Former TSA Administrator Speaks 196
phantomfive writes "Former TSA head Kip Hawley talks about how the agency is broken and how it can be fixed:
'The crux of the problem, as I learned in my years at the helm, is our wrongheaded approach to risk. In attempting to eliminate all risk from flying, we have made air travel an unending nightmare for U.S. passengers and visitors from overseas, while at the same time creating a security system that is brittle where it needs to be supple. ... the TSA's mission is to prevent a catastrophic attack on the transportation system, not to ensure that every single passenger can avoid harm while traveling. Much of the friction in the system today results from rules that are direct responses to how we were attacked on 9/11. But it's simply no longer the case that killing a few people on board a plane could lead to a hijacking. ...The public wants the airport experience to be predictable, hassle-free and airtight and for it to keep us 100% safe. But 100% safety is unattainable. Embracing a bit of risk could reduce the hassle of today's airport experience while making us safer at the same time."
Big crowds are targets (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that it has not happened yet is an indication that airport security measures are not what is keeping terrorist at bay.
Re:Big crowds are targets (Score:5, Funny)
Even terrorists don't want to deal with airports during major holidays.
Re:Big crowds are targets (Score:4, Funny)
It has been tried here in Blighty albeit with mildly comic results ie. a burning terrorist being offered help from a police officer and fighting with him while onlookers screamed to "let him burn!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack
Re:Big crowds are targets (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big crowds are targets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big crowds are targets (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a guy with a metal detector at the airport door, and he gives you an extremely brief patdown. The patdown is similar to "movie-style" patdowns where they just go down your torso on the left and right of your body. It takes about 10 seconds to clear someone. After you are inside, you have to go through the real security which involves cheap metal detectors, profiling, and possibly bomb-sniffing dogs. There is plenty of corruption in the Philippines, but even so, they are probably spending 1/100th of what the US spends on a per person basis.
and you can go overboard on anti-terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, we can learn from other countries that being attacked by terrorists does not mean you have to institute a police state, or go off and start a couple of unnecessary wars. We've spend many times the actual cost of the 9/11 attacks trying to protect ourselves from anything like it happening again. But as TFA implies, nobody's asking if the cost exceeds the benefit. And now we have a monstrous national security apparatus and a military-industrial complex more entrenched and extensive than ever before.
The U.K. had terrorist attacks for years, including the fairly horrendous one in London in 2005. But they haven't gone crazy about it, or at least not as crazy as the U.S. has.
Re:and you can go overboard on anti-terrorism (Score:4, Informative)
Why do you think there are CCTV cameras on every corner in the UK? That was the first response. Then they made the financial area of Londin a car free zone. Something that the Green parties had dreamed of doing but were ignored. Then we have the logging of every telephone call, SMS message, Email and visit to a website. Finally, we have the X-raying of everything including shoes.
Re:and you can go overboard on anti-terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)
When the IRA (HInt: American sponsored) were bombing the UK on a regular basis, we just took it, saying "the risk of dying from eating Scotch eggs beats the risk of an IRA bomb any day!" or, for the oldies "Compared to the Blitz, this is nothing!"
Then the Americans got hit, and it was "OK, lets circle the poodles and waggle our tails".
No one in the UK believes that airline check in procedures are about safety. We all know they are about our politicians pandering to America for reasons we don't understand, but which probably involve bribery and corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever something happens, the usual catch phrase is "We will do a review and look where we can tighten up security". Their fear is looking like idiots if they didn't improve security the first time and the same event happened again.
Former ______ head says we fucked up (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, this is new, how many times have we seen officials make statements about this regarding any of the current 'War on ______' policies? Hey, how about you fix the damn thing before you had 'Former' amended onto your title.
Re:Former ______ head says we fucked up (Score:4, Insightful)
When these people are in their former positions their job is to ensure that budget money keeps coming in, not to actually solve the problems the organizations were created to solve.
