"No security agency on earth has the experience and pattern-recognition skills of TSA officers"
really? having watched three TSA officers debate for five minutes over whether or not peanut butter was a liquid and concluding that "well, peanut butter goes on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and we don't allow petroleum jelly through, so we don't allow peanut butter through either", I really am skeptical of this claim...
The guy was sounding really credible and forthcoming until he made that claim.
Although, if you read his claim with the right squint, maybe it's true: No security agency on earth is as bad as the TSA.
And if they really are good, and unfairly painted, then they've got some serious "evidence of outstanding work" type of reputation building to do. They have their reputation for a reason.
On reflection, as head of the TSA, I suspect that any time he visited an airport he worked with the best agents at each location, as local managers worked to impress when a higher-up came in.
He got to regularly see the best. We get to see the average, and the blogosphere highlights the worst.
He used to be the head of the TSA…at least he is being more realistic than we'd expect someone from the agency to be. He likely needs to balance expressing his opinions with not offending people at the TSA he is still connected with.
Yeah that's really the killer line...last time I flew I remember seeing a large poster advertising TSA jobs and it said in big bold letters "College Degree Not Required!"
As someone who does not have a college degree and full acknowledges you can be super smart without one...I was kind of bummed that the TSA so openly acknowledges that their market for job recruitment responds well to "College Degree Not Required!"
Actually, I see this as a great illustration of how a college degree can often be superfluous. The skills of a TSA baggage screener can be learned in a matter of weeks. What good is four years spent reading Kant and exploring your bisexuality?
This seems somewhat irrelevant? I know we're always supposed to be "supporting the troops", but I think you're suggesting we should be supporting professions that they may later go into?
Wow, are US vets that tweaked? I mean, just say a bad thing about them and they will kill you, with out remorse? Blimey, sounds a bit worrying to me. You make them sound like a bunch of well armed psychos living on a hair trigger. Such people roam free in the US? Sounds terrifying.
Or are you doing them a bit of a disservice there?
That's a terrible cop-out argument. If they're actually skilled - say so. If the bulk of the workforce isn't? Then saying so only hurts fixing the problem.
If they're so unstable that being told they're not good at their job sends them in to a killing rage, they shouldn't have that job.
Off topic, I heard (from a former US military person), that they have a distinction between the terms "ex-military" (kicked out) and "former military" (left voluntarily), and saying "former military" is a nicer thing to them, and that they'll pick up that you're aware of the difference. Any military people able to confirm/deny?
What exactly is stopping someone from sitting on their house near the airport and taking potshots at landing planes with a homebuilt rocket launcher? Nothing. And yet it never happens.
We all need to calm down and accept the fact that, once in a while, a plane will blow up and 300 people will die. 9/11 is a rounding error compared to deaths from heart disease or car crashes, but we don't seem to be doing much about those.
About 6 or 7 years ago, I used to take lunch break in a nice grassy, woody area where no one else really went which was right under a take off area of Heathrow airport in the UK. Apart from the fact that it was a really nice place to sit and eat lunch, I loved the place because it felt like you could almost touch the planes they were so close. And it did occur to me how easy it would have been to aim a small missile, or something, at the plane of your choice with out any interference.
Of course, I presume that it's not that simple, other wise either it would have been done, or the terror threat is hugely exaggerated...
There's many things stopping someone from creating and using a rocket launcher capable of taking down aircraft without being caught. Mostly the technical difficulty, but the FBI's tactics for finding bomb-makers would probably find a rocket-launcher-maker.
You know, in the infamous Black Hawk Down incident they shot down military aircraft with nothing more than an RPG. Devices that can put an explosive charge a few dozen feet into the air don't really require that much sophistication.
Black Hawk Down was an incredibly lucky (for the Somalians) accident that, if memory serves, was enabled by the combination of huge, close-by targets holding perfectly still, and a whole crap-load of rockets fired into the air.
All this is to say that you have about as much of a chance of shooting down a commercial airliner with an RPG as you do by throwing rocks at it.
With that said, good luck getting something with the firepower equivalent of an RPG anywhere close enough to a commercial aircraft to even be within the weapon's maximum range.
No realistic amount of prescreening can alleviate this threat when al Qaeda is working to recruit "clean" agents
al Qaeda's advancing skill with hydrogen-peroxide-based bombs...
etc, etc.
After 10+ years of war, the al Qaeda of 9/11 is pretty much finished. The organization can barely survive in Afghanistan and are being picked off by drones in Yemen.
Realistically, al Qaeda is a defunct organization, and this article repeadly mentions al Qaeda like it's some eternal bogeyman. This distraction tactic is to drive attention away from the fact the methods for "How To Fix The TSA" merely reinforce the status quo.
