
TSA's Head of Security 'Removed' from Office - js2
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/23/479242102/tsas-head-of-security-removed-from-office-says-house-panel
======
ianhawes
One of the most irritating aspects of the TSA inefficiencies is that they
_know_ the demand at each airport in advance. Because all airlines submit
passenger information to the TSA as its booked (often months or weeks in
advance), the TSA can shift resources.

While I'm all for blaming the TSA, the head of the TSA's union was on NPR this
morning and pointed out that Congress diverted funds collected from the "9/11
Tax" (per-ticket fixed fee used to fund TSA) to other parts of the government
budget. The union is requesting emergency funding for 8,000 additional TSOs,
which would only bring it back to 2011 staffing levels.

There are quite a few other issues at play as well. The TSA has the highest
turnover rate of any government agency. This is, in large part, due to the
fact that they're mostly part-time and underpaid. Their public image isn't
respected either.

I do think we should replace/get rid of the TSA, but the neo-conservative
method of government excision where you cut off the cash flow and wait for
everyone to get pissed off ("starve the beast") is incredibly unpopular. But
thats exactly whats happening.

~~~
tptacek
Just a nit: The management technique you're talking about is called
"attrition". I think it's ideologically neutral. Either way: "starve the
beast" isn't a neocon position; Grover Norquist isn't a neoconservative.

Neoconservatism is primarily about activist foreign policy, something that
sets them apart from traditional conservatism, where isolationism is a more
prominent strain of thought.

~~~
mapgrep
This is not a small thing: Starve the beast is emphatically a right-wing
tactic, and well known one at that. To call it ideologically neutral w/r/t
government is blatantly wrong.

Whether it's technically neoconservative or not is a red herring.
(Neoconservative being just one subset of the overall conservative movement.)

~~~
tptacek
Starve-the-beast is certainly a conservative strategy! RIF through attrition,
though, is a general management technique.

"Starve the beast" refers to cutting government revenue to force tougher
decisions about which departments to reduce or eliminate.

I agree, like I said, it's just a nit.

~~~
mapgrep
Fair distinction!

------
btilly
Can we just get rid of the TSA?

Current estimates are that hundreds of people die each year in car accidents
because they chose to drive rather than deal with TSA lines. This means that
every few years the TSA manages to inflict more casualties than 9/11 did. In
addition to inconvenience, economic inefficiency, and a demonstrably
ineffective screening process that weapons can easily get through. (As many
have shown.)

Security theater is a dangerously bad idea no matter how you look at it. Can
we do something saner?

~~~
marze
This is naive. Why would you assume the same number of successful attacks on
air travel would occur without the security?

You can't argue that the current system hasn't done well, it has performed
fantastically, based on the number of successful attacks within the US.

That said, they need a lot more screeners, and to be much more polite. And get
rid of incompetent management.

~~~
basseq
How many attacks were _stopped_ by the TSA? Directly: 0. Hell, they're 0/2 on
known attempts (the Shoe Bomber in 2001 and Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in
2009), both thwarted instead by passengers and crew.

Indirectly? (E.g., how many attacks weren't planned _because_ of the TSA that
would have been planned and executed otherwise?) Very hard to say. Have law
enforcement officials seen an uptick in other terror channels that would
indicate terrorist plots are avoiding air travel?

Are any would-be terrorists abandoning their terror plans _altogether_ because
of the TSA? Surely not. So all the TSA is doing is shifting attacks from air
travel to other channels. That's a net zero.

And finally, _at what cost_?

~~~
drdeca
Shifting attacks from one method to another is not necessarily useless. If
what would have been the most effective method is reduced in its
effectiveness, and as a result, another less effective method becomes the most
effective one, and the used one, that reduces the effectiveness of attacks.

That wording was convoluted.

What I mean is,

if they would have done plane attacks because of plane attacks working best
for them, then making plane attacks not work as well, and therefore making
them shift to something else, means that whatever they are doing for attacks
wouldn't work as well for attacks as the plane attacks would have, which is a
benefit.

That's not to say that the TSA is beneficial, or that it does really reduce
the effectiveness of adversaries.

I'm just saying that, assuming that it is true that adversaries shift their
attacks from air travel to other methods as a result of the TSA , that would
suggest that adversaries are restricted by the TSA , and made somewhat less
effective (assuming that adversaries weren't overestimating the effectiveness
of air travel attacks originally).

~~~
basseq
Fair point.

I think we're both struggling with how to _quantify_ the value of _deterrence_
, and how to model (mentally or otherwise) things like "effectiveness
shifting". It's hard! But I think we're notoriously bad as human being and a
populace at having real conversations about cost-benefit analysis.

