Another TSA Success Story

From the news story's account of events, I would say that if the TSA feels the need to physically search young children, then their officers need training in how to deal with them in a non-threatening manner. For example, yelling when a young child is involved is COMPLETELY inappropropriate. I also think Congress needs to pass a law that the TSA must NEVER separate children from the adults they are traveling with.
 
Palmpilot said:
From the news story's account of events, I would say that if the TSA feels the need to physically search young children, then their officers need training in how to deal with them in a non-threatening manner. For example, yelling when a young child is involved is COMPLETELY inappropropriate. I also think Congress needs to pass a law that the TSA must NEVER separate children from the adults they are traveling with.
Click to expand...

Better solution: deep six the terrorist support agency.
 
Palmpilot said:
From the news story's account of events, I would say that if the TSA feels the need to physically search young children, then their officers need training in how to deal with them in a non-threatening manner. For example, yelling when a young child is involved is COMPLETELY inappropropriate. I also think Congress needs to pass a law that the TSA must NEVER separate children from the adults they are traveling with.
Click to expand...

A better solution would be to return control of airport security to the airport and private security companies, thus cutting another huge boondoggle from the public tit and returning sanity to airport security..
 
private security would be required to screen to the same rules as the TSA so i don't see why that would be any better.

The TSA didn't separate the girl from her parents, the parents didn't keep their girl where she belonged.

I've been through Wichita TSA several times and have never had the slightest issue. They have always been fast and courteous to me.
 
I can visualize this. Dad and little girl cleared to the other side. Dad is picking up his stuff off the conveyor belt. The girl running free. Something (Grandma) catches her eye and she's off and running.
Avoid this by Dad holding the child. Problem solved. The conveyor belt junk can wait.
Word to parents... Kids travel QUICK. They can't be replaced. Your lost stuff can.
 
silver-eagle said:
I can visualize this. Dad and little girl cleared to the other side. Dad is picking up his stuff off the conveyor belt. The girl running free. Something (Grandma) catches her eye and she's off and running.
Avoid this by Dad holding the child. Problem solved. The conveyor belt junk can wait.
Word to parents... Kids travel QUICK. They can't be replaced. Your lost stuff can.
Click to expand...



There is just so much chaos that is created, I think it is hard to be critical of the parents. I agree the kid is more important than the stuff, but when your pants are falling down, and you are barefoot, and your wallet, keys, and cell phone are out of sight, it's hard to fault someone for trying to manage all of the chaos, and not doing it perfectly.
 
Last edited:
The really really sad thing is that the TSA is so bad that these threads about TSA abuses are becoming routine and boring, and will soon fall below the bar of newsworthy.
 
I could understand the Fed overseeing security for international flights but not domestic. The airlines should be providing this. They own the airplanes.
 
tonycondon said:
private security would be required to screen to the same rules as the TSA so i don't see why that would be any better.

The TSA didn't separate the girl from her parents, the parents didn't keep their girl where she belonged.

I've been through Wichita TSA several times and have never had the slightest issue. They have always been fast and courteous to me.
Click to expand...

Many ways. Private security firms can fire crappy employees. TSA seems to promote them.
Gov't is handcuffed when it comes to paring down, responding to diminished needs and getting rid of fat. private enterprise does ti to survive - Gov't raises taxes.
Gov't employees are HUGE financial burden on taxpayers because of gov't unions, bloated benefits, top heavy management, and there are no productivity standards.
 
MadseasoN said:
I could understand the Fed overseeing security for international flights but not domestic. The airlines should be providing this. They own the airplanes.
Click to expand...

Wow, watch where you say that. In some circles, right-wing circles, you're a dirty, commie, pinko, fascist, terrist-lovin' simpathizer that should be in jail.

Or so I was told after 9/11, and repeatedly since then.
 
JesseD said:
Wow, watch where you say that. In some circles, right-wing circles, you're a dirty, commie, pinko, fascist, terrist-lovin' simpathizer that should be in jail.

Or so I was told after 9/11, and repeatedly since then.
Click to expand...

That spin-zone assertion is not even wrong. I saw nothing wrong with MadseasoN's statement, and I'd be considered a libertarian by most people.

Rand and Marx are the two most overrated philosophers of the modern age. Friedman and Keynes are the two most overrated economists of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Your signature is annoying because Marx didn't live in the 20th century and his influence on world society began in the 19th century. Furthermore, the writings of all four directly and indirectly influenced the lives of hundreds of millions of people. This is an inescapable historical fact. It does not matter that you think they are overrated, however many times that opinion is repeated ad nauseum.
 