None of the former head of the TSA's 5 suggestions reduce wait times or make the experience of flying more pleasant. You _still_ have to take off your shoes and get scanned or patted down. There's _still_ going to be that person at the head of the line who scribbles on your boarding pass after checking your ID.
I would like to see a radical rethink of airport security, something that would put a smile on the face of the passengers and the security officers.
As if the security officers would have a smile after having to deal all day with the douchebag anti-TSA nerds who deliberately try to make life more difficult. I am sick of flying and having them holding up lines and generally being a nuisance.
> Realistically, al Qaeda is a defunct organization
Based on what actual evidence? Al Qaeda has pulled off attacks in Africa and other countries besides Afghanistan and Yemen. It's a distributed organization and ideology.
I'm not saying this isn't true (I would like it to be), but claims like this sound like wishful thinking. As though Westerners cannot fathom a reason why other groups of people would want to kill them and so it surely must be a 'boogeyman'. Your statements read as though you're trying to convince yourself.
This is not an argument for the TSA (if that wasn't clear). It is possible for Al Qaeda to be a threat and for the TSA to be an inappropriate way to deal with that threat.
The last line of the article is the most important: "If Americans are ready to embrace risk, it is time to strike a new balance."
If we could stop being cowards and accept that we might die, or our families might die, then we might fight these invasive policies. I'd love it if efficacy, privacy, and freedom were once again as given the same weight as security.
I don't hear many calls for courage, so I applaud even this veiled statement.
It's not that Americans are actually afraid of terrorists. It's not that we "haven't been ready to embrace risk."
It's that we don't care about freedom and liberty anymore.
Moreover, this former TSA head is acting like the TSA has to "cooperate" with public opinion or is even in any way beholden to it. That is a lie. The TSA can and does do almost anything without reprecussion.
Even it was 30 seconds, and it probably more like 2 - 3 minutes, that is for each passenger. Most normal people don't believe in security theatre and most normal people wouldn't agree with you.
I wanted to reduce the amount of time that officers spent searching for low-risk objects, but politics intervened at every turn.... And despite the radically reduced risk that knives and box cutters presented in the post-9/11 world, allowing them back on board was considered too emotionally charged for the American public.
Ugh. Was that true? What if the TSA had announced they had determined that knives and lighters no longer posed a significant risk? It might have helped the American psyche a little bit to hear the government reassuring people instead of stoking their fears. It sucks that all our confidence-building Bush-giving-us-our-mojo-back demonstrations of "strength" were military operations in foreign countries thousands of miles away, while at home citizens were taught to be afraid of pocket knives and nail clippers.
It may well be the case that "allowing knives and box cutters back on board is considered too emotionally charged for the American public"... according to whoever decides these things.
There are people in the political arena who stand to gain from citizens living in fear. And we as citizens would do well to remember that.
Knives and box cutters never posed a significant risk. You can't take over a plane with a knife if everyone on board is against you.
I bet you'd have a hard time keeping command with a machine gun if people are swarmed against you knowing (a) they will die anyways and (b) if they don't stop you people they love will be killed as well.
No, that may help keep a guy with a gun out, but a guy with a knife is screwed even if the cockpit doors are wide open. Why? Pre-9/11, the wisdom was to let hijackers go ahead and take control of the plane -- they just want to detour it and land it somewhere to get away from the police and whatnot. Post-9/11, a guy pulling out a knife will end up beaten to death before he makes it half a dozen rows; when people start crashing hijacked planes into buildings, the wisdom changed. Cockpit doors have nothing to do with it.
You're right that a guy with a knife might be able to bring down the entire plane, but that's only one of many ways to mass-murder people. Security lines at the airport, political rallies, crowds outside concerts and sporting events, and other concentrations of people are easy targets for an unsophisticated suicide attacker under the direction of a bomb-maker. You can't stop that kind of attack. Planes are special because (we now know) they can be extremely effective weapons in themselves, not because bringing down a plane is an effective way to kill the people on it.
Ironically, reinforced cockpit doors are a necessary part of any terrorist's plan post 9-11, because that's the only way they can protect themselves from the passengers. I think there are now protocols to take control of the plane remotely in case an attacker infiltrates the cockpit and barricades himself inside. Unfortunately, trying to search the web for that information only gets me conspiracy pages about how the government remote-controlled the planes in the 9/11 attacks. Information pollution FTW :-/
There's more than one pilot you know. We don't live in a world where a hijacker can pull on a cardboard mask and magically disguise himself and make a body disappear.
The 9/11 hijackers had crowd controllers for a reason.
And you win for the most stupid response. Fuckhat.
