TSA, the Fun Never Ends..

[tedtim]

Airline security isn't new. The only thing new in the equation (in the U.S.) is the "governmentalizing" of the security workers. What in this case wouldn't address the symptoms? Old fashioned airline security?

That is my point. You cannot truly address the problem by instituting a system that only addresses the symptoms. Address the problem, and it is not by putting in place more security bureaucracy that you will address the problem. Addressing symptoms only is bad medicine. And addressing the symptoms with a system that is not working well (inconsistent, "knee jerk reaction") is even worse.

 

[tedtim]

Oh please, not the ole "if we do/don't <insert pet cause here> the terrorists are winning" line.

OK, how about an example where process has taken over from common sense.

We dive in the St. Lawrence, a shared waterway between the US and Canada. In order to dive on a wreck on the US side when departing from Canada you have to go through US customs. Only a few short years ago this was not required. There is no intent to ever dock at a US location, but as soon as you are tied off to one of the wrecks, well watch out. One day we were second in line at US Customs. It was a nice day. The boat ahead of us was chartered by Americans, but left from Canada. They drove over the bridge early that morning to catch the charter. I guess that they either liked the operator, or there were no charters available from the US side. It took them over an hour to clear US Customs because none of them had passports, only a driver's licence issued by the State of New York. The Customs Agent had to access a database to check each of them. The threat was non-existant, but the process and procedure HAD to be applied. AFAIK there was no intelligence indicating that a heightened state of readiness was in place. The customs officer was accompanied by a National Guardsman at the time. At least now the Guardsmen are no longer in situ.

From what I can see of this, and some discussions with the charter operators, it has had an impact on business. No longer can they do two charters a day.

 

[HowardE]

That is my point. You cannot truly address the problem by instituting a system that only addresses the symptoms. Address the problem, and it is not by putting in place more security bureaucracy that you will address the problem. Addressing symptoms only is bad medicine. And addressing the symptoms with a system that is not working well (inconsistent, "knee jerk reaction") is even worse.

Everyone has been pointing out the PROBELM with nobody pointing to a solution only a lot of whining about how bad the TSA is. That's my point. If it's so bad... let's hear some examples of something better.

 

[Bill51]

It is much more than a name on a list. Do a search on Google for 19CFR122.49a and 19CFR122.75b. While these regulations speak specifically to international travel, it is clear that the manifest is much more than simply a list with names. The requirements are to provide: The full name of each passenger and crew member; the date of birth and citizenship of each passenger and crew member; the gender of each passenger and crew member; the passport number and country of issuance of the passport of each passenger and crew member if a passport is required for travel; and the United States visa number or resident alien card number of each passenger and crew member, as applicable

Note that this applies to both US Citizens and others arriving in and departing from the United States. You won't need to put your address, etc. on a separate list. It is already included by link to your passport information. The passport will be required for anyone entering the United States by road, air, or sea in the very near future.

These regulations identify the requirement to provide passport information. That itself is linked to other personal information. It is much more than just a name on a list. And it will soon be required for more than just air travel.

Well not totally true. State only has your address from the time of passport application as there is no requirement to update them except on renewal of your passport. Technically it would be possible to trace back a more current address if you had updated Social Security info, but it takes a court order to do that cross check on an individual basis.

 

[lamont]

Oh please, not the ole "if we do/don't <insert pet cause here> the terrorists are winning" line. The hard reality is that we live in a world with a state of technology that allows a few to do things that affect many. It's only going to get worse. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend that others don't exist. They can do things that will affect you. Having to take measures to guard against terrorist attack changes the way we live. But not taking the measures to guard against terrorist attack would change the way we live even more, unless we're prepared to just absorb an "acceptable" number of losses on an ongoing basis. There is no option where we don't change.

I'm prepared to accept something on the magnitude of 9/11 once a decade if it allows us to keep our freedoms. 9/11 was not a big deal compared to a even a small nuclear weapon going off in the middle of a city. All the TSA stuff and plane security distracts from controlling nuclear weapons material, nuclear bombs in the former soviet union, and screening on cargo crossing our borders.

And you have to be willing to absorb an acceptable number of losses on an ongoing basis. The perfect defense against terrorism has not and never will be invented, no matter how much money gets spend on homeland security. Mostly we're lucky that we do not have (yet?) the domestic issues with arabic immigrants that Europe has and that Al Qaida is obsessed with spectacular terrorism rather than just setting off bombs in shopping malls around Christmas.

 

[mdb]

Deleted

 

[ReefHound]

I'm prepared to accept something on the magnitude of 9/11 once a decade if it allows us to keep our freedoms.

You can accept it for yourself but not for the otehr 300 million people in this country.

What freedoms exactly have you personally lost?

 

[lamont]

You can accept it for yourself but not for the otehr 300 million people in this country.

I clearly can't stop the other 300 million people from tearing up the bill of rights to try to produce some perfectly safe society where there is are zero deaths from terrorism and the playgrounds are so sanitized that no kid breaks an arm anymore. I doubt the direction we're going is the way that our founding father envisioned though.

What freedoms exactly have you personally lost?

You don't notice erosion of civil liberties until it is too late.

 

[Wildcard]

I'm prepared to accept something on the magnitude of 9/11 once a decade if it allows us to keep our freedoms. 9/11 was not a big deal compared to a even a small nuclear weapon going off in the middle of a city. All the TSA stuff and plane security distracts from controlling nuclear weapons material, nuclear bombs in the former soviet union, and screening on cargo crossing our borders.

And you have to be willing to absorb an acceptable number of losses on an ongoing basis. The perfect defense against terrorism has not and never will be invented, no matter how much money gets spend on homeland security. Mostly we're lucky that we do not have (yet?) the domestic issues with arabic immigrants that Europe has and that Al Qaida is obsessed with spectacular terrorism rather than just setting off bombs in shopping malls around Christmas.

He says untill some wacko blows himself up at the supermarket while standing next to his wife and kids. Then the story will change.
We can't stop it but we can slow it way the hell down, as we have been doing.

 

[lamont]

He says untill some wacko blows himself up at the supermarket while standing next to his wife and kids. Then the story will change.
We can't stop it but we can slow it way the hell down, as we have been doing.

The people who directly lost loved ones on 9/11 aren't the only people making laws against terrorism for a good reason. Just like the spouse in a murder case isn't going to be the judge for the guy who did it.