Re:Former ______ head says we fucked up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Former ______ head says we fucked up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Former ______ head says we fucked up (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the individual so much as the process. If it were the fault of the individual, then we'd see some cases where the policies got fixed and other cases where the policies don't get fixed. Unfortunately, we see a lot more 'stay the course' simply because we don't have the kind of political environment that accepts new thinking or even modest amounts of 'risk' taking. That's the shame of the whole situation. We want people to bring forward solutions but it can't be solution 'X' because that's unpopular with voters, or solution 'Y' because the other party will crucify us, or solution 'K' because the company that makes the scanners has plants in key congressional districts, etc. So we're going to continue with the current, sub-optimal, likely counter-productive strategy. Make a change to the screening process and a terrorist attack happens, the first thing they'll rake you over the coals for is the change in the screening procedure and how that allowed the attack to happen. In part its the fault of the agency, in part it's the fault of congress, in part its the fault of a hyperactive media that focuses on trivialities and jumps to conclusions. Like you, the whole situation make me sick.
Bought and paid politicians (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
US constitution, and how it was born is a wonderful story you may wish to read sometime. I'm not even american, and I found it fascinating.
"How it was born" is also quite relevant to your question.
Re: (Score:2)
But you're right -- it *is* a fascinating story, and I think if more of my f
Re: (Score:2)
The GP asked about which politicians could we vote for, and you reply by mentioning the Constitution. Is the Constitution seeking office?
Re:Former ______ head says we fucked up (Score:5, Interesting)
I arrived in 2005 with naive notions of wrangling the organization into shape, only to discover the power of the TSA's bureaucratic momentum and political pressures. By the time of my arrival, the agency was focused almost entirely on finding prohibited items. Constant positive reinforcement on finding items like lighters had turned our checkpoint operations into an Easter-egg hunt. When we ran a test, putting dummy bomb components near lighters in bags at checkpoints, officers caught the lighters, not the bomb parts....I wanted to reduce the amount of time that officers spent searching for low-risk objects, but politics intervened at every turn. Lighters were untouchable, having been banned by an act of Congress.
We did succeed in getting some items (small scissors, ice skates) off the list of prohibited items.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he miss the part about him being the fucking BOSS? Jesus. Have some balls.
Re:Former ______ head says we fucked up (Score:4, Informative)
politics intervened at every turn. Lighters were untouchable, having been banned by an act of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Former ______ head says we fucked up (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the bottom line:
Congress and The Bureaucracy.
Happens every time in the US. See, for example, problems with Medicare, the FAA, NASA, FDA, the Forest Service and likely every other agency in the Beltway.
You have politicians with financial oversight, limited intelligence, very limited concentration and the powerful need to get reelected. You have bureaucracies who have really are examples of the undead. You can't kill them, no matter how hard you try. They grow and reproduce no matter how much you try to control it. The only way to grapple with the problem is to cut off their food supply. Since they are symbiotically attached to Congress, whose job it is to control the food supply - that option isn't available unless you're Ron Paul (and batshit insane about pretty much everything else).
The big mistake was creating the DHS in the first place. That was a clusterfuck of the very first order. Once you've created monsters like that there is no turning back. Godzilla is going to trample the countryside.
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's not the boss. Congress is the boss, and Congress is more interested in what sounds good (or bad) in a election commercial than in what does or doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, this is new, how many times have we seen officials make statements about this regarding any of the current 'War on ______' policies?
So we're gonna wise up and stop giving these Peter-Principled bureaucrats power, right?
Ah, nevermind, I wonder who's on Dancing with the Idols tonight.
Don't fix it, abolish it. (Score:5, Informative)
Please get rid of it.
Not only is it expensive, it is total theater.
It's useless and doesn't help anybody or anything but TSA agents and the companies selling cancerous porno x-ray machines.
Re:Don't fix it, abolish it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they did not live in their imaginations? They would not be Americans.
Re: (Score:3)
Living the American dream ...
Re:Don't fix it, abolish it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't fix it, abolish it. (Score:5, Insightful)
In September 2001, more people in the USA died as a result of road accidents than as a result of terrorist action. Imagine what would have happened if all of the money spent on the TSA had been spent on road safety instead...
Before you get in the vehicle, you would have to present government approved ID. Once in the seat, the driver would have to blow into a breathalyzer, give a urine sample for drug analysis and have their EKG examined by a board certified cardiologist before one could start the car. If that was successful, everyone would have to put on their helmets, fireproof jump suit, boot and gloves and then strap into a four point harness.
The car wouldn't start until you went through a computer controlled checklist. All personal electronics would be stored in a locked safe that stays sealed while the car is in motion. Should you be lucky enough to get this far, the vehicle would travel no faster than 35 miles per hour (and none of this kilometers crap) and go no more than 10 miles before you would have to ask permission to go further (which can take more than 24 hours in some cases).
