
The TSA is a waste of money that doesn't save lives and might actually cost them - paulpauper
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11687014/tsa-against-airport-security
======
two2two
TSA is the number one reason why I don't fly and drive instead. From my POV
most of the world's industries have progressed positively, but not air travel.
I took a train a couple of years ago and it was a beautiful example of old
merging with new. Walking through an antique of a train station, iPhone in
hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant.

At that point I realized that air travel is by far the worst traveling
experience money can pay for.

If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly
at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s., I'd happily take
the "at your own risk" option rather than the TSA controlled situation we're
subjected to currently.

~~~
cloudjacker
I arrive at the airport in a Lyft.

I walk up to the security checkpoint checkpoint, where I show the agent my
phone. They see my boarding pass with the green checkmark and send me to the
empty TSA Pre line.

I walk through the metal detector with no adjustments to my attire.

I am at the gate in 5 minutes.

I like how trains basically let you show up last minute, and a 3 hour train
ride actually means a 3 hour train ride, compared to airport, checkpoints and
boarding time, possibly waiting on the runway, and air time.

But you really just need to upgrade your travel accommodations to make your
airport experience more seamless.

~~~
Amorymeltzer
>I arrive at the airport in a Lyft.

That costs money. Many people take the train or a shuttle or lean on a friend.

>I walk up to the security checkpoint checkpoint, where I show the agent my
phone. They see my boarding pass with the green checkmark and send me to the
empty TSA Pre line. I walk through the metal detector with no adjustments to
my attire.

You paid for that TSA PreCheck privilege which, while not in the grand scheme
a large amount, is technically something.

It's also beside the point. TSA PreCheck is the result of a careful plan:

1\. Make everyone undergo an intrusive, invasive, and time-consuming process
that provides little to no additional security.

2\. Allow people to pay for the privilege of not going through that procedure.

3\. Profit!

I don't do PreCheck because buying your rights is not something we should be
able or have to do. It's a perversion that leaves us happy to pay for
something that was commonplace until 9/10/01.

~~~
dragontamer
> 3\. Profit!

The Department of Homeland Security (of which the TSA is a part of) has a
budget and its priorities are set in Congress. There is no "profit" motive
here.

The US is throwing money at this problem, and money that only creates
inconveniences for us.

~~~
alanwatts
The 2nd US Secretary of Homeland Security and co-author of the Patriot Act is
the founder of a lobbying front for the the manufacturers of the body
scanners.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff)

~~~
alanwatts
Apologies to all for posting this 5 times. Each time I hit reply it was giving
me an error.

------
mdorazio
In my opinion, the TSA is basically a very expensive jobs program rather than
an actual security organization. This is a big part of why it's going to be
hard to get rid of now. According to Wikipedia, the TSA employs over 55,000
people, many of whom would probably have difficulty getting a similar level
job if we reverted to a more sane security screening program. Anything that
kills thousands of government jobs is hard to get through Congress, even if
it's unpopular with the public.

~~~
acconrad
So is HN turning into a copy/paste of Reddit comment threads now?

[https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/4jr1td/the_tsa_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/4jr1td/the_tsa_is_a_waste_of_money_that_doesnt_save/d39146b)

~~~
forgottenpass
So we're judging ideas on their novelty rather than applicability now?
Something that appears on reedit can't be good enough for HN?

------
Domenic_S
The TSA is a jobs program with a bit of "throw government contracts to your
buddies" mixed in. Same with the military to an extent.

A TSA Screener job is about the closest we'll get to Basic Income: stand
around in an airport occasionally groping people for $13-18/hr, plus awesome
Federal benefits. Qualifications: essentially none.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The TSA is a jobs program with a bit of "throw government contracts to your
> buddies" mixed in.

The TSA is not a jobs program, especially for screening, etc.; those jobs
directly replaced private sector jobs. The function was nationalized to move
potential liability from the airlines (who contracted with the organizations
operating airports, who contracted with private security firms) when they
complained about the potential liability for security failure in the immediate
aftermath of 9/11.