------
anonymousDan
The airport security in most of the American airports I've seen in the last
few years is just a complete shambles in terms of efficiency. It takes forever
in comparison to most of the busy European airports I've been through. And I
doubt the security is any better. For example, London Gatwick has a really
fast system where they have a set of packing bays before you get to the
scanners/pat downs. This massively reduces delays caused by someone in the
queue ahead of you faffing around putting their stuff into trays. It's like
no-one is even bothering to think about that kind of stuff in American
airports. Or maybe it's just for international travellers?

~~~
ts330
the key here is that more than one person is filling their tray at a time. so
if one person is taking their time, other people can jump past them. obviously
it helps to have motivated and efficient operators, but in my experience, it's
almost always some dithering idiot that holds things up. as as we all know,
serial processing of a queue is not efficient when you end up waiting on IO :)

~~~
mr_spothawk
I fly frequently through a limited set of airports.

I rarely see the millimeter scanner at less than max throughput.

That said I regularly do what I can to slow things down, and sometimes take
the pat down in favor of hassling the staff.

Attrition is damned right. The TSA scam is awful, and I hope we can get rid of
it soon.

~~~
CWuestefeld
My personal experience is just the opposite. I always see the nudie scanners
languishing for 30 seconds or more between people. The delay seems to be the
baggage x-ray.

If that's true, then some other things fit neatly into place. The airline
escalation of baggage check fees has driven people to carrying more stuff.
That, in turn, means that more stuff needs to go through the x-ray conveyor,
which slows down that process.

~~~
logfromblammo
To be fair, some people were only carrying more things because they didn't
want their stuff stolen out of their checked baggage, or for it to be
otherwise lost in transit.

Stealing stuff right out of the security checkpoint ought to make those folks
think twice, right?

~~~
alistairSH
I made the switch to carry-on only last year for all my travel. Too much
waiting around at baggage claim, too much risk of luggage being lost
(especially with transfers), etc. Checked baggage fees weren't the motivator,
as most carriers allow one piece for free and I've never needed more than
that.

With cameras, laptops, and other expensive items, I have to carry on at least
one bag regardless. Now, it's one or two bags (roller luggage, plus laptop
case, usually).

------
rocky1138
The danger of the TSA is that the employees truly believe they are doing good
and important work. The brainwashing is so strong that it almost reaches a
religious level.

~~~
ceejayoz
I flew through Charlotte a few weeks ago and got stuck at TSA (the sniffer
threw up a bright red "EXPLOSIVES DETECTED!" banner, upon which the other
passengers at the checkpoint started giving me dirty looks and edging away...
Thanks for that, TSA. You'd think it'd say something like "ERROR 5930"
instead...).

There were hundreds of people at the checkpoint, TSA was moving very slowly.
Someone else's laptop got flagged, they asked why, and the TSA staffer said
"the molecular weight of the laptop was off". She (rightly) said that didn't
make sense, complained that they'd made her miss her flight, and said "I work
for the government, we're on the same side, but WTF?".

Response to her was "don't you want to be safe?" followed by a good five
minutes of the entire TSA staff mocking her after she'd gone. They mocked her
for saying she worked for the government, saying "if she worked for the
government she'd know that already" (ignoring for a moment that their
explanation was massively _incorrect_ , why would a non-TSA staffer know
anything about the spectrophotometer workings?) etc.

Meanwhile, when they get tested, they miss 95% of test weapons/bombs.
[http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-
breaches-u...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-
airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851)

------
KKKKkkkk1
I've been to the DMV yesterday. You wait in line for 40 minutes in the sun
just to get a number and then wait some more. Once you get a number, you're
counted in the official wait time statistics published on their website, so
the extra 40 minutes are shaved off for free. Who ever though it was going to
be different when the TSA was created?

~~~
chrisper
In CA you can make an appointment. I made one and was in and out in 20
minutes.

~~~
vitd
This is stupid. The last time I was at the CA DMV, I made an appointment ahead
of time, only to have to take a number when I got there. What was the point of
making the appointment if I still have to take a number? WTF? I sat there
waiting for 20 minutes, despite having a set appointment time. That's not
helpful.

~~~
chrisper
They have a separate number/letter for appointments. For example, if you are
there for DL issues without an appointment you get letter G and have to wait
hours. If you have an appointment then you get letter B and you wait 20
minutes. How is waiting 20 minutes bad?

------
appleflaxen
The most galling aspect is the $90,000 bonus, broken up into $10,000
increments to escape scrutiny.

Who is running the TSA circus?

~~~
jkot
I find this ridiculous. TSA employs 55k people and has budged $8B. Sure its
director should be pay reasonably.

At the same time Yahoo CEO gets over $150M and people applaud it.