Careful watch you ask for, you just might get it....
Re: (Score:2)
watch, what ...
I'm never posting on that stupid iPad again.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god, tell me about it. The opt-out auto correct drives me bat shit insane! I can't even begin to count how many times it replaced a word for me because I didn't notice or failed to hit the tiny little x button up in the text field before hitting the space bar. Complete madness!
[end rant]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the number I like to mention is the elderly who die because they can't afford their daily meds, or fuel for their heater, or regular meals, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Please get rid of it.
Not only is it expensive, it is total theater.
It's useless and doesn't help anybody or anything but TSA agents and the companies selling cancerous porno x-ray machines.
Actually, *total* theatre is what I experienced in a Greyhound terminal a few years ago. They "beefed up" security following a totally insane and horrific decapitation on a bus.
Everyone lined up around some pillars, geriatric screeners unzipping backpacks to peer inside, not even opening luggage or duffel bags.
And the wanding... oh lord the wanding, which I swear, looked like a Radio Shack coin finder without any batteries, and didn't detect so much as my belt buckle.
The theatre only existed in major termin
Spot on, except for TSA mission (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is the TSA should NOT be the ones preventing a "catastrophic attack on the transportation system". That should be the CIA, even the military!!
The TSA should, at best, be simply a light wall to keep things reasonable as far as who goes on a plane. That is it. Thus if you think about it, the TSA really has NO proper role. Not at the level they are at anyway - security would be better managed by airport managed security.
But you say, what about the centralized no-fly list? Well what about it? Who cares who flies? That list has done WAY more harm to innocent people than it has ever helped. Even if we let someone who truly is a terrorist on, it doesn't matter. Either they fly somewhere, or the try to hijack the plane and get mauled by passengers, or possibly they get something by regional security and blow up a plane. Oh well; we lived under that system just fine for decades.
Re:Spot on, except for TSA mission (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I understand it, TSA is basically an immunity shield for airports, so if something goes wrong, TSA is liable, and not the airport and their security.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Spot on, except for TSA mission (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the TSA was formed, in part, because after 9/11 we found out that many of the airports relied on contractors that were borderline. Little to no training. Enormous turnover. Effectively no ability to arrest or detain people. Subject to pressure from the airlines, etc. So someone had, what was probably a good idea, hire people as full time, highly trained screeners that could server or coordinate with law enforcement. Sure, it might cost a little more in the short run, but less than if people viewed airlines as unsafe and refused to fly. Much like the movie "The Fly" that idea morphed into the mess that we have now. With congressmen saying that "agent" should not be used to refer to a TSA worker because that demeans other law enforcement agents. But let's say, for sake of argument, that the Obama administration tries to do something about it. "He's soft on terror" or "He's making us less safe," or "He's helping the terrorists". Likewise, if Romney wins and his administration tries to do something: "He's in the pocket of the airlines," or "He's making us less safe because it's costing the airlines money." Those are both ridiculous claims, but they will be made.
And yet, nothing differs (Score:3)
because after 9/11 we found out that many of the airports relied on contractors that were borderline. Little to no training. Enormous turnover. Effectively no ability to arrest or detain people. Subject to pressure from the airlines, etc. So someone had, what was probably a good idea, hire people as full time, highly trained screeners that could server or coordinate with law enforcement
It was never a good idea. It was a reaction.
If they had thought through it at all, they would have just left things as the
Point is we don't NEED anything better (Score:3)
I'm not going to argue we didn't get what we needed. What we got was a mutant hybrid that may not be producing no better an outcome than the old system. A lot of people recognized the old system was a large, potential security hole.
Yes, but the thing is that since the new system is also a large potential security hole, we don't NEED anything better. No attack has succeeded from that day exactly because of the two factors I mentioned; you cannot gain control of the plane in a swift attack, and passengers wi
Re: (Score:2)
There
Re: (Score:3)
The TSA as a jobs program is awesome in principle except that we should be paying them to do something useful instead of what they're doing. You know, like patrolling the thousands of miles of fence around airports, driving up and down the tens of thousands of miles of railroad tracks to watch for people planting bombs, installing crossing guards at railroad intersections, staffing suicide prevention hotlines to reduce the number of rail jumpers, screening applicants for visas, driving the border fences to
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're advocating a police state there, buddy. Maybe it's better that they just check our undies.