Do you really think it will make any difference whether the hijacker kills the pilot or not? He is still going to be beaten to death (and the control tower os going to tell whomever pilots the plane exactly which knobs to turn to land the plane, if the autopilot can't.
I am intrigued that whole-body scanners were not mentioned once in the article. I am choosing to assume that Hawley's opinion of them is something he doesn't feel comfortable publicizing.
There's nothing broken about airport security, it's working perfectly. Its purpose is to keep you voting for certain politicians who spend your taxes on expensive, ineffective gadgets made by their cronies. "Fear is the mind killer", as a great writer once said.
"And we had explosives experts retrain the entire work force in terrorist tradecraft and bomb-making."
So, are we training our underpaid and possibly disgruntled TSA workers to detect items of suspect or are we training them to become the suspect? I don't want to generalize, but training everyone in the agency in "terrorist tradecraft and bomb-making" is about the dumbest thing you could do. On so many levels.
I think it gives some insight into the challenges that the TSA faces. They don't have complete autonomy, and like any massive organization, politics plays a huge role.
I have no doubt there are some really smart and innovative people at the TSA, but as anyone who worked in a huge bureaucracy knows, you often spent 90% of your time trying to please everyone and 10% actually doing real work.
"Never again will a terrorist be able to breach the cockpit simply with a box cutter or a knife. The cockpit doors have been reinforced, and passengers, flight crews and air marshals would intervene."
Not true. Cockpit door opens when the captain takes a piss. Flight crews are usually sleeping at the back of the plane or stuck behind those beverage carts. Very few flights have air marshals and most passangers are tied up in their chairs with the seatbelt. I agree it is less likely than in the past, but definitely not impossible.
It would require split-second coordination among a group of terrorists sitting in the first few rows to take advantage of this before the crew becomes alert and closes the door. And even that opportunity is easily removed (if it isn't already) with a simple curtain preventing passengers from seeing the cockpit door.
In any case, 9/11 was only possible because passengers had been previously instructed to passively cooperate with hijackings. Before the end of that day, they were ready to fight to the death instead.
When I flew Southwest a couple weeks ago, a flight attendant specifically stood watch while the captain used the restroom, and had any passengers who walked up return to their seats.
I've also been seeing metal security curtains temporarily pulled across the aisle, so that the cockpit, the restroom, and the front kitchen are all behind a metal curtain, sort of like this:
I'm not sure how to answer that. The cockpit door was locked except for the brief moment when the pilot exited and re-entered the cockpit, and during that time a flight attendant was standing watch. I'm not sure how much more could be done, but it seemed to me it was a fairly significant obstacle to anyone hijacking the plane, considering that passengers would also hopefully assist in preventing a terrorist from succeeding.
Isn't it true that when Cockpit staff wish to leave a none Cockpit staff on the outside have to go up to the door and stand guard as they open the door?
On flights I've been on recently, they declared a fasten-seatbelts-and-stay-seated order in the cabin when one of the pilots stepped out to use the restroom. There was also a flight attendant standing guard outside.
I have to disagree with your blanket generalization. In most cases, consultants cause more problems than solutions. However in this case, the consultants from Accenture made some clever observations and delivered solutions that were economically effective for the cash-strapped TSA. I would have to argue that these consultants are actually "hacking" the system to make it easier for passengers, based on some sound cognitive science and psychology principles.
There is an easier way to fix it: Incentivize safety. Get rid of the TSA all-together, and charge the departing airport for the damages caused by any attempted or successful attack. The airport will have to balance the risk of an attack leaving from their location with the risk of losing all their money from people not flying. It's the same calculation they use (more or less) when they buy their insurance, so it should be a no-brainer.
On top of that, actually punish people for willful violations of basic constitutional rights to keep whoever the airports hire from getting too big for their breeches (unlike the TSA...), and the problem -- if it actually exist -- should resolve itself.
Arguably, there is already an incentive for airports to opt out of using the TSA: doing so allows them to provide better customer service which is a competitive advantage. In theory airports are not required to use the TSA - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/airports-with-new-law-a...
I agree in theory, but the last airport that tried to do that got threatened by the feds with being shutdown, and the FAA said that they would shut down the airspace around it. So they _can_ kick out the TSA, but that would mean that they would have to shutter the doors.
As pointed out by taejo the San Francisco Airport Commission. Also I haven't tried to purchase terrorism insurance recently. The last time I did that was in 2005, and I bought it from Standard. It was for a VIP and travelling party, so on a smaller scale, but they'll insure anything to anyone for which there are statistics and money. 1-in-30,000,000 for an individual, it shouldn't be too hard to scale that to a airliner or even a whole airport.