JesseD said:
Wow, watch where you say that. In some circles, right-wing circles, you're a dirty, commie, pinko, fascist, terrist-lovin' simpathizer that should be in jail.

Or so I was told after 9/11, and repeatedly since then.
Click to expand...

:D

It is true though. I mean, there are several industries involving interstate commerce that haven't convinced the Fed that they should provide security for them. It's a sweet deal for them.
 
Jim Logajan said:
That spin-zone assertion is not even wrong. I saw nothing wrong with MadseasoN's statement, and I'd be considered a libertarian by most people.
Click to expand...

Beware mate. You'll be lumped in with all those demoncrats for that kind of thinking. Only America-hating terrist simpathizers that want us to accept defeat talk like that. I don't really believe that garbage, but just look at right-wing blogs or Fox News videos. You'll see a disturbing trend, only when it's politically convenient (read: some "outrage" happens that makes it politically acceptable) do they say bad things. Often, and especially during campaigns, will they trot out the "defending America" sloganeering. Don't yell at me for it, yell at the right-wing echo chamber. They started it in 2001.

Jim Logajan said:
Your signature is annoying because Marx didn't live in the 20th century and his influence on world society began in the 19th century. Furthermore, the writings of all four directly and indirectly influenced the lives of hundreds of millions of people. This is an inescapable historical fact. It does not matter that you think they are overrated, however many times that opinion is repeated ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

Hence modern age and 20th century. I'm describing the relative impacts. I'm actually doing Rand a favor calling her a philosopher, rather than the pedantic zealot she was.

In either case, they are both wrong. One seems to think that the world of unicorns and rainbows comes from everyone being equal. Bzzzt! Human beings (human behavior) won't allow it, as best demonstrated in the real world by Stalin. The same holds true for Rand, except her world of unicorn and rainbows was "going Galt" as people put it today. Still, just as stupid because without a strong government, you get Somalia. A bunch of individuals that kill each other, because fark you, I got mine. Again, basic human behavior.

As far as Friedman and Keynes belong, the world has changed. Sorry to say it, but we've moved beyond the economies those two were familiar with. Their theories are, in the best cases, tangentially relevant. More often than not, however, their theories will fall apart. See: Cutting taxes and no job growth, for 10 years. See: Putting money into the system for neglible effect.

The fact people still cling to Marx or Rand is just a blatant and willful blindness to the basic nature of human beings.

The fact we still hold onto Keynes and Friedman's theories is a result of stubborness. They worked before, so they have to work now is the idea.
 
Florida Cracker said:
Many ways. Private security firms can fire crappy employees. TSA seems to promote them.
Gov't is handcuffed when it comes to paring down, responding to diminished needs and getting rid of fat. private enterprise does ti to survive - Gov't raises taxes.
Gov't employees are HUGE financial burden on taxpayers because of gov't unions, bloated benefits, top heavy management, and there are no productivity standards.
Click to expand...

And other differences too.

Private security companies have no requirement to observe even a modicum of things like the 4th Amendment. They also lack sovreign immunity, so they would need to be even more anal about eliminating any threat that can be conceived of in order to protect themselves from the lawyers that will appear the moment something happens.
 
MadseasoN said:
I could understand the Fed overseeing security for international flights but not domestic. The airlines should be providing this. They own the airplanes.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that every one of the 9/11 flights was domestic.
 
JesseD said:
Wow, watch where you say that. In some circles, right-wing circles, you're a dirty, commie, pinko, fascist, terrist-lovin' simpathizer that should be in jail.

Or so I was told after 9/11, and repeatedly since then.
Click to expand...
Right-wing? Really?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Don't forget that every one of the 9/11 flights was domestic.
Click to expand...
I will gladly take the chance (less than being struck by lightening) that a group of angry men will do stuff if it means keeping my shows, skipping the porno scope, and actually carrying a soda with me. It's about risk management, no elimination.
 
steingar said:
And the presence of the TSA at the time would have likely not changed a thing.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, there is alot less truth in that statement than you think.

And that is because of the way AQ works. You see they like to sit and watch what we do and overtime they find the patterns and then can exploit the weakness. That was how they planned 9/11. But, the fact that the TSA themselves do not have flippin' clue what they are doing means that it is very difficult for a group like AQ to identify a pattern when none exists.

So, in a way, we are slightly safer for having the TSA....but not for the reasons that many people think...
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Believe it or not, there is alot less truth in that statement than you think.