Hijacking is still possible. (Score:5, Informative)
Weapons have never been necessary to take control of an airliner. They just make it a little easier.
Re:Hijacking is still possible. (Score:5, Insightful)
successfully hijacking an airplane today is very unlikely. Now that is has be established that being hijacked means death in a crash there is not much that can prevent a plane full of passengers scared for their life from killing the hijackers no matter how many weapons they might manage to get on board
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite changes due to 9/11? Cockpit doors and explosive detection. That's it. That's all we needed to "beat" terrorism on that front. Curiously - explosive detection isn't even a priority it seems - but, as the article alludes to, things like lighters are. Go figured.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't see it happening (Score:5, Interesting)
I really do not know what to think of the article's suggestions on liquids. I've read where various chemistry experts essentially say that terrorists cannot construct liquid bombs that will work at all without having to basically use chemistry equipment, ice baths, lengthy mixing sessions that no one could possibly ignore, etc. Yet here the former TSA head insists that there is a very real risk here. Who is right? Does the former TSA head know something that chemistry experts have somehow missed? Or is the former TSA head working on crap information? I sure don't know but that's one question I'd like resolved.
My experience has been that the people who bitch the most about screening are those who travel the least. I'm not saying that there aren't regular travelers who don't complain. Not at all. But in my circle of acquaintances, the people I know who just completely and utterly cannot talk about this subject without getting completely bent out of shape about it simply do not travel by plane. One of them hasn't been on a plane in more than 5 years. He's likely to travel by plane less than 5 more times in his lifetime. The other guy I know actually gets the most worked up about this. He hasn't been on a plane since before 9/11 and he is extremely unlikely to ever travel by plane again in his life, yet this whole subject of TSA screenings is some kind of hot button issue to him.
Re:Don't see it happening (Score:5, Insightful)
This vegetarian kept talking about how bad abattoirs are and the ethics and dangers of intensive meat production, and I was like, "Dude, you don't even eat meat!"
Re: (Score:2)
I've read where various chemistry experts essentially say that terrorists cannot construct liquid bombs that will work at all without having to basically use chemistry equipment, ice baths, lengthy mixing sessions that no one could possibly ignore, etc. Yet here the former TSA head insists that there is a very real risk here. Who is right? Does the former TSA head know something that chemistry experts have somehow missed?
The TSA are gambling on no-one within the US having done enough high-school chemistry to make it through an episode of Breaking Bad.
Any 13-year-old high school chemistry pupil ought to be able to tell you exactly why mixing nail polish remover and hair bleach isn't the same as mixing pure acetone and (reasonably) pure hydrogen peroxide.
Re: (Score:2)
I really do not know what to think of the article's suggestions on liquids. I've read where various chemistry experts essentially say that terrorists cannot construct liquid bombs that will work at all without having to basically use chemistry equipment, ice baths, lengthy mixing sessions that no one could possibly ignore, etc. Yet here the former TSA head insists that there is a very real risk here. Who is right? Does the former TSA head know something that chemistry experts have somehow missed? Or is the former TSA head working on crap information? I sure don't know but that's one question I'd like resolved.
I'll trust a chemist over a manager any day of the week, when the question is "is it or is it not possible to create a liquid explosive on an airliner." YMMV.
My experience has been that the people who bitch the most about screening are those who travel the least. I'm not saying that there aren't regular travelers who don't complain. Not at all. But in my circle of acquaintances, the people I know who just completely and utterly cannot talk about this subject without getting completely bent out of shape about it simply do not travel by plane....yet this whole subject of TSA screenings is some kind of hot button issue to him.
Granted, you said "I'm not saying that there aren't regular travelers who don't complain..." but nevertheless, you are still making it sound like the people complaining are those who have no vested interest. I, on the other hand, flew pretty regularly but stopped traveling shortly after TSA tightened security too much in 11/2010
Re: (Score:2)
the question is "is it or is it not possible to create a liquid explosive on an airliner." YMMV.
Even if it is hypothetically possible to make a bomb out of shaving cream, coca-cola and snow-globes the question is not whether it can be done, but rather, whether or not the BILLIONS spent screening for contact lens solution and baby formula could be better spent elsewhere - The cost spent screening for liquids needs to be considered against the infinitesimally small risk of a liquids bomb.
