Darrell Issa: Privatize Airport Security

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/opinions/privatize-the-tsa-darrell-issa/index.html

The idea of privatizing airport security isn't a new one. Look no further than Canada and almost every single European country, which all use private airport screeners. The U.S. did, too -- before we decided to nationalize airport security in the wake of 9/11. Certainly quick action was called for then, but our government-run screening program hasn't lived up to the level of service or security we had hoped for.

And it was horrible before. Maybe we should actually fund it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm confused... have planes been used as weapons since TSA was established? Granted, the lack of an attack can't be used as definitive proof that TSA has worked at stopping attacks, however, the lack of attacks at least requires one to step back from saying TSA hasn't lived up to its purpose. Do we need TSA? I'm not certain. What I am certain, however, is I don't trust Issa to be the one to make the call. Though, I'm not certain who I would trust.

One of the other things to keep in mind, the mindset is what allowed 9/11 to occur. The US wasn't expecting terrorists to go down with the plane. The protocol at the time was to not load baggage until the terror suspect was on the plane... ie... they thought he wouldn't blow up a plane with himself on it. And while we had intelligence to suggest they were looking at using planes as weapons, this didn't get filtered to the FAA and the airports and security in large part because the George W. Bush Administration didn't think terrorism was a threat (rogue nations were though!), despite pleas from Richard Clarke. Therefore, 9/11 was allowed to take advantage of the security protocol.

 

[Deepak]

A better measure than whether anyone has weaponized planes is to perhaps look at some of the 'secret shopper' testing that's been conducted and compare that to similar metrics historically (if the data is available) as well as against data from other countries. I know that US agents have been able to slip quite a bit of contraband through TSA checkpoints, but I don't have a way of comparing that to past security measures. And I'll concur that Issa's word isn't sufficient for me.

In either case I think that there should be an international exchange of best practices which weigh the potential benefits of specific security measures against the efficiency and costs to implement (both from a $ to implement metric as well as a time investment by travelers)

 

[bilby]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/opinions/privatize-the-tsa-darrell-issa/index.html

The idea of privatizing airport security isn't a new one. Look no further than Canada and almost every single European country, which all use private airport screeners. The U.S. did, too -- before we decided to nationalize airport security in the wake of 9/11. Certainly quick action was called for then, but our government-run screening program hasn't lived up to the level of service or security we had hoped for.

And it was horrible before. Maybe we should actually fund it?

It is far from clear that quick action was required in the wake of 9/11; A slightly slower but more considered and reasoned response would have been far better.

Nationalized vs Privatized is a total irrelevance in this case - what matters is that whatever system is used balances the risk of terrorist attack against the total cost of whatever screening is done - including the opportunity costs of making every passenger arrive at the airport earlier to line up at the checkpoints, the lost travel due to people choosing not to endure the security checks, etc; and the cost in lives of people choosing to drive when they could have flown, due to either not wanting the inconvenience of being screened, or to heightened fear of terrorism caused by highly visible screening procedures.

Given the very low frequency of attempted terrorism using aircraft boarded in the US in the last 25 years - including the 9/11 attacks - I strongly suspect that the heightened security screening, terror alert levels, and other public awareness raising of terrorism since 9/11, as though it were a serious and immediate threat to the general public, has actually caused more deaths than it has prevented.

Changing our way of life one iota as a result of terrorism is a bad idea. The actual changes that have been made are a VERY bad idea. People need to eat some cement, and harden the fuck up - being scared of terrorists is bloody stupid. Let the FBI and the other security forces do their jobs, and catch the fuckers before they try to do anything. And let the public go about their business unmolested.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/opinions/privatize-the-tsa-darrell-issa/index.html



And it was horrible before. Maybe we should actually fund it?

It is far from clear that quick action was required in the wake of 9/11; A slightly slower but more considered and reasoned response would have been far better.