~~~
Domenic_S
I didn't read the sources in depth, but it looks like the TSA is bigger than
the jobs it replaced:

> _TSA is a major part of DHS, having a workforce of about 62,000 people. TSA
> became a large organization very quickly after 2001, when it replaced 16,500
> private airport screeners with more than 40,000 federal screeners._

[http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/homeland-
security/tsa](http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/homeland-security/tsa)

~~~
dragonwriter
Sure, but the increased security requirements and the nationalization in the
TSA were two different things that were done together; the former could have
been done separately -- permanently increased security requirements were
adopted after the hijacking sprees of the 1960s and 1970s, and again -- along
with some additional temporary measures that were later lifted -- at the
beginning of the 1990s justified by perceived threat from Iraq in the run-up
to and during the 1991 Iraq War; those were politically likely to be done
after a major successful terrorist attack in the US _whether or not_ the
functional was nationalized. And, as the ones which went previously, it would
have created more security jobs.

The nationalization of the function in the TSA, though, had nothing to do with
jobs, and everything to do with liability.

------
rm_-rf_slash
I live in a small city with a small airport. One day, while waiting for my
departure plane to arrive, TSA kicked everyone out of the secure gate and back
into the insecure terminal, because the plane would not arrive for another
half hour and they didn't want to keep watching us in a room with barely 50
seats. Then we had to go through security again once every single passenger
had arrived.

The point is that security is fear-motivated. 99% doesn't matter if it isn't
100%, even if logic and probability puts that 1% insecurity in a .001% chance
of actually happening. So if you let the 1% slip through and something
happens, well, who wants to take the blame?

And now we have this mess.

~~~
kyleblarson
Was this Wenatchee?

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Ithaca

------
ndirish1842
I wonder how autonomous driving will affect shorter flight commutes. I'll
probably never take a car from Philadelphia to LA, but I might prefer to
travel by car from Philadelphia to Chicago if I know that I can sleep
throughout the car ride (as well as leave whenever is most convenient). When
you take into account driving to the airport, checking bags, security, flight
delays, baggage claim, and rental cars/driving to your hotel, a 12 hour drive
doesn't look nearly as bad, especially when you could leave at 10 PM and wake
up at 10 AM arriving at your destination. And it's way less stress compared to
the hassle of TSA and flights.

~~~
capote
I wonder why so many people immediately jump to thinking about a car as an
alternative to short distance air travel. Would people in the US never even
consider a fast train system as a good option between Philadelphia and
Chicago? (If it were built, of course. But self-driving cars need to be built
too. But I guess they're easier; I'm just dreaming)

~~~
mjevans
Likely because the TSA issue is something they expect to see infecting the
train transport system if it existed and that the car is figuratively and
literally a symbol of freedom and the ability to escape the rules of others in
the American culture. (Source: I live here.)

~~~
capote
Interesting. To me the car is the least free method of transport. I feel like
I'm in jail. There are thousands of rules, stay between the lines, listen to
all the signs, careful to not hit children, it's so much more stressful than
smoking a joint, sitting in a train and reading a book (my preferred way to
get around).

~~~
unprepare
>careful to not hit children

What are the rules on trains?

------
rhino369
It's easy to say that TSA sucks (it does), but it's hard to propose a workable
alternative. Well alternative 1, stop making us take off our shoes and taking
out our laptops, its clear from pre-check that it's not really necessary.

You need some security. That was clear before 9-11. Airports had security and
it was pretty similar to how TSA does it right now. You put your bags on an
Xray machine, show your ID, and walk through a metal detector.

I'd suggest keeping the government in charge of what procedures to use, but
then using private contracts to actually manage the airport security.

The real problem with TSA isn't that it is intrusive. It's that is terrible
mismanaged and has no incentive to improve the experience.

Although apparently airports can opt out of the TSA.

~~~
avn2109
All those problems you mention are real, but they're not the main problem. The
real problem with the TSA is that it's explicitly unconstitutional, since the
4th amendment _explicitly prohibits_ search and seizure without a warrant.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

This does not at all describe the operation of the TSA's search and seizure.
Notably, the statute's language makes no allowance for implicit consent based
on location or attempting to use some private transportation system. A
sensible compromise is to privatize airline security, since the constitution
does not prohibit Delta employees from searching and seizing without a
warrant.