....and if society
Re: (Score:2)
My experience has been that the people who bitch the most about screening are those who travel the least. I'm not saying that there aren't regular travelers who don't complain. Not at all. But in my circle of acquaintances, the people I know who just completely and utterly cannot talk about this subject without getting completely bent out of shape about it simply do not travel by plane. One of them hasn't been on a plane in more than 5 years. He's likely to travel by plane less than 5 more times in his lifetime. The other guy I know actually gets the most worked up about this. He hasn't been on a plane since before 9/11 and he is extremely unlikely to ever travel by plane again in his life, yet this whole subject of TSA screenings is some kind of hot button issue to him.
I'll tell you my biggest problem, the long (and apparently needless) wait. I'd rather be stripsearched if it means getting through security faster (not that it'll be faster). I'm not that good looking, I don't care who sees me naked.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I somewhat agree with you; but I don't buy the crap answer that 'the west' is AT ALL responsible for the horrible lives most arabs have to lead. they are kept back, kept ignorant and kept aggrivated by their religious leaders and also by their country leaders.
their religion is the failing point. it is not compatible with the modern age and this is 100% of the problem.
blaming 'the west' for poor treatment is a bullshit phone excuse.
but of course, religion is a sacred cow (lol) and so you can't just come ou
Re:alot more realistic solution (Score:4, Insightful)
You added an extraneous "their". Religion is not compatible with the modern age, and it is a huge problem.
Re:alot more realistic solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Extremism is not compatible with the modern age, and it is a huge problem.
Fixed that for you.
Religion and religious people are not the problem. Extremism and extremist people are. While I agree that certain sub-sections of certain religious groups could do with a few lessons in toleration, this is more a symptom of their extremism than it is their religion. Blaming the issue on people worshiping an invisible man in the sky is just as false as the extremists claiming that their invisible man in the sky told them to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that US diplomacy has been problematic, I don't agree that the proper response to a terrorist killing a few thousand people is to meet his demands just to placate him. If that was how justice worked, then we need to start buying yachts for the murderers we've locked up in prison.
Media response (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Says Pundit Gasbag "it is clear that the TSA dropped the ball on this, and as a result, thousands of American lives are at risk every day"
Therein lies the inherent problem: we don't teach, nor do we practice, critical thinking. Consequently, when Pundit Gasbag says such blatantly ridiculous tripe, we don't have the ability to dissect his statement and reject it because it is so obviously false; instead, we take it at face value.
Better qoutes (Score:5, Informative)
it's simply no longer the case that killing a few people on board a plane could lead to a hijacking. Never again will a terrorist be able to breach the cockpit simply with a box cutter or a knife. The cockpit doors have been reinforced, and passengers, flight crews and air marshals would intervene.
I wanted to reduce the amount of time that officers spent searching for low-risk objects, but politics intervened at every turn. Lighters were untouchable, having been banned by an act of Congress. And despite the radically reduced risk that knives and box cutters presented in the post-9/11 world, allowing them back on board was considered too emotionally charged for the American public. We did succeed in getting some items (small scissors, ice skates) off the list of prohibited items.
He has a list of five things he suggests to improve the TSA:
1. No more banned items
2. Allow all liquids
3. Give TSA officers more flexibility and rewards for initiative, and hold them accountable
4. Eliminate baggage fees
5. Randomize security
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome. Now I can carry a napalm canister and a loaded assault rifle when I fly instead of having to ship it by ground freight. That will make travel much more convenient. And a canister of VX, too, just in case I need it when I get where I'm going. And that full can of gasoline for my lawnmower.
I sincerely hope he didn't mean all liquids. There are some things that simply should not be allowed on aircraft, yet if legal, you just know that somebody would be stupid enough to carry them
Re: (Score:3)
I sincerely hope he didn't mean all liquids.
You know, it would be nice if there were a place you could go to check what he actually meant. We could call this hypothetical site something convenient, like, "The article." Yeah, the article. And if there were such a thing, it might HAVE A QUOTE LIKE THIS:
Aside from obvious weapons capable of fast, multiple killings—such as guns, toxins and explosive devices—it is time to end the TSA's use of well-trained security officers as kindergarten teachers to millions of passengers a day. The list of banned items has created an "Easter-egg hunt" mentality at the TSA. Worse, banning certain items gives terrorists a complete list of what not to use in their next attack. Lighters are banned? The next attack will use an electric trigger.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about ammo, though.
