More TSA Mission Creep - Searching Cars Parked at Airports

Art VanDelay said:
<snip>
Click to expand...

Nice emotions.

So, back to the original story.

Yes or no...

Is it acceptable for the TSA to strong arm a private entity into having likely unscreened, unqualified valet parkers root through your car absent your presence looking for explosives?

It's not like we don't have enough TSA caused theft already.

How about forcing Walmart greeters to inspect your trunk while you shop. I bet they'd even find a few weapons there, too.

It's for our own safety, you know.
 
Once you turn every task you might want to perform in daily life, like getting on a commercial flight, driving to the airport, or going into a government building (try the FSDO in ATL for fun) into a security freakshow, you give up any pretense at having a free society where people can move about freely to conduct their personal business.

Can we make life more secure? Of course. We can make everybody sign out to leave their houses every day, and make them accountable for everywhere they have been. That is what government is doing these days, but they are using automation, phone records, email, license plate scanners, etc to make it transparent so it doesn't LOOK like we are living in a giant prison.

Freedom is messy. Let me decide what risks I will take in my daily life and how I will mitigate ones I don't like. Don't appoint some bureaucrat to be my warden and make one size fits all solutions for all of us.

I used to be a Police Officer, BTW, I am not ignorant of public safety and security concerns. But we have gone way past anything that is reasonable in our paranoid pursuit of "the terrorists" or "the drug dealers" to try to achieve some non-existent nirvana of perfect safety in every facet of our lives. The founders of this nation would be appalled.
 
I'm wondering about the above highway patrol analogy, with the hint that we could not do without such a police force, therefore validating the TSA.

How many people are killed on our highways every day...every single day? So we use the abstract argument about how many more would be killed were it not for the highway patrol?

This is pretty much the justification of most all government "services" and their value to the public.

The most devoted of TSA agents could no longer stop a determined terrorist anymore than the highway patrol can stop highway deaths.

It is all theatrics, nothing more than theatrical devices to dupe the taxpayers into paying for more government employees.

What will happen when there are more government employees than Gross National Product contributing taxpayers? What then?

-John
 
The fixation on airports and commercial aircraft by the government is rather silly IMO. How much damage can be done by a hijacker in an airliner with a hardened cockpit? The days of entering the flight deck are past. A bomb in the cargo hold or passenger area could cause it to crash and inflict collateral damage on the ground, but that's about it. Trying to prevent someone from detonating a bomb in the parking lot of an airport is nonsense. Why would a terrorist choose this target over the many softer choices available?

There are much easier targets available if causing death and mayhem is the goal. There are gatherings of thousands of people every day in the US.

But the billions spent on airport security provides a false sense of security that seems important to politicians and bureaucrats...never mind that it makes no sense.
 
Art VanDelay said:
No, just a federal building in Oklahoma City and a Marathon in Boston. You guys are right lets not have any security at all it's just a big waste of time and money. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Boston Marathon bombing is a good example of why we need to draw the line somewhere, because the only way to prevent incidents like that is to secure every location where crowds gather, and the only way to do that is to search EVERYONE in the crowd. And not just that crowd, but EVERY crowd everywhere. Even if that were possible, giving the government that much power is very dangerous. The Germans found that out. Instead of absolute security, they got absolute insecurity.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Go ahead rant and rave all you want about them but just like the highway patrol I for one am not ready to cut the freaking knuckle heads loose unless you guys have something viably better.
Click to expand...

You're ranting and raving too. Notice that the title of the thread is not "Cut the TSA Loose," it's "Mission Creep," as in, the continual expansion of government authority. Keep that up long enough, and we end up with a police state.
 
Cool we are getting rid of the highway patrol
 
mikea said:
Tomorrow's news: The TSA has set up check points on freeways NEAR airport to completely search all trucks passing by.

Beirut, ya know. OKC.
Click to expand...

Apparently you've not been to LAX where they search vehicles entering the airport. Including the rental car buses. TSA, LAPD, ICE, and sometimes others.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
bottomline: leave the security procedures to people who have at least some expertise in security. I haven't met any airline pilots that are also experts in security.

(btw - the DHS/TSA folks I've met at a certain local airport know even less about security than most airline pilots.)
 