And that is because of the way AQ works. You see they like to sit and watch what we do and overtime they find the patterns and then can exploit the weakness. That was how they planned 9/11. But, the fact that the TSA themselves do not have flippin' clue what they are doing means that it is very difficult for a group like AQ to identify a pattern when none exists.

So, in a way, we are slightly safer for having the TSA....but not for the reasons that many people think...
Click to expand...

I laughed.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Believe it or not, there is alot less truth in that statement than you think.

And that is because of the way AQ works. You see they like to sit and watch what we do and overtime they find the patterns and then can exploit the weakness. That was how they planned 9/11. But, the fact that the TSA themselves do not have flippin' clue what they are doing means that it is very difficult for a group like AQ to identify a pattern when none exists.

So, in a way, we are slightly safer for having the TSA....but not for the reasons that many people think...
Click to expand...

Actually, there is little applicable truth in your statement.

It's true that the Terrorist Support Agency doesn't have a clue, but that doesn't mean there isn't actually a pattern that could be exploited. The Terrorist Support Agency has a pattern of slavishly following process in a futile attempt to look like they are accomplishing something while ignoring actual threats.

In reality, we are less safe for having TSA because of the waste of resources performing security theater.

otoh - the cockpits being physically secured and the change to response to hijacking attempts significantly reduce the vulnerability exploited on 9/11. The Terrorist Support Agency has nothing to do with that.
 
Bob Noel said:
It's true that the Terrorist Support Agency doesn't have a clue, but that doesn't mean there isn't actually a pattern that could be exploited. The Terrorist Support Agency has a pattern of slavishly following process in a futile attempt to look like they are accomplishing something while ignoring actual threats.
Click to expand...

HIPAA, PCI, ISO 27000 series...

You've just described every paid "Security" organization on the planet outside of the small percentage of staff that truly understands how to secure computer networks and data.

The rest follow the above recipes and hope the cookbook stays ahead of the real-world threats. They don't.

But it looks good on paper to politicians and Marketing folks.

It's the old 80/20 rule. 20% of computer professionals know how to secure systems and networks. The other 80% poke holes faster than the 20% can stick fingers in the dyke.
 
TSA does not screw up with everyone they encounter, however, I don't fly commercially due to the horror stories I have heard about the few they do screw up with.

I wonder how many people have been dissuaded from flying big iron due to the stories about the TSA security theater?

-John
 
John Baker said:
TSA does not screw up with everyone they encounter, however, I don't fly commercially due to the horror stories I have heard about the few they do screw up with.

I wonder how many people have been dissuaded from flying big iron due to the stories about the TSA security theater?

-John
Click to expand...
I won't fly commercially unless there is a time issue. Not because of stories; I will NOT be treated like a criminal/suspect without damn good reason, which IMO does not include wishing to travel.
 
MadseasoN said:
I could understand the Fed overseeing security for international flights but not domestic. The airlines should be providing this. They own the airplanes.
Click to expand...

I would not want to go back to the way it was. Being constantly treated poorly by arrogant fastfood rejects posing as security screeners was never my idea of a good time. I've never been treated other than in a courteous and professional manner by the TSA folks. I know there's some high profile incidents that seem to happen occasionally .. but having everyone in a large
organizatiion dealing with the public do it perfect every time is kind of a stretch.
 
RogerT said:
I would not want to go back to the way it was. Being constantly treated poorly by arrogant fastfood rejects posing as security screeners was never my idea of a good time. I've never been treated other than in a courteous and professional manner by the TSA folks. I know there's some high profile incidents that seem to happen occasionally .. but having everyone in a large
organizatiion dealing with the public do it perfect every time is kind of a stretch.
Click to expand...

Do you think the TSA people are any more qualified than previously? They're all fast food rejects. In fact, the level of employee may be WORSE due to it being a government operation now.

The only time I ever was hassled by the TSA was when I was going through security with my flight bag because I was coming back to move the Tiger across the country. Combination of one way ticket, and flight bag made me a criminal until I proved otherwise.

I am an experienced traveller, so know the routine, but many don't, and I see them get hassled from time to time.
 
If I recall correctly, airports do not have to participate in TSA security, they just have to cover the TSA minimum standard process. There are a number of US airports that opt'd out and use private security. I can't say I feel any safer with TSA on the job.
I have not had a bad experience with airport security. I've been pulled aside to have my carry on face extra scrutiny. My travel partner has had a few extra inspections as well. In one case, a bottle of baby powder became an object of contention when TSA complained she couldn't bring the bottle onboard because it was more than 3 oz of liquid. Then there was the spot inspection in England where this woman tore through her carry ons, emptying both her handbag and luggage, then complained she was holding up the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top