I believe ammunition has been banned by airlines for a long time as being too damn dangerous. Even a small likelihood of it going off and making holes in the thin wall of the aircraft hold is judged to be too much.
So buy some once you arrive or have your supplies shipped separately.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, there are weight limits, and it must be in appropriate packaging (original box, etc) and must be declared. I think the ammo and any firearm must be in separate luggage, and I know they both have to be locked and NOT with a TSA lock - you get to use a *real* lock on your stuff!
Re: (Score:3)
You can bring your assault rifle with you. All that they really require is that you put the loaded magazine in a separate container.
I've brought pistols with me plenty of times. Check it at the ticket counter, pick it up at baggage claim. Technically, I'm armed, except for the short duration inside of airports and aircraft.
Shipping a weapon is more difficult. The receiver must have a FFL. The exception to this is that you can ship to yourself, even if it's c/o someone else. For
Re: (Score:2)
Not in carry-on, which is what we're talking about....
Re: (Score:2)
Reinforced Cockpit Doors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
it's simply no longer the case that killing a few people on board a plane could lead to a hijacking. Never again will a terrorist be able to breach the cockpit simply with a box cutter or a knife. The cockpit doors have been reinforced, and passengers, flight crews and air marshals would intervene.
Terrorism won; we sacrificed freedom for safety (Score:5, Insightful)
I said it back in '01 and I'll repeat it now. By giving up our freedom in the name of security, we have allowed the terrorists to prevail. Pursue them. Hunt them down. Deal with those who have harbored them as enemies of the US. But we should never have relinquished a single liberty for the sake of security.
Benjamin Franklin said it best:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
Why does no one believe this when in charge? (Score:2)
It's weird. When they're in charge they never have this opinion or at least never act on it. people from the outside say this and they say we're naive or ill informed. Then when they get out of office they start agreeing with the very people they had previously said were naive.
Wtf?
I can't wait till Eric Holder steps down... he'll suddenly spill the beans on fast and furious and etc (I know, different department but same difference)... anyway...
Food for thought the next time one of these bozos tells everyone
Thinking wrongly is how you get the jobs. (Score:2)
When you see what is actually going on and are unable to do anything you QUIT or you fight back and are asked to resign.
Plus on the outside the perspective is different. Remember when you are an insider you have all these special tools and experts surrounding you; you get information the public will not know about in your lifetime. You make decisions based on stuff nobody else has or knows about-- it is easy to think that everybody outside your tiny elite group is "naive".
Let's give them more money! (Score:5, Interesting)
I say the deserve another billion/yr because, afterall, look at all the terrorism they've stopped just this week! [tsa.gov]
Finding a legally registered, unloaded, gun belonging to a law abiding (if forgetful) citizen does not count as stopping terrorism. Not to mention that all of these objects are things that would easily be caught by standard X-rays. The TSA has NEVER stopped a terrorist. Not one. In the years since 9-11 any terrorist activity was either stopped well before they got to the airport, or they actually got on the plane and the attempt failed. But I guess the TSA needs to brag about something to justify their existence, so they point out all the absent minded people they've detained for forgetting about something dangerous in their bag.
Terrorism is stopped by law enforcement work outside of the airport. If a terrorist plot made it that far without being discovered, you've already failed and you need to move farther up the chain to figure out what went wrong and how it could have been foiled sooner. In terms of value for our dollars, the TSA is a huge waste.
Here are some rough numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
the TSA does not need fixing (Score:2)
It needs to be put to sleep, its a horrid waste of money causing nothing but headache and problems for each and every person traveling in the USA and our gains has been about the same net effect as elephant repellant
Procedures enforced by crooks are useless (Score:2)
maybe used trenchant insights a wee bit earlier (Score:3)
Add Hawley to the list of people for whom wisdom (or the audacity to voice it) came too late in their careers to make any difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that these positions are not the all powerful sorcerer that it sometimes appears? You are expected to toe the company line. You have even more powerful bosses. You've got a corner office and a big budget but you are small fry compared to guys with walnut panel offices and the entire US budget under their thumbs.
What Hawley has done is limit his further employment with these folks. He might do just as well being part of the loyal opposition, but he isn't going to employed by anybody that t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sure, okay.
It was brave. It took guts. I wish he had just a little more bravery and a little more guts and as much oomph as it took when he held his only-a-little-powerful position. Because now he holds a no-powerful position, vis-a-vis the question at hand. People seeing the light only after they've led horrible organizations do not interest me all that much. Unless it's a prelude to leading a bigger, badder organization to undo the damage.