Art VanDelay said:
Now here's the part YOU don't know - we find stuff a couple times a month on our aircraft that YOU never hear about. Most recently a bunch of big hunting knives rapped in a towel behind the last row of First Class. Nobody knows how they got there or how long they had been sitting there. There are other examples as well but I'm not going to go into more detail.

Go ahead rant and rave all you want about them but just like the highway patrol I for one am not ready to cut the freaking knuckle heads loose unless you guys have something viably better.
Click to expand...

You just argued that airline employees do a better job and have more skin in the game than a government agency, as evidence they shouldn't be tossed.

Not sure that was your intent but putting security squarely on each airline and rolled into the direct costs of a ticket and insurance, sure seems like the market-based "skin in the game" solution to the problem.

Your comment pretty much proved it.

Why make it a government function at all? That was done as a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. Now that we've all had time to think about it, the airline biz wants to fly people somewhere, the airline biz can pay to secure their aircraft.

Won't happen, since showing the true cost and risks involved versus costs, in the ticket price, would force millions into different forms of transportation.

Would the public put up with a flight consisting of only passengers, and their bags show up later via FedEx? Doubtful. But a cut rate broke ass airline could try it... Jumpsuits for all and no luggage. Enjoy your "highly secure" flight for $59 one-way!
 
denverpilot said:
You just argued that airline employees do a better job and have more skin in the game than a government agency, as evidence they shouldn't be tossed.

Not sure that was your intent but putting security squarely on each airline and rolled into the direct costs of a ticket and insurance, sure seems like the market-based "skin in the game" solution to the problem.

Your comment pretty much proved it.

Why make it a government function at all? That was done as a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. Now that we've all had time to think about it, the airline biz wants to fly people somewhere, the airline biz can pay to secure their aircraft.

Won't happen, since showing the true cost and risks involved versus costs, in the ticket price, would force millions into different forms of transportation.

Would the public put up with a flight consisting of only passengers, and their bags show up later via FedEx? Doubtful. But a cut rate broke ass airline could try it... Jumpsuits for all and no luggage. Enjoy your "highly secure" flight for $59 one-way!
Click to expand...

Because I am VERY familiar with how cheaply the airline would do it if they were in charge of it. Remember, on 9/11/01 the security system that was in place at all the airports in question WAS FAA APPROVED ! Now how comforting is that ?
 
Art VanDelay said:
Because I am VERY familiar with how cheaply the airline would do it if they were in charge of it. Remember, on 9/11/01 the security system that was in place at all the airports in question WAS FAA APPROVED ! Now how comforting is that ?
Click to expand...

9/11 had very little to do with getting through airport security. It was a complete change in how hijackers used an aircraft. Up until them hijackers took over an aircraft, flew to a deserted field, made some demands, them the event played out. This was a total game changer that was more of an intelligence failure than a security failure. I feel sorry for the poor bastard that stands up on a flight today and tries to hijack it. Hardened cockpits, Air Marshals, a hundred ****ed off passengers that assume they will die if they do nothing...
 
N2124v said:
9/11 had very little to do with getting through airport security. It was a complete change in how hijackers used an aircraft. Up until them hijackers took over an aircraft, flew to a deserted field, made some demands, them the event played out. This was a total game changer that was more of an intelligence failure than a security failure. I feel sorry for the poor bastard that stands up on a flight today and tries to hijack it. Hardened cockpits, Air Marshals, a hundred ****ed off passengers that assume they will die if they do nothing...
Click to expand...

And if airlines ran their own security how likely would federal agencies be to be COMPLETELY candid in giving an outside entity timely and accurate intel ? Ask a local cop how forthcoming the Feds AREN'T whenever they run an op in their jurisdiction.
 
Art VanDelay said:
And if airlines ran their own security how likely would federal agencies be to be COMPLETELY candid in giving an outside entity timely and accurate intel ? Ask a local cop how forthcoming the Feds AREN'T whenever they run an op in their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Not worried about them sharing the intel with the airlines. I was making the point that today a hijacking was very impractical. The TSA has become an incredibly bloated, ineffective, and useless bureaucracy with the front line staffed by ignorant, power hungry idiots that accomplish very little other than to make security theatre at airports and infringe on honest people's rights as they travel.
 