I get private versus public organization difference, but TSA is bigger than
Yahoo.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Reasonable pay is fine, but why would he receive a bonus when the organization
is not performing well? Furthermore, why would that bonus be paid explicitly
in a surreptitious way?

------
rbcgerard
The most ridiculous thing is that you'd think it was surprise when these
people show up at the airport - it's not as if all these people had bought
tickets days in advance with a time that indicated when they were going to
show up

------
Shivetya
Lets be honest, every damn supervisor and management position within the TSA
airport security apparatus should be on those lines until its fixed.

Got to love the stories where the TSA backdoor lobbies the Congress to prevent
reform.

------
smoyer
I predict that security problems will be solved at airports once they fire the
rest of the TSA.

------
blisterpeanuts
Let's close down the TSA instead. Use intelligent profiling and random
searches instead of universal scanning. Let anyone go to the gates, not just
ticket holders. Allow liquids, yogurt containers, etc. Allow knives. Allow
people to "congregate" near the front lavatory.

Try it for one year and I can almost guarantee, flights will be every bit as
secure. Security theatre is not security.

~~~
marcus_holmes
has the TSA stopped a single credible plot since it started doing all this
theatre?

~~~
blisterpeanuts
They boast of all the knives and guns they've confiscated. I wonder though,
whether we'd not be more secure if _everyone_ carried guns on board. A
hijacker wouldn't stand a chance. Of course, there might also be some bloody
air rage incidents as well. But at the same time, maybe people would act more
civil if everyone around them is packing, or at least the flight
attendants....

~~~
jimcsharp
Maybe this is the movies I've watched, but isn't firing a gun structurally
dangerous to the airplane?

~~~
frostburg
Not structurally, but you might hit something important.

~~~
dajohnson89
What about the issue of depressurizing the cabin?

~~~
zyxley
That's not a structural issue.

------
ryan606
Security has been privatized at a few airports, like San Francisco and Kansas
City. How does security screening effectiveness, efficiency, and cost compare
at those two airports relative to all other TSA-operated US airport security?
I haven't seen any side by side comparisons -- does anyone know if any
reputable journalists or researchers have tried to compare?

~~~
jessaustin
Comparisons with the Kansas City airport will probably mislead. It has a very
different architecture than most other airports: it's _aggressively_ anti-hub.
That is to say, although it nominally has three terminals, each of those
effectively has four or five _separate_ secured areas.

This actually works fairly well for trips starting or ending in Kansas City,
not least because it means that no security wait will reach the ridiculous
lengths you see in many other airports. It also means that screening personnel
have to operate 15 different security lines rather than two or three. That may
be why TSA left?

------
snarfy
Congress cut the TSA budget 15% at the same time there is a 15% increase in
traffic.

Sure, blame 'that guy'.

~~~
coldpie
Good start! Only 85% to go!

~~~
ttraub
Eliminate the TSA and give the $8B to Nasa. A much better investment.

~~~
dimino
The TSA provides value, security theater has its place.

~~~
zentiggr
Keep the sheeple thinking that something is being done while providing low
wage jobs for what is being promoted as critical safety personnel? Orwell
would just look at this, shrug and say "I was trying to say..."

~~~
dimino
You've lost when you start saying words like "sheeple" and "Orwell" in these
conversations, you realize that right?

~~~
PeCaN
I took zentiggr's comment to be sarcastic with a hint of truth. I don't think
his choice to use "sheeple"¹ or bring up Orwell detracts from his point.

¹ And let's be realistic, anyone who thinks the TSA actually improves security
is basically just listening to what the TSA itself says. As mentioned in this
thread, the TSA 1) hasn't stopped known terrorist attacks and 2) isn't hard to
sneak weapons past. Blindly listening to the TSA saying they're important for
security is, well, sheeplish.

~~~
dimino
How is calling me "sheeplish" helpful for this conversation?

The goal of the TSA is to create security theater, and _that_ goal is
effective at preventing terrorists from even attempting to attack airports.
It's _difficult_ to prove this, of course, because how does one measure a
terror cell's internal and secretive planning?

You don't get to collect data on the targets terrorists don't attack, because
they... well, they don't attack them! It's intellectually dishonest to claim
1), because of this.

As for 2), this is absolutely true, but why do you think the TSA's goal is to
be functionally effective? It'd be nice, obviously, but like I said in my
original comment, there is value in security theater.

The head of the FBI once said that there's simply no stopping a terrorist once
he has his weapon on premises. The point of the TSA is to provide a false
front line for terrorists to misidentify as the significant hurdle in
executing an attack, and they do that successfully. The reality is, the
world's police catch terrorists before they act, the vast majority of the
time.