Would it have stopped 9/11? Did the TSA? Did anything else we tried? Nope. Because we didn't know about it until it happened. What it would have done is made sure that the cost of the cleanup and re-build didn't turn into a decade+ long charlie-foxtrot situation, and would have incentivized the airports to not let it happen again, instead of just putting on a show.
though I'm there with you in spirit, clearly there need be some kind of national oversight. airlines are too "big a deal" to fail in the way you describe.
What makes an airplane with 100 people on it more "big a deal" than a bus with the same?
The effort spent on security is wildly disproportionate to the risk-- based, it seems, on the supposition that terrorists care fabulously more about damaging faith in American air travel than actually killing Americans.
I'm not saying I know anything one way or another, but that seems crazy.
An airplane can easily go off course and (busses don't work too well off road), and hit anything, taking down large buildings and downtown areas. A bus could easily kill the 100 passengers and some nearby cars.
While I disagree with a large number of TSA policies, I have found TSA officers to be thoroughly professional and nearly always courteous. The anti-TSA bandwagon on HN seems to be the product of people who don't travel much basing their opinions on a few rants or CNN coverage, or perhaps just general anti-authority bitterness.
I've flown at least once a month for 10 years, domestically and internationally, and almost never have a negative experience with TSA personel. While I hate taking off my shoes, turning off my phone, and find the liquid rules particularly ridiculous, I have found that TSA agents have more than met my expectations of professionalism in implementing policies over which they have no control.
Millions of people travel every day. A few bad encounters can be expected. Don't be an asshole and tear down the employees of the TSA because of a few anecdotal occurrences. In doing so, you are just as bad as an ignorant talking head on Fox News. Think and put yourself in others shoes before you rant.
I think you're making a straw man. The anti-TSA bandwagon is not due to the fact that a small but significant number of TSA agents are very rude.
It's more due to the fact that a massive and totally unaccountable police force has been created that violates people's rights left and right, and has also been shown to be almost totally ineffective, despite costing billions of dollars.
Meanwhile, the federal goverment seems to have everything wiretapped. We now life in a "turnkey totalitarian state." [1]
This seems to bode quite badly for the future of the American experiment in individual rights.
I love how anti-TSA supporters seem to forget that EVERY country has a "massive and totally unaccountable police force" that "violates people's rights left and right".
It's just American's anti-police, anti-government, anti-authority streak that cause them to rise up against it.
And there is a substantial view round the rest of the planet that America is a "massive and totally unaccountable police force" that it "violates people's rights left and right", as discussed here, for one example, when certain web sites get taken down and people who have never stepped foot in the USA suddenly have to be sent there to face American "justice", which Americans them selves seem most uncomfortable with.
It's just American's anti-police, anti-government, anti-authority streak that cause them to rise up against it.
No, it's called the principle of individual rights. The founding principle of the US, totally unique for its time. Now, it's mostly out the window, but it's still in our blood to some degree, as it should be. Also, limited government.
And not only does the TSA totally trample these American principles, but as others have pointed out, it's a much worse unaccountable police force than can be found in most other Western countries.
This seems a massive overstatement of the powers of the TSA. They pat you down for weapons before getting on a plane. While it may not be justified or to your agreement, I just don't see how this undermines fundamental freedoms in the US and sets us up for tyranny. I worry about court hearing free forfeitures and surveillance. The TSA pat downs of children? Don't give a shit. Fight a battle worth fighting. Body scans at airport entrances are not part of an inevitable road to tyranny.
I don't know why you got downvoted, but FYI, I voted your comment up.
Remember, the TSA does not exist in isolation. By itself, maybe not a part of the road to tyranny. But look at the broader context (e.g., the government wiretapping everything, political parties that seem to be a complete farce, broken educational system, etc.).
The TSA shows that the government can and will arbitrarily inject itself anywhere in life, potentially under completely flimsy premises. As an American with a basic education in the history of our country, it seems just obvious to me that it was totally wrong for the government to ever have gotten involved with screening airline passengers. (I realize lots of people who know our history do not see it that way, though.) To me, this is very scary.
So again, it's not about the pat downs; that is not the cause, it's just the highly disgusting effect. People worried about TSA pat downs and scanners for their own sake are missing the boat.
The only thing liquids could is if X takes a liquid, say alcohol or other flammable liquids, spray and light up in a seconds. Not sure how the physics work with the plane's config but that may be a problem.
As for the rest, he /she will have to deal with dozens or hundreds of passengers and a knife will just not do.
really? having watched three TSA officers debate for five minutes over whether or not peanut butter was a liquid and concluding that "well, peanut butter goes on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and we don't allow petroleum jelly through, so we don't allow peanut butter through either", I really am skeptical of this claim...