Art VanDelay said:
And if airlines ran their own security how likely would federal agencies be to be COMPLETELY candid in giving an outside entity timely and accurate intel ? Ask a local cop how forthcoming the Feds AREN'T whenever they run an op in their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

So airlines shouldn't do it because government is too secretive and doesn't effectively do the job? Not seeing your point here.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Remember, on 9/11/01 the security system that was in place at all the airports in question WAS FAA APPROVED ! Now how comforting is that ?
Click to expand...

Is it supposed to be less comforting than a security system approved by a different govt acronym? I don't think even you know what point you're trying to make...just throwing random thoughts at the wall to see what sticks.
 
N2124v said:
Not worried about them sharing the intel with the airlines. I was making the point that today a hijacking was very impractical. The TSA has become an incredibly bloated, ineffective, and useless bureaucracy with the front line staffed by ignorant, power hungry idiots that accomplish very little other than to make security theatre at airports and infringe on honest people's rights as they travel.
Click to expand...


That's the point of TSA
It's a reminder that your govt will make you walk around barefoot, xray you as they fondle your 9yr old little girl if they want to. Very similiar to one male dog mounting and humping another to express whos who in that yard.

The part that disturbs me is where the average dumbass is so worried of the big bad "terrorist" they will tell their kid "it's ok" as some stranger feels them up... in the name of security, of course...
 
denverpilot said:
So airlines shouldn't do it because government is too secretive and doesn't effectively do the job? Not seeing your point here.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of saying the government couldn't do the job. I like many of you have on occasion been very unhappy with the job they do but I sure as hell don't want it going back to the way it was. I know it's hard to envision but those people were even worse then what we have now. The only reason people might think the pre 9/11 security was better is because they were less in your face but then you can't have it both ways.
 
Art VanDelay said:
I am not aware of saying the government couldn't do the job. I like many of you have on occasion been very unhappy with the job they do but I sure as hell don't want it going back to the way it was. I know it's hard to envision but those people were even worse then what we have now. The only reason people might think the pre 9/11 security was better is because they were less in your face but then you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Not sharing information with those who need it = not doing the job.
 
denverpilot said:
So airlines shouldn't do it because government is too secretive and doesn't effectively do the job? Not seeing your point here.
Click to expand...

denverpilot said:
Not sharing information with those who need it = not doing the job.
Click to expand...

They don't share information amongst other federal agencies - they are even less likely to do so with an outside organization. Hence - better to be at least in the family than completely outside of it.
 
Art VanDelay said:
They don't share information amongst other federal agencies - they are even less likely to do so with an outside organization. Hence - better to be at least in the family than completely outside of it.
Click to expand...

Ahhh. You're inside the Circle of Trust paid for by constituents on giant loans. Got it. ;)
 
Two days ago I flew from Honolulu to Hilo (I know, it's tough all over.) The TSA made me take off my flip-flops.
 
Art VanDelay said:
So anything that's not contained in the Constitution has to go - is that what you're saying ?
Click to expand...

Nope. Just saying your rediculous example didn't fly, and was poorly thought out.

I have no problem with airlines paying for the safety of their passengers instead of everyone. I'll save up the bucks and fly the one that gets it right.

It ain't public transportation, it's private enterprise. Want to partake in something risky, pay up. Just like Disneyland. (Oh wait, they bribed Congress for a TFR. Bad example.)
 
Isn't there some middle ground between disbanding the TSA, and letting them expand without limit?
 
Art VanDelay said:
Because I am VERY familiar with how cheaply the airline would do it if they were in charge of it. Remember, on 9/11/01 the security system that was in place at all the airports in question WAS FAA APPROVED ! Now how comforting is that ?
Click to expand...

And the items the hijackers used were permitted items to carry on board at the time. I would bet that a creative & determined terrywrist could find a flaw in today's security.

Art VanDelay said:
I see, so you probably want to contract out the military as well ?
Click to expand...

You may not realize it, but substantial parts of the military are currently contracted out. Plenty of folks that supplemented the military in Iraq and Afghanistan were contractors (serving in security, combat, intel, and supporting roles). Much of the military training and support functions are contracted out. All the equipment is made by contractors. Logistics and MRO? Contract. Even intelligence functions.