~~~
schoen
> In _Davis_ and its progeny, we have established a general reasonableness
> test for airport screenings. “An airport screening search is reasonable if:
> (1) it is no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current
> technology, to detect weapons or explosives; (2) it is confined in good
> faith to that purpose; and (3) passengers may avoid the search by electing
> not to fly.” _Torbet_ , 298 F.3d at 1089 (citation omitted); see also
> _Davis_ , 482 F.2d at 913; _Pulido-Baquerizo_ , 800 F.2d at 901. ( _U.S. v.
> Marquez_ , 9th Cir. 2005)

You definitely don't have to agree with the correctness of this line of cases;
you should just be aware that the courts have looked at the question and have
a theory they've been pursuing for about four decades about why totally
suspicionless searches are "reasonable" and hence constitutional in this
context. A tricky thing about the fourth amendment text is that it talks about
what the requirements are to get a warrant, but doesn't explicitly say whether
searches without a warrant are exactly the same as "unreasonable" searches.
Courts have interpreted this for a long time to suggest that some kinds of
searches without a warrant are nonetheless "reasonable", although _Davis_ was
a pretty enormous expansion; I wouldn't be surprised if searches pursuant to
it are an absolute majority of all the searches performed by the government!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Exceptions_to_the_warrant_requirement)

~~~
avn2109
These precedents are interesting, thanks for bringing them up.

This gives me an idea for a constituency that might have standing to challenge
Davis: Active-duty members of the military flying commercial, on orders, to
remote locations accessible solely by air, who explicitly cannot "...avoid the
search by electing not to fly" by orders of the same government that is
searching them.

------
jonnathanson
The article is exactly right about what needs to be done, and who needs to do
it: the airports themselves. No chance _any_ elected official is going to
scale back the TSA's screening creep at this point.

The political risks of looking "soft on terrorism" are just too high. Imagine
being a politician responsible for a TSA rollback, and then, by dumb luck, a
terrorist attack succeeds a short while later. There may be zero correlation,
but do you think the media will care? Do you think the public will care? Do
you think your political opposition will care? Ha. Your career would be over
in a heartbeat. And if your opponents really felt like twisting the knife,
they might drum up hearings and lawsuits against you. So call me cynical, but
I just don't see any lawmaker or policy wonk sticking his or her neck out
anytime soon.

This is why it's in the hands of airports to push for any particular change.
They're not running for office.

~~~
fluxquanta
>This is why it's in the hands of airports to push for any particular change.
They're not running for office.

They rely on federal funding for new infrastructure, which brings more air
traffic, which brings more gate fees, which results in more money for those
running the airport.

~~~
jonnathanson
Totally fair, but any threat of fund withholding there is far less direct.

It also seems unlikely. If the feds withhold infrastructural funding out of
spite for X, Y, or Z airports, they will cause a _lot_ of collateral economic
damage. Commercial airline passengers are just one of the many types of
traffic that airports service every day. There's also stuff like FedEx, UPS,
DHL, and all of the companies who rely on them for shipping, fulfillment, and
logistics. That rabbit hole runs deep.

------
suprgeek
The article completely misses the point of the TSA. It is not meant to
actually make air travel safer. It is there for exactly two reasons:

1) Provide our dear politicians the satisfaction that they "Did something" \-
Security theater is very useful during election times (Tough on Crime et al)

2)Provide a convenient excuse to expand the govt. ability to dictate yet
another aspect of people's normal lives. The govt. now has another tool to
harass "undesirables" \- simply put their name on a "No fly", "No Train" , "No
$SomeOtherThing" list and have their TSA buddies enforce it. Or have the
"undesirables" be pulled aside for Random screenings every single time [1].

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/citizenfour-
filmm...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/citizenfour-filmmaker-
after-six-years-of-border-searches-sues-for-more-info/)

This is the real purpose of the TSA. Your safety or saving lives is
irrelevant.

~~~
chrismcb
Technically the TSA is there to protect the nation's transportation system.
I've complained to my representatives and I'm told it is there to make us
safe. Sure they may be there to APPEAR to make us safe, and there maybe
ulterior motives. But you still have to attack the reason they claim

------
sehutson
What's crazy is that the article doesn't even mention the effective lost lives
in the sheer number of hours people waste by getting to the airport so early.