Nationalized vs Privatized is a total irrelevance in this case

Umm... this is America... it does matter. In America, you don't like how the Government does something, just wait until the private sector gives it a go.

what matters is that whatever system is used balances the risk of terrorist attack against the total cost of whatever screening is done - including the opportunity costs of making every passenger arrive at the airport earlier to line up at the checkpoints, the lost travel due to people choosing not to endure the security checks, etc; and the cost in lives of people choosing to drive when they could have flown, due to either not wanting the inconvenience of being screened, or to heightened fear of terrorism caused by highly visible screening procedures.

Given the very low frequency of attempted terrorism using aircraft boarded in the US in the last 25 years - including the 9/11 attacks - I strongly suspect that the heightened security screening, terror alert levels, and other public awareness raising of terrorism since 9/11, as though it were a serious and immediate threat to the general public, has actually caused more deaths than it has prevented.

Changing our way of life one iota as a result of terrorism is a bad idea. The actual changes that have been made are a VERY bad idea. People need to eat some cement, and harden the fuck up - being scared of terrorists is bloody stupid. Let the FBI and the other security forces do their jobs, and catch the fuckers before they try to do anything. And let the public go about their business unmolested.

Here is the thing, I ponder just how much America would approve of removing TSA entirely and going back to the original setup, except keeping the exclusion of knives, liquids, etc... Would people feel "safe"?

As far as TSA goes, the problem with delays is in large part due to the Republicans going off and spending the TSA ticket fee to "pay down the deficit".

 

[dismal]

Well, if Canada has private airport security we're pretty much screwed once the terrorists figure out the wall between the US and Canada isn't tall enough to keep a plane out anyway.

You're only as strong as the weakest link.

 

[untermensche]

And it was horrible before. Maybe we should actually fund it?

That's the playbook every time. You under fund it to make it look inefficient so you can privatize it with no better service, except lower paid workers, which means lower skilled workers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, if Canada has private airport security we're pretty much screwed once the terrorists figure out the wall between the US and Canada isn't tall enough to keep a plane out anyway.

You're only as strong as the weakest link.

Yeah, but like I said, this is America, where corporations operate differently... or more appropriately, indifferently to humans.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And it was horrible before. Maybe we should actually fund it?

That's the playbook every time. You under fund it to make it look inefficient so you can privatize it with no better service, except lower paid workers, which means lower skilled workers.

Yeah, the whole, privatized is better mantra gets tired. It works in many areas of the economy, but it isn't applicable everywhere. TSA workers are already underpaid. Privatizing will make them even lower paid, which means more turn around and fewer people that have been doing the job for so long. There are few efficiencies to be found in airport security, other than reducing it.

I find it amazing that the Government can create a tax with a very specific collection and purpose (airport security) and then shift that money elsewhere in the budget. I shouldn't be amazed, but was pretty incredible seeing the Republicans are allegedly the security party.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The TSA because they are a buerararcy has no incentive to actually get you through the line quicker. Their incentive is actually to make the line go slower and then complain about being understaffed.

It's actually a good thing we don't have many terrorists because the lines they create would actually be a better target than the planes they are getting on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The TSA because they are a buerararcy has no incentive to actually get you through the line quicker. Their incentive is actually to make the line go slower and then complain about being understaffed.

Sure.

It's actually a good thing we don't have many terrorists because the lines they create would actually be a better target than the planes they are getting on.

Well, that is spin for you.

 

[dismal]

Well, if Canada has private airport security we're pretty much screwed once the terrorists figure out the wall between the US and Canada isn't tall enough to keep a plane out anyway.

You're only as strong as the weakest link.

Yeah, but like I said, this is America, where corporations operate differently... or more appropriately, indifferently to humans.

Really? Private company deniers think Canadian companies are completely trustworthy? I've been here like 10 years and this is the first time I've heard a Canadian mailing address cures corporate evilness. Quite a loophole.

If I didn't know better I would think that's the sort of pathetically absurd and ridiculous position someone would argue on the internet in an attempt to salvage a slightly less ridiculous position.