Look up the word "mercenary" and the phrase "contractor combatant".

Fact is, the military is more contracted out than TSA.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Because I am VERY familiar with how cheaply the airline would do it if they were in charge of it. Remember, on 9/11/01 the security system that was in place at all the airports in question WAS FAA APPROVED ! Now how comforting is that ?
Click to expand...

Right, which means the FAA (i.e. the government) screwed the pooch, not the airlines.
 
3393RP said:
Why would a terrorist choose this target over the many softer choices available?

.
Click to expand...

Why..... Because anything to do with a threat to aviation and the associated infrastucture gets more publicity , which in turns spreads the fear which is exactly what they want.
 
Art VanDelay said:
This is my observation on the entire subject - the vast majority of you reject the notion of having someone telling you what to do. And no, I'm not talking about the stupid valet issue either I'm talking about the TSA in general.
Click to expand...

Completely and totally mistaken premise from the first sentence.
 
denverpilot said:
Nope. Just saying your rediculous example didn't fly, and was poorly thought out.

I have no problem with airlines paying for the safety of their passengers instead of everyone. I'll save up the bucks and fly the one that gets it right.

It ain't public transportation, it's private enterprise. Want to partake in something risky, pay up. Just like Disneyland. (Oh wait, they bribed Congress for a TFR. Bad example.)
Click to expand...

And who would you be ok with having certify this security ? What about your local police force as well ? I've never had to call the cops I don't see why I should have pay for them.
 
wsuffa said:
And the items the hijackers used were permitted items to carry on board at the time. I would bet that a creative & determined terrywrist could find a flaw in today's security.



You may not realize it, but substantial parts of the military are currently contracted out. Plenty of folks that supplemented the military in Iraq and Afghanistan were contractors (serving in security, combat, intel, and supporting roles). Much of the military training and support functions are contracted out. All the equipment is made by contractors. Logistics and MRO? Contract. Even intelligence functions.

Look up the word "mercenary" and the phrase "contractor combatant".

Fact is, the military is more contracted out than TSA.
Click to expand...

Twelve years USMC. I am very familiar with contractors and not really a fan of them either.
 
Does anyone honestly think our airports are secure? The fences surrounding any airport could be easily overcome by anyone who was reasonably fit. At GA fields all anyone has to do is wait for a car to drive through the coded gate and simply follow it through.

Most all government security tests are done with ample forewarning so as to not make the agency being tested look foolish.

What would happen if a private citizen decided to test security on his own, then released the results to the media?

He/she/it would, if the breach was successful, and it was publicized, would find themselves in prison under a variety of charges, the primary charge would be for making a government agency look foolish.

I do know this, when I was fresh out of the Army, breaching today's airport security would have been laughably easy.

Our nations airports are no more secure from terrorists than they were before 9/11. They are however, much more secure from most untrained public citizens who might have in the past, wandered on to a tarmac by accident, or inadvertently driven through the wrong gate at an airport.

What we have accomplished for our billions and billions of dollars worth of so called security is made it so that an old confused man or woman can no longer wander through the wrong door.

Anyone who thinks a trained terrorist could not easily breach our security is in some sort of la la land, or is employed by either HLS or TSA.

-John
 
John Baker said:
They are however, much more secure from most untrained public citizens who might have in the past, wandered on to a tarmac by accident, or inadvertently driven through the wrong gate at an airport.

-John
Click to expand...

I think you said it without realizing it. The untrained public *thinks* thing are more secure, therefore the TSA must be doing its job.

I've seen parents of small children and infants say, when asked how they felt about their own kids being TSA groped, "Well, terrorists could use kids to carry a bomb. So this makes me feel safer."
 
John Baker said:
Does anyone honestly think our airports are secure? The fences surrounding any airport could be easily overcome by anyone who was reasonably fit. At GA fields all anyone has to do is wait for a car to drive through the coded gate and simply follow it through.
Click to expand...

Or use a ladder.

Or cut a hole in the fence.

Or use an airplane or an ultralight.

I think we've made some progress in securing airliners, but trying to secure entire airports is a fool's errand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top