If you assume 75 years x 365 days x 24 hours, that's 657,000 hours in a fairly
typical life. Millions of travelers waiting an hour or more each = a lot of
"lives" wasted standing in line.

------
pmontra
> Airports should kick out the TSA

I'm not American and haven't been there for a long time so forgive my
ignorance. TSA is an agency of DHS so I believed that its presence in airports
was mandated by the government. Can airports really replace it with anybody
they like? If this is the case, why they didn't do it before? Only because TSA
is for free and airports have to pay private security companies?

~~~
saryant
Airports can replace the TSA with private contracts. SFO farmed security out
to a company called Covenant. They still have to follow TSA policies and
aren't necessarily an improvement from a passenger standpoint. I.e., you're
still getting yelled at by otherwise-unemployable nitwits on a power trip.

~~~
jasonjei
I've actually found the SFO private contractors to be fantastic. I once left
my laptop at the security scanner, and they shipped it to me next day (at my
expense) where I urgently needed my laptop the following day--it was boxed and
packaged nicely and sent to FedEx for me for free. I just had to send them a
PDF label. They simply verified serial number. They had a great lost and found
tracking system and called me "customer."

The other time I brought some Chinese takeout that had a lot of liquid in it.
The scanner said for future reference try to order drier dishes (I brought a
papaya with soup embedded in the cavity), but she was going to look the other
way and winked at me and told me to enjoy dinner.

Never had to wait long either (but I have TSA Precheck) and don't recall being
barked at... I did have to wait quite a bit in the official TSA Precheck line
in EWR though (those were DHS employees) and dealt with a slew of surly
employees...

~~~
mindslight
So you were forcibly separated from your laptop, yet are thankful that you
_only_ had to pay for overnight shipping to get it back?

Stockholm syndrome indeed.

~~~
jasonjei
If we are going to have to have TSA, I'd rather have the private contractors
run it than the TSA. No Stockholm syndrome; just thought they offered a better
experience for the same thing than the TSA.

------
mwsherman
In terms of $$, by far the biggest cost is in the wasted time of the millions
of people who are subjected to this. It's obviously in the billions.

~~~
jandrese
I saw in a different thread some back of the napkin math that he number of
people-hours wasted by the TSA adds up to something like 500 lifetimes each
year.

Terrorists would seriously have to step up their game to kill more than 500
people each year in the US, especially with passengers no longer operating
under the "hijack just means a free trip to Cuba" assumption and actually
fighting back.

------
zer00eyz
In the world we live in there is one surefire way to get rid of the TSA: Stop
flying.

Sad to say but money is a big motivator, and until the airlines get the
message that we don't want to deal with this shit, they aren't going to really
push for actual change.

~~~
capote
I don't understand your point about money. Airline costs are the lowest
they've ever been, and like the other comment said, from business/first
revenue airlines are making plenty of money.

I also don't really see a reason to stop flying. There's nothing wrong with
flying itself--if we simply fix the issue with the TSA it'll be as good as it
ever was. And it looks like it finally might change, based on what people are
saying and articles like these.

~~~
zer00eyz
Think of it this way:

I pledge not to fly again unless there is a medical or family reason to do so,
until the TSA is no longer at the airports I need to use.

No more vacations, no more business trips... that pledge (if made by enough
people) would hit airlines in their pocketbook rather quickly, and the TSA
would be show the exit.

------
bogomipz
SEATAC in Seattle and the Port Authority in New and New Jersey have threatened
to privatize TSA duties as well. The question is can they? What's to stop
them? Why is it taking so long?

How was this agency not looking at actually travel data that they failed to
hire more staff as the number of air travelers increased? This was over a two
year period. The idiot in charge of the TSA said they anticipated more people
would sign up for TSA prescreen. At some point in the last two years they
couldn't see that this trend wasn't transpiring?

This same idiot said they he was asking congress for more money for overtime
for TSA employees. Great, make the same miserable people work even longer
hours. That sounds like a great solution.

He also made a statement to the effect that their "mandate is to keep America
safe' yet he seems to not grasp that if we can't get on the plane it doesn't
much matter.

They also seem to blame part of the increased wait on the tragedy in Belgium
but do you mean to tell me that not one person in this agency could see that
the departure halls's were a huge a blind spot?

I imagine that lawmakers in Washington don't have to wait in the long lines
like the rest of us? That's generally how the broken stuff in the US stays
broken b/c lawmakers aren't exposed to it. This is true of healthcare as well.
Congress has indemnity health plans which is why they have no idea how bad it
is for the rest of us.