You can't change who you are (Score:4, Insightful)
The crux of the problem, as I learned in my years at the helm, is our wrongheaded approach
Considering the TSA is not even a decade old and is fraught with issues from top to bottom -- we'd do well to pay attention to these indicators and end the TSA. It is a failure that has served no useful purpose other than act as Security Theatre and subject law abiding Americans to indignities. Once a Company or Organization develops a mindset or culture, it is near impossible to change that. It's too late to change the TSA, and it's most likely that the TSA does not want to change.
I agree with what I've read so far... (Score:2)
Thoughts from a frequent flyer... (Score:2)
Greetings.
Frequent flyer here. Moscow and San Francisco are my homes, and I travel for business around 3 out of every 4 weeks (I've been to Novosibirsk, New York City, Kiev, and Paris for at least 3 days each in the last 3 weeks). I deal with airport security screenings several times a week. The only difference I see in the security screenings from the US is that removing your shoes isn't a requirement in most of the rest of the world. I've even ran into the body scanners a few times outside the US. I
I'm listening... (Score:2)
1. No more banned items: not sure about this one. Terrorists don't value any life-even their own. What makes him think only taking a whole airliner out is at stake. I'm betting they'd be willing to give their lives for just a few passengers being knifed to death and the resultant chaos and fear- it is terrorism after all.
2. Allow al
Confirmed Urban Legend: Security theatre (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this tidbit was the most important part. It's the first official confirmation that a lot of what happens in the inspection lanes is pure theatre as many had claimed before:
And despite the radically reduced risk that knives and box cutters presented in the post-9/11 world, allowing them back on board was considered too emotionally charged for the American public.
In case you're all clueless... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a reference:
In September 2006, in response to the new policies limiting the amounts of liquids and gels that passengers could carry on airplanes, Milwaukee resident Ryan Bird wrote "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on a plastic bag given to passengers by airport security for those substances. As a result he claims he was detained and told that the First Amendment did not apply to security checkpoints.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy is not an idiot. Stupidity can be forgiven.
Kip Hawley is a TOOL.
Re:In case you're all clueless... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't Kip Hawley as much as it is Janet Napolitano. She is ineffective as as the head of the DHS. She is reactionary and not a visionary nor a leader. She was horrible as a governor, she is horrible as the head of the DHS. She needs to go somewhere and put her education to use instead of riding on the coattails of others who are also no good at their job.
Re: (Score:3)
I've still got one of those, somewhere. Best TSA checkpoint reaction, when I used it? A smile and a nod.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Kip Hawley is an idiot. n/t (Score:4, Insightful)
I think he deserves some kudos for this. After arguing against Schneier a few weeks ago on The Economoist about how things were peachy, it takes a lot of guts to come out and say "I was wrong, TSA policies suck, and its partly my fault and due to my leadership".
Calling him an idiot doesnt really help, whereas his admission and piece hopefully WILL. Or would you have preferred more bullheadedness and denial from Kip?
Re: (Score:3)
The US tourism is starting to complain, lobbyists are closing their wallets and, someone needs to fall on their sword so that the TSA can change it's direction, from tourist hostile to tourist friendly.
Catch is an the agency has allowed a culture of ego driven superiority where any hint of resistance from uppity foreigners is brutally and sadistically punished. Each and every abuse is published and millions of potential tourist read about and a percentage alter their holiday plans well away from the US,
Re: (Score:2)
they make the security lines longer by having more stuff to check.
Yeah, but even with only one bag it represents a ridiculous amount of screening these days. Yesterday I flew home from the USA - I had FOUR bins scanned at security:
Bin 1: Shoes / Jacket / Liquids in Baggie
Bin 2: Laptop
Bin 3: Tablet
Bin 4: Backpack
Back in the day I'd've just passed my backpack through the x-ray machine and that'd've been it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me get this straight. He seems to get it now, but he didn't do anything to fix it when he had the chance. WTF?
Or did he only realize how !#%!!-up it was until he had to travel as an ordinary citizen?
Pro tip: Read the ENTIRE fucking article. Not just the part that is copied into the summary. He did try. The Forces of Evil (Congress and various Bureaucracies hobbled him). You may not believe that - it certainly is self serving, but it's not the first time this sort of thing has happened and likely won't be the last.