
The TSA wants to be everywhere in 2013 - here's why we shouldn't let it - mtgx
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130102105144-332179-the-tsa-wants-to-be-everywhere-in-2013-here-s-why-we-shouldn-t-let-it
======
city41
The broad and vague ruling that enables the TSA to do anything they want in
airports[0] can (and will) be applied to just about any public event. It's
probably just a matter of a few years or so before the TSA is searching us at
virtually all public gatherings. And there isn't a damn thing we can do about
it.

[0]
[http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-...](http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-
the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/)

~~~
sneak
The headline should read "everywhere _in the US_".

Your comment should read "all public gatherings _in the US_".

There is indeed something you can do about it. You can go live in a country
where there is no TSA. (This has the added benefit of your productive energies
no longer helping fund the TSA, as well, for incomes below about $92,000.)

A dozen countries have a similar standard of living as the US, and many of
those are substantially more free.

~~~
amirmc
> _"There is indeed something you can do about it. You can go live in a
> country where there is no TSA"_

In other words, give up?

I find it ludicrous (and terrifying) when statements like this are made. This
isn't some web-app whose terms of service you don't like, it's a _nation
state_. People throughout history took to the streets to win freedom/voting
right/etc. If no-one's left fighting back then expect to get trampled. Soon
there'll be nowhere left to move.

~~~
sneak
> This isn't some web-app whose terms of service you don't like, it's a nation
> state. People throughout history took to the streets to win freedom/voting
> right/etc.

Historically, it was much harder and more expensive to move your entire life
to another country (and maintain your social and economic ties). People were
vastly better off staying put.

Today, that's simply not the case. I moved across an ocean to avoid
participating in the US economy in a positive way (insofar as that is
practically possible being a denizen of the Internet) for under $1500 and all
while maintaining my personal and professional connections to those still
resident there.

Perhaps this antique notion of "taking to the streets to win freedom" was the
appropriate choice, then.

I know for a fact that today it is not only demonstrably ineffective, but also
entirely unnecessary.

~~~
skrebbel
The problem is that after a while you'll notice that every country's
government is partly corrupt and every country has ridiculous laws that, at
some point, are going to affect you.

It might be less bad in Luxembourg than it is in the US, but it is a common
trend that if a small group of countries move their laws and regulations in a
particular direction, other countries with a comparable culture and standard
of living are prone to follow sooner or later.

You can keep fleeing to the next non-sucky country, but in theory, you're
going to run out of countries at some point. Maybe not in your lifetime, so
your solution is practical, but if it becomes widely adopted, I think we're
going to get a problem.

Afaik, there's no indication that countries whose people leave en masse change
their laws, regulations and institutions to try and fix it. Thus, I doubt that
"voting with your feet" like you can do in a market economy works with
countries. Try and find a Macedonian with a university degree in Macedonia,
for example.

~~~
white_devil
> You can keep fleeing to the next non-sucky country, but in theory, you're
> going to run out of countries at some point. Maybe not in your lifetime, so
> your solution is practical, but if it becomes widely adopted, I think we're
> going to get a problem.

Eventually, some countries are likely to decide they want to suck less, or get
changed by revolutions etc, and then you can switch to one of those.

It's complicated, of course. The smaller the ruling elite, the less prosperous
the whole country will be, but the ruling elite itself is just fine with that.

------
pyre

      > and passengers may avoid the search by electing
      > not to fly
    

Tell that to the people that were threatened with fines when they backed out
of the screenings once they got to the front of the line and didn't want to be
groped or subjected to backscatter x-rays... The idea being that once you
entered the line for the security checkpoint, that you were not allowed to
leave.

------
gasull
I'm already thinking it's too late to prevent the US (and most of the Western
World) from becoming an Orwellian dystopia. The US is already more corrupt
than Singapore, a country with no democracy:

<http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results>

So every year we have more corruption, less freedom, more taxes and more IP
trolling.

Can someone convince me that the pendulum is going to swing back?

~~~
saraid216
I doubt it. American cynicism pretty much makes it impossible. If you can't
bring hope to the table, you put a double burden on someone else.

Not sure why you think Singapore is not a democracy, though.

~~~
gasull
> _Not sure why you think Singapore is not a democracy, though._

It's a an "hybrid regime", "partly free":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore#Government_and_polit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore#Government_and_politics)

Maybe that's what the US is too already.

~~~
saraid216
> Maybe that's what the US is too already.

Well, yes. Given that the reason that Singapore scores poorly is due to low
pluralism, low political participation, and a weak press. It's a democracy by
the merits that most people prefer: legislators and executives are elected,
there's a rule of law, etc. It's not a democracy in the same ways the US and
virtually all non-Scandinavian countries aren't: too much authoritarianism,
too little citizen participation, etc. The difference is in degree.

<http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf> (I didn't bother
checking if 2011 would work; I expect Wikipedia would have updated it if it
were upgraded to a flawed democracy.)
[http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-
world/2012/singap...](http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-
world/2012/singapore) [http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-
press/2012/singap...](http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-
press/2012/singapore)

~~~
sneak
Without a free press, elections are meaningless.

~~~
saraid216
That's not actually true.

------
smutticus
How many people here are willing to get arrested?

Because that's what it's going to take to reverse this trend. We need
hundreds/thousands of non-violent protesters politely and professionally
refusing these intrusions and getting arrested for it. Until that happens
these intrusions will continue.

~~~
sneak
None, as the ionizing radiation and sexual assault at airports has clearly and
unambiguously illustrated.

Your notion of vast public dissent is a fantasy.

~~~
polyfractal
I'm not condoning the TSA in any way (I also think it is a deplorable
organization), but as a biologist I feel compelled to state that you receive
vastly more ionizing radiation looking out the window of your plane than you
do in the one of the TSA scanners.