~~~
rdtsc
I think recently the lines go longer and the efficiency went down on purpose,
to show proof that they need more funding.

"Media: Look the line is 2 hours long at the airports"

"TSA: That's right, we are so very overworked, we need more funding".

"Uncle Sam: here is more money for TSA"

"TSA: Thanks"

~~~
bogomipz
That wouldn't surprise me, lets hope that this is the final straw and we a
mass privatizing of of security in airports as a result.

You would expect that an agency tasked with the security of citizens might be
a data-driven organization so the fact that this current shortage of staff
while there's an increase in the flying population is just inexcusable.

------
makecheck
It is so frustrating to see a lot of the “solutions” being proposed by the
administration: wanting to hire _more_ screeners, blaming passengers for
bringing too many pesky bottles of water and pocket knives, etc. They are
missing the obvious solution that should be at the top of the list, right in
front of their faces: we must REMOVE “safeguards” to speed things up.

The probability that a bottle of water _or anything that looks like water_
will cause an airline disaster is effectively ZERO. It is not a risk, and not
even slightly concerning, period. This is _not_ worth checking even _once_ ,
even at random, much less millions of times a day.

And pocket knives? They SERVE FOOD WITH KNIVES on planes. They literally
_give_ you a knife in first class. If it was someone’s goal to obtain a knife
on board, they would not need to bring it through security. And frankly, one
could argue that knives are the opposite of risky: a few passengers with
knives to defend themselves may very well be able to prevent a handful of
hijackers from doing anything. Either way, I am strongly on the side of “teach
people to band together and defend themselves”, not “cower and be fearful of
everything”.

And don’t even get me started on having to take off shoes. It is frankly sad
that we have been so fixated on ONE piece of clothing, for years and years and
years, as a reaction to ONE passenger out of millions who couldn’t even carry
out his “threat” successfully.

Besides, the entire concept of “prohibited items” does not eliminate risk.
There are human beings who are powerful enough and skilled enough to cause
serious damage or death all by themselves. They don’t need “prohibited items”,
they simply _are_ deadly. A group of passengers that knows how to band
together and fight back can subdue anyone, even a passenger that is deadly all
by himself.

------
carsongross
The TSA is obviously a complete clusterfuck, but it is offering us an
important lesson:

Despite everyone hating it, including Big Business, it persists and will
likely continue to exist until the U.S. Government collapses. It is nearly
impossible to ratchet back a government program dedicated to "security", among
other sacred words.

Look at the solutions being offered: add more workers, more bomb dogs, etc.

The system cannot fix itself. Perhaps the system does not want to fix itself.

~~~
joering2
> The system cannot fix itself. Perhaps the system does not want to fix
> itself.

Absolutely! The horrible truth is that there is nothing to fix when you make
hundreds of millions of dollars off of scared public. If you don't believe me,
ask Chertoff.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff#Body_scanners](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff#Body_scanners)

[http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-so-
excited...](http://gawker.com/5437499/why-is-michael-chertoff-so-excited-
about-full-body-scanners)

