pay the penalty for having checked in and then not boarding. I wouldn't bet against doing that is sufficient to get a quad-S speci
Re: (Score:2)
I've been through that too, and the most ridiculous part is that they announce it ahead of time and in an open boarding area, so anyone that was planning on carrying contraband on board would just skip that flight and call the airline to say their car broke down so they need to cancel their ticket and rebook on a later flight.
I've been in some large airports, but if you know of one where you need to drive from the check-in counter through the security checkpoint and then to the gate, I'd like to hear of it. Otherwise, how could your car breaking down after you get to the departure gate where this announcement is made make you miss the flight?
I've never been in an airport where TSA scans my boarding pass and knows if I actually passed security - they typically just scribble some illegible mark on the boarding pass and since I've checked-in online from home, not even the airline knows if I'm actually at the airport until I board and they scan my boarding pass.
Do some airports scan boarding passes in the TSA security line?
Got sick or simply missed the flight, perhaps, but you'll pay the penalty for having checked in and then not boarding. I wouldn't bet against doing that is sufficient to get a quad-S special treatment boarding pass for the next flight.
It doesn't matter - a terrorist is likely to be traveling under an assumed name anyway so next time he'll just use a new name
Re: (Score:3)
Of course its not just the TSA. Normally I charge my phone in the car and turn on the gps with waze because I like reporting speed traps, and it has saved my bacon a few times by routing me around traffic.
Anyway today, of course, I left my phone at home, which is too bad because when reporting police/accidents whatever, there is an option to take a picture, and I totally saw the detail cop sitting in his cruiser, with his bubblegum machines going and taking a nap at the wheel.
But hey, details keep us safe t
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, it was announced that the TSA would be doing random luggage checks as we boarded the plane.
I have also seen TSA agents taking samples of drinks as people lined up at the gate and then testing it on the spot for who knows what.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TSA ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I stopped flying as well.
Re:TSA ? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
TSA is the main reason I have been refusing to fly to and within the US for years now. Colleagues, friends and acquaintances reporting the same. The security craze is costing the US money.
I've flown through most regions of the USA, some 80k miles maybe through too many airports to mention. Been to foreign airports in London Heathrow, Frankfurt, Bucharest, Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai. All of them seemed pretty similar to TSA style screening, with some having stricter screening practice pre-board and upon departure. For my connecting flights through Frankfurt and Hong Kong, my luggage was searched again, even though I was simply deplaning and re-boarding the same plane. The main differe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And I am **NOT** driving across the Midwest again if I have to visit my mom in Michigan. (There's a reason why it's called "flyover country".)
Why not? It's beautiful here, and the ratio of narcissistic assholes is pretty low... of course, that might have something to do with the fact that those same narcissistic assholes refer to it as "flyover country." ... On second thought, keep flyin'.
Guess we're stuck putting up with Homeland Security Theater 3000 for now.
Stuck? No, you listed an alternative option, so it's not the rest of the world's fault you choose to submit yourself to airport bullshit.
What did they expect? (Score:2)
What did they expect when they replaced private security agents with government workers? When security was run by private companies, the government could make surprise inspections and fine the companies for violations -- who in turn would fire the employees responsible because fines eat into profits.
When the government employs the workers *and* does the inspections, everyone knows what happens when you let the fox guard the hen-house.
Re: (Score:2)
If the article timeline is correct, things would have started turning bad about the time when the TSA started the unionization process. Originally they weren't unionized. Hard to believe government unions could be a negative influence.
Re: (Score:2)
As if they ever did.
The whole thing is a show, when you are paying for rent a cops that is what you get. Either they want security and will pay professional LEO wages or they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
No Follow-Up (Score:2)
Not bad (Score:5, Informative)
Misconduct cases involving TSA employees -- everything from being late to skipping crucial security protocols -- rose from 2,691 a year in 2010 to 3,408 in 2012.
I would bet that any company as large as the TSA would be happy to have only 3,408 misconduct cases. There are about 55,600 TSA employees.
About a third of the cases involved being late or not reporting for work, the largest single category of offenses.
That would be about 1100 shift late or missed. Considering that there are 55,000 employees * 5 shifts per week * 48 working weeks/year = 1.32M shifts per year that would mean that the late/absentee rate was 0.008%. Any company would love that late/absentee rate. Most companies have rates upwards of 10%.
About a quarter involved screening and security failures -- including sleeping on the job -- or neglect of duty offenses that resulted in losses or careless inspections.
So about 852 incidents are security related. That would be 1 incident for every 64 employees. Considering that most offenders will repeat and some of the incidents are mistakes rather than willful that is less that 1% of employees being an issue.
TSA employees are humans not robots ans they screw up some times; give them a break.
The numbers rose from 2,691 a year in 2010 to 3,408 in 2012. That is an increase of 717 incidents. That is about 2 more incidents per day. Not bad for a company that has 55,000 employees covering hundreds of locations. That's the problem with small numbers; even small increases seem big.
Re: (Score:2)
President McCain strikes again (Score:2)
They told me if I voted for John McCain we would see this kind of escalating government abuse. And they were right! [pjmedia.com]
Excuse me, sir, but you're doing that wrong. (Score:3)
From TFA:
"I think John Q. Traveler should not so much be concerned, but take an active role in security," he said. "As they are willing to point out things we do wrong, we should be ready to report on the failure in their security operations, as well."
Yeah, that'll work out well...
Tracked down the report (Score:5, Informative)
Available here [gao.gov].
A quick scan indicates it does not say exactly what news reports are claiming it does. The title gives a hint: "TSA Could Strengthen Monitoring of Allegations of Employee Misconduct".
The media (including /.) has seized on one fact out of the report, that the number of misconduct investigations has increased about 27% (not 26% as reported), and erroneously concluded that the rate of misconduct at the agency has increased by 26% (e.g. the title of this /. piece). This conclusion is not necessarily *wrong*, mind you, but the data in the report simply doesn't give us any basis for drawing it. For one thing, one of the main criticisms of the report is that the TSA is not tracking the *outcome* of investigations. For all we know the increase is the result of a higher rate of investigation, or even the increase in the agency's head count.
The whole point of the report is that the TSA has been so slapdash at tracking investigations of employee misconduct it doesn't know the degree which employees are violating policies or even the law. Consequently nobody really knows whether the rate of misconduct has gone up or down. That's damning enough to be going on with.
Re:Tracked down the report (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, all 10000 of them, you fucking dumbass.