Again, not condoning the invasion of privacy for security theater, but the
"threat" of ionizing radiation is almost always over-stated.

~~~
epoxyhockey
How about with this model scanner?
[http://www.mikrondigital.com/uploads/media/RadPRO_SECURPASS....](http://www.mikrondigital.com/uploads/media/RadPRO_SECURPASS.pdf)

High Penetration Model: (500/y/subject) < 2.0 uSv (0.2 mR) / per scan

~~~
polyfractal
I feel a little silly linking an XKCD image, but it's accurate and relevant:

<http://xkcd.com/radiation/>

An average human receives 10 uSv during an average day from background
radiation, and 40 uSv on a cross-country flight. Living in Denver, CO for a
year will expose you to 1800 uSv.

Some more dosages for various routine living situations and medical procedures
(note, they are in mSv, not uSv):
[http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Rad...](http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html)

~~~
epoxyhockey
I get that and I appreciate the additional info on radiation exposures (I had
not seen the 2nd link you posted before).

I was trying to imply that the argument of "it's not that bad" can quickly
become moot considering that imaging companies have more powerful scanners
standing by for purchase & use. It really becomes a question of how much is
too much? And, for what benefit am I being dosed with an extra amount of
radiation?

Unfortunately, most travelers are unaware that they are even being dosed with
radiation by a scanner. No doubt, the TSA would like to keep that fact hidden.

~~~
polyfractal
Yeah, I agree that it is a slippery slope. The difference between their two
models right now is the difference between someone throwing dust at you, vs
throwing grains of rice. Neither hurt...but it could quickly escalate to
throwing pennies or bricks.

And for basically no value-add, since it's the TSA.

All in all, I think the TSA is awful and would love them gone. At the very
least there should be regulation on the max amount of radiation that is
allowed by a machine (not sure if this exists).

~~~
sneak
They actively prohibit their screeners (that work next to the machines all
day) from wearing dosimeters.

------
ams6110
That the TSA is expanding its scope should surprise nobody. It's what
bureaucracies do. Also it wasn't named the ASA (Airport Security
Administration) it was named something much less specific. Probably won't be
long before they're patrolling interstate highways in stealth-black Dodge
Chargers with officious logos on the sides.

~~~
narag
I wonder what private contractors in Irak will do when their assignment there
is over. IIRC there was many of them. Trained men with real OT experience,
that used to be well-paid...

------
ck2
The only way to stop them is to stop funding them and that requires both
parties to agree. Good luck with that.

Get used to the new TSA overlords. High school dropouts will now be groping
you since it's the only job they will be able to get.

~~~
pyre
Both parties already agree. They agree that de-funding the TSA is political
suicide. Especially if any sort of terrorist attack happens. Even if the
public doesn't attempt to point fingers, political opponents will (during the
next re-election campaign most likely).

------
n3rdy
Every time I hear about the TSA trying to expand to other places such as this,
I can't help but think they are like the Westboro Baptist Church of the
government agencies.. and I believe that's really saying something.

That's right TSA, congratulations on accomplishing the impossible and becoming
more hated than the I.R.S.

If you only would use your power for good and not evil.

------
greenyoda
It would seem that if a sporting event is held on private property (e.g.,
Madison Square Garden), the TSA would need to be invited by the property
owners before it could operate there.

~~~
kelnos
Aren't many airports privately-owned as well?

------
nazgulnarsil
Newly created government institution uses resources to secure expansion of
power, reach, number of employees, news at 11.

------
WettowelReactor
A very small percentage of Americans ever enter an airport. If the TSA
presence expands beyond that their tactics will be felt by a far greater
percentage of voting americans. It may be that expanding beyond airports will
be very detrimental to the TSA's longevity.

------
nacker
Mother, should I trust the government?

<http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=45633>

------
colbyaley
After an event I was at was targeted to be blown up,
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Portland_car_bomb_plot>) I have changed my
views on anti-terrorist teams at events and mass-gatherings.

I do find it silly, however, that these teams are supposedly a devision of the
"Transit Security Administration".

~~~
ta234234

        targeted to be blown up
    

Mainly by the FBI, based on that wikipedia article.

FBI: Hey, do you want to blow something up?

Terrorist: OK

FBI: Here's a bomb, go blow something up.

Terrorist: OK

[click]

FBI: You're under arrest!

Sure, the guy committed a crime, but was I wouldn't say the event was
"targeted to be blown up". It was a sting operation. A small probability
threat was amplified by the FBI for the purpose of making a case. Does that
justify TSA goons everywhere? The same ones that won't let you bring your
bottle of Coke on an airplane?

Governments love to use "larger than life" enemies to justify a
disproportionate invasion of liberty. It used to be Communists, now it's
Terrorists.

~~~
anigbrowl
When you read the actual indictments and court transcripts in cases like this,
the would-be terrorists turn out to be nothing like the passive actor you
hypothesize here, but rather display a fair degree of initiative; they have
typically come to the FBI's attention because people around them are alarmed
by their aspirations and report them to law enforcement.

There are tough legal questions about where the borderline between
facilitation and encouragement lies. But someone who willingly goes through
the steps required t detonate what they believe to be a fully armed truck bomb
is not a mere innocent victim. The correct answer to 'Hey, do you want to blow
something up?' is 'No, because that would be crazy and horrible.'

~~~
smutticus
Google for 'operation flex' if you want to see how the FBI uses your tax
dollars to fight terrorism.

~~~
anigbrowl
I think that's a faulty generalization. Since I read criminal indictments for
fun I'm quite familiar with the FBI's methods. Please don't take this to mean
I think they're always ethical, legal, or effective.