------
patrickmay
Airports should replace the TSA with security companies that use El Al's
techniques: [https://skift.com/2013/11/15/tsas-behavioral-detection-
techn...](https://skift.com/2013/11/15/tsas-behavioral-detection-techniques-
are-worthless-says-former-el-al-security-director/)

~~~
notahacker
Racial profiling (with "threat level" stickers!) and intrusive questions which
become really extended and aggressive if they don't like the way you're
answering?

Think the USA sounds more appealing, and I'm a white, obviously non-Muslim
Brit.

------
awinter-py
Love that they're quoting bruce schneier in defense. I think he was just being
fair-minded because he doesn't want to appear smug. This is a guy who walked
through the screening with a 'beer belly' (beer smuggling device for stadiums)
full of gasoline and then blogged about it.

------
Friedduck
I've had TSA agents look through my wallet, and on a separate flight look
through playing cards one by one. I was also let through with no screening
once by accident.

I've seen them yell at passengers, drift off, sit around talking with long
lines waiting, and every other conceivable offense. Most are fine but there
are a lot of exceptions.

They contribute nothing, and I for one fly less frequently because of them.

As to pre-check: at Atlanta that doesn't always get you a short line or fast
security wait time.

------
truehearted47
I also have stopped flying altogether due to invasion of privacy and feeling
like cattle PLUS now that there are long lines, the chance of tempers flaring
is real. Just witness the violence and hatred in the streets of America these
days and watch how the police are unable to control riots...YES RIOTS...we no
longer have protesters...protests are now riots. Airport crowding combined
with invasion of privacy, impatience & anger = disaster waiting to happen. TSA
is the terrorist here.

------
Mendenhall
In my personal experience what slows it all down the most is the actual people
flying. Every time I fly I see countless people wearing tons of
metal/jewelry/belts/whatever that they have to take off, often not till they
are told to do so, the laptap is tucked far away until last moment. They still
carry all sorts of lotions and liquids on for some unknown reason. When they
then exit the scan they clog up the line by standing right there trying to put
everything back on or away.

~~~
logfromblammo
Don't blame the victims. You might as well say it's their fault because they
didn't memorize the Gettysburg Address prior to arriving at the airport. What
does reciting the Gettysburg Address have to do with airline security? About
as much as making someone take out their nose and navel rings in the security
line, and confiscating their hand lotion.

~~~
Mendenhall
Oh I think the TSA is in inefficient and somewhat laughable, but I don't
consider someone a victim who is not prepared to get on a plane and wastes
everyone time. I consider that just rude. If someone gets their lotion
confiscated, I consider them part of the problem that slows everyone down.

Edit to include I also think the TSA is making things slower on "purpose" but
that's a whole other topic.

~~~
logfromblammo
Prepared to get on a plane is, in my view, to be dressed appropriately for a
public venue, carrying an appropriate size and quantity of hand-carried
baggage, with a paid ticket, complete travel itinerary, and valid airline
boarding pass.

It is not the traveler's concern whether the TSA finds it more burdensome to
screen someone wearing polished, straight-laced oxfords than someone wearing
slipshod flip-flops. The _traveler_ is not wasting _anybody 's_ time. The TSA
that cannot process an unprepared, ignorant, yet cooperative traveler as
quickly or as easily as a million-mile air travel expert is actually the party
wasting _everybody 's_ time.

Imagine for a moment that someone sets out to _intentionally_ slow down the
screening queue. Whose fault is it if he is easily able to do so? The people
that established the operating procedures for the screening are responsible.
On a highway, the slow car is passed, using a different lane. On a computer,
the processor hog may be interrupted so that other processes and threads may
still execute. Unfortunately, as you suspect, the TSA has a motive for keeping
the lines slow. Slow lines may lead to bigger budgets, as they complain about
being "resource constrained".

Perhaps you are making it more convenient for yourself by transferring your
irritation to those who are not able to retaliate against your visible
annoyance, by abusing their authority to perform additional unnecessary
screenings the instant you reach the head of the queue? Stop blaming the
victims!

~~~
Mendenhall
Both are responsible because they both took actions that caused delays,and I
was not speaking of any bias the TSA have when taking people out of line etc
and doing things also that may increase lag.

I have no irritation with passengers wasting everyones time in line, I expect
many people to be inconsiderate of others, that is human nature. I also note
how many pass the blame onto others instead of realizing there are things they
can do to help their fellow passengers, but they don't, to me it says a lot
about that person.

I place blame of the slowdown on anything that causes the slowdown, including
inconsiderate people and inept TSA policy and people.

------
bluetidepro
How do we get rid of it, though? I get that it's terrible, and I've heard all
these arguments countless times. How do you actually take action, though?

~~~
lisper
Find a politician who promises to get rid of the TSA and vote for them. And
encourage everyone you know to vote for them. And write checks.

------
ccvannorman
The difference between the US and other countries is not that we're stupider.
It's that the slightly smarter/more powerful people are much better at
manipulating the stupidity of masses, and much more greedy, than other
countries. That's why we leveraged fear and pushed hard so that you have to
bend over for the TSA every flight.