But assuming that's true, as long as only Canadian airlines and security firms operate in Canada we should be fine.

oops, it looks like we're totally screwed:

http://www.catsa.gc.ca/screening-officer-positions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_destinations

The terrorists win.

 

[untermensche]

The TSA because they are a buerararcy has no incentive to actually get you through the line quicker. Their incentive is actually to make the line go slower and then complain about being understaffed.

It's actually a good thing we don't have many terrorists because the lines they create would actually be a better target than the planes they are getting on.

A private company is a bureaucracy.

But it's incentive is profit.

To give you as little as possible for as much as possible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, but like I said, this is America, where corporations operate differently... or more appropriately, indifferently to humans.

Really? Private company deniers think Canadian companies are completely trustworthy?

Not quite. But it is definitely better, or at least the oversight is..

 

[coloradoatheist]

Sure.

It's actually a good thing we don't have many terrorists because the lines they create would actually be a better target than the planes they are getting on.

Well, that is spin for you.

What incentive does the TSA have for getting you through the line efficiently?

- - - Updated - - -

The TSA because they are a buerararcy has no incentive to actually get you through the line quicker. Their incentive is actually to make the line go slower and then complain about being understaffed.

It's actually a good thing we don't have many terrorists because the lines they create would actually be a better target than the planes they are getting on.

A private company is a bureaucracy.

But it's incentive is profit.

To give you as little as possible for as much as possible.

Where's Willy Wonka when you need him to say reverse that?

 

[untermensche]

Sure.

Well, that is spin for you.

What incentive does the TSA have for getting you through the line efficiently?

There is the constant push from the airlines to make things as efficient as possible for their customers.

There is no incentive to slow anything down. It will not lessen the workload.

 

[untermensche]

A private company is a bureaucracy.

But it's incentive is profit.

To give you as little as possible for as much as possible.

Where's Willy Wonka when you need him to say reverse that?

You may want a system where there is incentive to give as little as possible when it comes to airport safety but you can't sell that to anybody.

So you label something a bureaucracy and then argue to replace it with a less accountable bureaucracy.

Your position is lunacy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

What incentive does the TSA have for getting you through the line efficiently?

There is the constant push from the airlines to make things as efficient as possible for their customers.

There is no incentive to slow anything down. It will not lessen the workload.

Because they actually have to listen to customers unlike the TSA which guys customers the middle finger. A lot of money is spent on a problem that very rarely happens.

- - - Updated - - -

Where's Willy Wonka when you need him to say reverse that?

You may want a system where there is incentive to give as little as possible when it comes to airport safety but you can't sell that to anybody.

So you label something a bureaucracy and then argue to replace it with a less accountable bureaucracy.

Your position is lunacy.

If United becomes in charge of their security and United plane blows up there is accountability. There is no accountability for the TSA.

 

[untermensche]

Because they actually have to listen to customers unlike the TSA which guys customers the middle finger. A lot of money is spent on a problem that very rarely happens.

Always the same fallacy. The rare exception somehow makes the rule.

You may want a system where there is incentive to give as little as possible when it comes to airport safety but you can't sell that to anybody.

So you label something a bureaucracy and then argue to replace it with a less accountable bureaucracy.

Your position is lunacy.

If United becomes in charge of their security and United plane blows up there is accountability. There is no accountability for the TSA.

How is TSA not held accountable for planes blowing up?

What are you talking about?

What drugs are you on?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Always the same fallacy. The rare exception somehow makes the rule.

You may want a system where there is incentive to give as little as possible when it comes to airport safety but you can't sell that to anybody.

So you label something a bureaucracy and then argue to replace it with a less accountable bureaucracy.

Your position is lunacy.

If United becomes in charge of their security and United plane blows up there is accountability. There is no accountability for the TSA.

How is TSA not held accountable for planes blowing up?

What are you talking about?

What drugs are you on?

So right now. If people thought the TSA was taking too much time to screen passengers, what oculd people do to change that behavior?