Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Government Study Finds TSA Misconduct Up 26% In 3 Years

Comments Filter:
  • Study of my own (Score:5, Interesting)

    by morcego (260031) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @02:44PM (#44438325)

    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)

      by pakar (813627) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @02:49PM (#44438393)

      Yes, i thought it would be higher than 26%...

      • by houghi (78078) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:19PM (#44438769)

        Nononono. It is UP 28%. As the whole thing was a misconduct in the first place, I am guessing they are now at 126% at least.

    • by X0563511 (793323) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @02:53PM (#44438443) Homepage Journal

      I am very surprised. [youtube.com]

  • All fine and good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @02:48PM (#44438383)

    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)

      by h4rr4r (612664)

      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.

      • by hawguy (1600213)

        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.

      • That's a question that should not be asked of anyone in the first place.

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          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.

      • by OzPeter (195038)

        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

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          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

        • 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?

      • It's illegal to carry that much cash and the cash can be confiscated on presumption that you are committing a crime by having it. Why do you have that much cash? Who needs to carry that much cash? Have you paid taxes on it properly? I bet you haven't; guilty of tax evasion. It's probably drug money, since you have no real audit trail that can't be re-used for multiple sums of $40,000. Your audit trail is probably a single source from a money laundering scheme that you thought you could print out and s
        • by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:49PM (#44439191)

          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.

        • by Dunbal (464142) *

          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.

        • I was about to get my flame on toward you, then I noticed your sig... Shame the petition is expired.

    • by OzPeter (195038)

      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

      • by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:53PM (#44439247)

        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.

  • Broader problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by intermodal (534361) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @02:49PM (#44438395) Homepage Journal

    I think we could probably just say this across the board in our government...

    • Because, you know, your assumptions are obviously true without having any sort of data backing like the story.

      • 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.

      • by Dunbal (464142) *
        Not all educated guesses are false.
        • 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.

    • by jklovanc (1603149)

      I think we could probably just say this across the board in humanity

      FTFY. TSA employees are human too.

      • by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:56PM (#44439305)

        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)

        by ArsonSmith (13997)

        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.

    • 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

      • 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.

  • 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)

      by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @02:58PM (#44438505)

      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.

      • Seriously.

      • Not to mention it has, over the years, produced billions in surplus. It's not the fault of social security programs that all that money gets skimmed off and rolled into the rest of the budget to pay for things that *aren't* sustainable...
      • by TheCarp (96830)

        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

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          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.

          • by TheCarp (96830)

            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:Que surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Baloroth (2370816) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:27PM (#44438867)

        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)

          by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:44PM (#44439099)

          It will be paying out 71% in 2047 so exactly how young are you?

          • by jittles (1613415)

            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.

        • 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.

        • by Nyder (754090)

          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.

      • by geoskd (321194)

        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.

        Social security is not properly funded. The Social security administration has (by congressional decree) taken a very sizable position in Special US government bonds. There is no Cash in those accounts, just US government iou's. If congress decides to welch on those debts, then social security is bankrupt. These are not small amounts of money. By most estimates the debt is as large as 4 Trillion dollars. With our current "discretionary" budget this would take the U.S. approximately 40 years to repay not inc

    • by Desler (1608317)

      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.

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        It is damn low though. It is mall rent a cop pay.

        • by Desler (1608317)

          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)

            by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:34PM (#44438969)

            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)

      by L4m3rthanyou (1015323) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:12PM (#44438695)

      Hey now, calling them "rent-a-cops" is a unfair... to security guards.

      I prefer to refer to airport screeners as "TSA-holes".

  • by flogger (524072) <non@nonegiven> on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:00PM (#44438529) Journal
    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. 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?
    • by hawguy (1600213) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:20PM (#44438791)

      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?

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        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.

      • by Obfuscant (592200)

        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

        • by hawguy (1600213)

          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

    • by TheCarp (96830)

      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

    • by OzPeter (195038)

      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.

    • by Wookact (2804191)
      The last time I flew my checked luggage was inspected four different times. (four different "We have inspected your stuff" slips with four different names.)
    • by k6mfw (1182893)
      this is just begging for a "in Soviet America..." meme
  • TSA ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vikingpower (768921) <exercitussolusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:02PM (#44438549) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by Cosgrach (1737088)

      That's why I stopped flying as well.

    • 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

    • by cusco (717999)
      Since there's that 20 mile gap in Panama in the Pan American Highway we don't have much choice when we go to Peru. 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".) Guess we're stuck putting up with Homeland Security Theater 3000 for now.
      • 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 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.

    • 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.

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      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.

    • by cusco (717999)
      Do you not remember the reason why the glorious "private security agents" are no longer on the job? Something to do with 3000 dead New Yorkers, I believe. I used to get on the plane with hunting knives, friends carried loaded pistols onto the planes, and more often than not the x-ray machines and metal detectors were broken or just plain ignored. If you think that a lot of stuff gets stolen now you don't have a very good memory because it used to be a LOT worse. Miami was second worldwide only to Heathr
  • The glaring fault that I found in scanning the GAO report is that there is no plan to follow-up on any of the cases where TSA employees are reprimanded. So they can issue letters of reprimand or whatever and there is no review process to make sure that the agent does their job correctly. And their job is to provide security?
  • Not bad (Score:5, Informative)

    by jklovanc (1603149) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:35PM (#44439001)

    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.

    • by cusco (717999)
      Oh, my garsh! A poster who understands numbers! Whatever is SlashDot coming to? :-)
  • They told me if I voted for John McCain we would see this kind of escalating government abuse. And they were right! [pjmedia.com]

  • by AdamThor (995520) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:55PM (#44439271)

    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...

  • by hey! (33014) on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:57PM (#44439311) Homepage Journal

    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.

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...