My question is, what does the US look like without the TSA, and can we ever
get there?

------
pgrote
I have long looked for an answer outside of security theater as to why the ban
on liquids continues. If anyone has an answer, I'd appreciate hearing it.

If you go through a screening line and a liquid is found, the liquid is not
tested. It is not handled carefully. It is not thoroughly inspected. It is
tossed in the closest garbage can.

If the liquid really did pose a danger, wouldn't it be handled more carefully?

~~~
michaelkeenan
I think the (ostensible) reason is similar to this, from the link:

> As security expert Bruce Schneier likes to note, such screenings don't have
> to be perfect; they just have to be good enough to make terrorists change
> their plans: "No terrorist is going to base his plot on getting a gun
> through airport security if there's a decent chance of getting caught,
> because the consequences of getting caught are too great."

That is, the act of confiscating the liquids almost ensures that the liquids
are already harmless. But if they didn't confiscate the liquid, it
(supposedly) might not be harmless. It's a bit like Newcomb's Paradox:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox)

~~~
chrismcb
Except that... it wouldn't really make anyone change their plans... at least
not drastically.

How much liquids do you need for a decent explosives? A few liters, 10 liters?
20? So get 10 or 20 of your followers to bring it in.

------
zipwitch
Those who say that the TSA is just a jobs program are missing the point. The
TSA is a constant reminder of government presence and the security state, it's
effectiveness at security or a jobs program is a minor concern compared to its
value as a symbol. And of course, its growing, spreading its presence to
highways, rail, and other forms of public transit.

------
descript
Air travel should be the same as motor vehicle travel. The only reason there
aren't small air taxi companies that offer regional trips for affordable
prices is because government has been involved in airplanes since day 1, and
it is illegal for private pilots to charge.

------
evo_9
TSA Precheck: [http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-sign-up-for-tsa-
preche...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-sign-up-for-tsa-
precheck-2015-7?op=1)

------
aaroninsf
IAMA request: an honest to god TSA screener. Not an imbedded pinko
journalist... someone who actually signed on.

------
reacweb
TSA is not a very important issue, but politicians love to discuss about this
kind of issues where they can show their talent without hurting their
sponsors. It is a good way to distract public from the more important issues
(economy, unemployment, privacy, ...).

------
rconti
I hate security, though I hate the discomfort of air travel even more. In
fact, I just got back to the US from Europe, and the cold that struck 12h
after I left lasted 7-10 days (and I rarely get sick!)

That said, am I the only one who doesn't have these long security waits? I
typically show up at the airport ~1h before boarding is to begin, and am often
at my gate 50min before boarding begins.

I typically fly out of SFO, and I do admit, several journeys ago, I was
actually IN LINE at security for 30 minutes which seemed absurdly painful and
I was actually starting to sweat being late for boarding. Of course, at SFO
they had TONS of extra machinery, they just didn't bother staffing it.

As much as I HATE taking off my watch, fitbit, ring, car keys, wallet, belt,
shoes, phone, then the scramble to take my laptop out of my bag as soon as I
get room on the table (it becomes a high pressure situation to do the laptop
thing as by the time you get to the table you have roughly 8 seconds before
you're holding people up!).. the actual lines are quite tolerable.

I typically fly SFO, SEA, SAN, SJC, and fly cross country at least once or
twice a year. I just got back from Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Munich
airports, and again, no problems. I've fairly recently been to Auckland,
Queenstown, Reykjavik, Heathrow, Florence, Paris as well.

There's no doubt most other countries do a better job than the US; the
automated machinery for dealing with your possessions to be xrayed (they hold
your bin until it's empty and then automatically return it to the beginning of
the line!) and the switching between 10-15 security lines so that you're never
behind more than a few people was a revelation.

But the actual time in security is rarely all that bad inside or outside the
US.

~~~
chrismcb
You've gotten lucky. Recently I got to the airport early (unusual for me) a 2
hour wait in line later, we missed our flight (by about 15 minutes) As we were
getting placed on the next flight the agent said lately 2 hours wasn't long
enough. I flew out of the same airport about a month later, and an hour
earlier in the day and had no issues. Doesn't mean there isn't an issue with
TSA. Why should we have to wait at all? Why should we be treated like
criminals?