It'd be great if the TSA were effective, and it's via shitty management that
they're not, this is unmistakable. But the mere presence of the TSA at US
airports is an effective misdirection, because it provides what people call
"security theater", and while most folks consider security theater useless,
they're wrong. It has value.

------
relevant_thing
~850 million US-based passenger * flights per year

~15 minutes in TSA waiting per passenger per flight

~80 years in a life

850,000,000 passengers per year * 15 minutes = 12,750,000,000 minutes of
passenger time per year ≈ 24,241 years of passenger time per year

24,241 years of passenger time per year / 80 years per life ≈ 303 passenger
lives per year.

The TSA effectively kills ~300 people per year just by wasting our time.

------
bingeboy
Same thing happened to me with a video camera.

------
TDL
Tea Party conservatives are not necessarily neo-cons.

~~~
jtuente
Wasn't the Tea Party movement started because of their disgust with neo-cons?

~~~
MrMullen
No, it was started because a Black Guy got into the White House. Don't fool
yourself, the Tea Party is simply a racist reaction to non-White person being
in the White House. Budget wise, Bush was much worse than Obama and there was
no Tea Party telling him not to invade Iraq and blow 2 trillion dollars on
pointless wars. The Tea Party only came about when Obama took office.

~~~
TDL
This is absolutely false. The Tea Party coalesced after the bank bailouts.

~~~
MrMullen
Really?

[http://www.britannica.com/topic/Tea-Party-
movement](http://www.britannica.com/topic/Tea-Party-movement)

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

There might have been some reactions to the Bush Bailouts, but what is the Tea
Party does not come into being until Obama is sworn in.

Don't fool yourself, if Obama was White, there would be no Tea Party.

------
ck2
Can't believe I am saying this but whatever Israel does in their airports, do
it here and problem solved.

In fact whatever company does it in Israel should be hired to do it here, if
it is a government thing, borrow their people to train ours, we give them
enough for that loan.

~~~
ivraatiems
The way Israel achieves their efficacy is blatant racial profiling. I've been
to Israel several times, and because I am a white Jewish American, I have no
problems. If I had brown skin, or was Muslim, or wasn't from the US, there's a
good chance I'd just not be let in.

Now, it works extremely well. Can't deny that. And it's legal under Israeli
law. But it would be blatantly illegal here.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Israeli profiling is far more sophisticated than "blatant racial profiling" as
the above commenter baselessly claims.

For one thing, many Jews in Israel are of Middle Eastern origin and appear
identical to Muslim Arabs. The Israelis use several layers of profiling: a
preliminary sweep as you are checking in, which assigns you a particular "risk
level" based on your country of origin, profession, behavior, and other
details (probably if you're wearing Muslim attire, that's taken into account
as well).

You then have to undergo several more levels of scrutiny from very well
educated, highly intelligent and intensely trained specialists. They can and
will frisk, pat down, and strip search if needed. They can open all of your
luggage and check every inch of it if they're suspicious. Or they can wave you
through if they're satisfied of your innocence.

Here's one journalist's impression of the Israeli system:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/israels-ben-gurion-airport-
se...](http://www.businessinsider.com/israels-ben-gurion-airport-security-
uses-secret-sticker-system-2015-6)

For the Americans to adopt the Israeli system would mean recruiting some very
sharp cookies, training them very well and compensating them commensurately.
The U.S. government's track record of such achievements is not that great,
unfortunately. Certain groups like the Navy SEALs, certainly, but to hire,
say, 100,000 such people to operate the 5,000+ airports in the U.S. is
dauntingly beyond reasonable contemplation.

EDIT: also worth mentioning that Israel is 20% Muslim. They wouldn't just "not
let in" Muslims; on the contrary, they have to accommodate many different
ethnicities and religions every day. It's an extremely diverse country.

~~~
ivraatiems
Your own article contradicts your suggestion that my claim is "baseless."

> As Lia Tarachansky wrote back in 2010 for Mondoweiss, while a one rating "is
> awesome," a six indicates that "you're f-----." It appears to be reserved
> for Palestinians, Muslims, and hostile internationals.

Palestinians and Muslims? That's ethnic and religious profiling, and together
I think you could call it racial as well. And yes, Israeli Arabs are citizens
of Israel with allegedly the same level of rights and responsibilities as any
other, but they too face significant systemic discrimination (although not as
far as leaving/entering the country is concerned, as far as I know).

But your main point - that the Israeli system is complex and intelligent - is
true. It IS a complex, thought-out, professional system. It does work better
than that of the US. That doesn't mean it is suited for the United States, or
that it doesn't involve discrimination of a kind that would be illegal in the
US.

I do not begrudge Israel its system. I believe it is necessary for the
country's safety, though I don't like it very much. I just don't think it can
or should work here.

------
steele
"Security"

