7 Reasons the TSA Sucks

[Aristotle]

Great article.

7 Reasons the TSA Sucks (A Security Expert's Perspective)

For a bunch of people in snappy uniforms patting down crotches, the TSA is remarkably unpopular. Nobody likes going through security at the airport, but you probably figured most of it had a point. All those hours spent in line with other shoeless travelers are a necessary precursor to safe flying. It's annoying, but at least it wards off terrorism.

That's all bullshit. The TSA couldn't protect you from a 6-year-old with a water balloon. What are my qualifications for saying that? My name is Rafi Sela, and I was the head of security for the world's safest airport. Here's what your country does wrong.

[Rosuav]

... it's common for much of the floor force to be replaced on a yearly basis...

Wow. That's pretty bad. On the flip side, it does mean that a regular traveller can probably crack the same bad joke to his screener every time he flies and never meet someone who's heard it before.

About 99.9 percent of travelers are just that: travelers. They want to get through security, buy a cup of coffee and some duty-free whiskey, then quietly drink and leech Wi-Fi from the airport McDonald's.

Let's see. Melbourne Airport charges for wifi. Manchester Airport charges for wifi. I think Singapore (Changi) had free internet, but not 802.11 - you had to go to their ad-funded computers and stand up. KL offered a very slow and restricted service - browsing worked, if you don't do too much of it and it doesn't drop out, but not much else. The best that I can think of was Auckland, where the lack of wifi was just because they hadn't deployed it (airports do seem to lag technically), and they provided ethernet with free internet (bring your own cable, make sure it's in carry-on) and power, and comfortable seats. Yep, definitely go to McD or Starbucks for wifi.

So you don't need to explode anything -- take these bags into 20 airports around the country and you'll close them all for days. Air traffic in the United States would grind to a halt, all with materials terrorists could raid from a preschool.

And then the knock-on effects would impact other airports too (delayed flights, etc, etc). You could probably shut down all US domestic aviation with just a handful of people poking around with modelling clay. That is, assuming it's even noticed...

Airport security would be a joke if laughing at them weren't a sure way to get in trouble. We have so much less risk than places like Israel (and in that "we" I'm including both Australia and the US; Australia's even lower risk than America), so why not go for a really unintrusive security system like sniffer dogs? Search hold luggage, sure, and of course there'll be border checks for actually entering or leaving the country, but for the "what if someone puts a bomb on the plane" checks, dogs are pretty good at finding explosives.

Flying should be just another mode of mass transit. An A380 can carry an absolute maximum of 853 passengers (according to its Wiki article) and will usually have about 500. The X'Trapolis sets that run much of Melbourne's trains are rated at carrying 264 seated and 133 standing in each three-car set, and they usually run six-car units, so that's 792 passengers before even getting to a crush-load. Inducing a collision between two six-car trains is going to cause a LOT more problems than crashing one aeroplane - bear in mind, too, that trains run on rails, and if there's a crash on those rails, no other train can come through, so the disruption is huge - and yet, our trains have no security checks, you can just rock up and board (sometimes even without a ticket). Heaps of effort is put into making sure people can walk up to the station, walk on, and walk off at the other end, with a minimum of fuss. If anyone suggested that, in the interests of national security, everyone had to arrive at the station 60 minutes before the train was due... they'd be laughed out of the room. Yet boarding an aeroplane is considered such a great privilege that we must all be good little sheep and do as we're told, or we might miss our flight (especially since airline tickets are for a specific flight, where train tickets aren't), and people accept the onerous security requirements.

Some day, there'll be high speed trains linking cities that used to be flying's monopoly. A train that goes at, say, 250 km/h (and that's conservative), versus a plane that can go at, say, 1000 km/h, may not look all that impressive... but if you have to arrive 90 minutes ahead, then your flight's delayed 15 because someone was late, and then you miss your path and have to wait another 15 minutes before you can take off, then you've killed two hours before even leaving the airport. Train's gone half an hour's flying time while you're going nowhere. If the trip's only 900ish km (Melbourne to Sydney), that's more than half the trip gone. You could probably do the trip in about three hours by train, or two and a half by plane. On the train, excess baggage isn't even a concept, but on the plane it's a major revenue earner. On the train, you can take that water bottle with you. On the train, noise levels are generally low enough to converse quietly with a fellow passenger; on a plane, you could probably ignore a crying baby ten rows away. (Best stats I can find for that are 75 dB for planes and personal experience. But it's definitely a lot quieter on the train.) When will airlines actually start to be competitive?

[Blog]

locked cockpit doors and the realization by passengers that they're going to die if they do nothing is probably all you need to stop most threats. TSA has become security theater, to make people feel safer instead of actually making them safer, which unfortunately makes it hard to back down from any of the rules they've inacted, because then people would feel less safe.

[Aristotle]

locked cockpit doors and the realization by passengers that they're going to die if they do nothing is probably all you need to stop most threats. TSA has become security theater, to make people feel safer instead of actually making them safer, which unfortunately makes it hard to back down from any of the rules they've inacted, because then people would feel less safe.

I agree 100%.

And worst of all, the TSA has added enormous cost to air travel and has also made it utterly miserable.

I don't even consider flying unless the drive is 12-15+ hours.

[Ysadri]

I'm not sure anything would get me onto a commercial airflight at this point. One or two well-done protests would probably get changes made quickly, but they won't ever happen.

Rosuav, the problem with sniffer dogs here in America is that people would file lawsuits stating that they almost died due to a dog allergy, or developed some sort of issue due to the trauma of being too near a 'big' dog, or their nasty little purserat got lose and was accidentally inhaled big an actual dog.

[Mykenna]

They had sniffer dogs the last time I entered the u.s. They also had two officers spend 40+ minutes going through my luggage in a back room, claiming my freshly laundered clothes smelled, and I quote, of `Somalian perfume`, and that Somalia was considered a high risk location for terrorists. When I explained that it was fabric softener, they recommended I stop using it, to prevent things like this happening again. I genuinely think they were just making shit up to reach a quota, or something.

[Rosuav]

Rosuav, the problem with sniffer dogs here in America is that people would file lawsuits stating that they almost died due to a dog allergy, or developed some sort of issue due to the trauma of being too near a 'big' dog, or their nasty little purserat got lose and was accidentally inhaled big an actual dog.

Yeah, that is a risk. But is it harder to manage than the risk of privacy lawsuits over the current system and its abuses?

[Darion]

There is no 'risk' to be 'managed'. Despite whatever happens the TSA is never going away because, even though it serves absolutely no purpose, it is a huge job pool for unskilled mouthbreathers who would otherwise probably be unemployed.

Don't worry about it too much. We don't like the TSA now, but our children and grandchildren are going to grow up in a world where it is completely routine to be questioned and groped by strangers in order to travel so I'm sure they'll hardly mind. Isn't that reassuring?

[Dhelta]

I've just come back from yet another trip where I lost my sunscreen and moisturizer on the way in (both slightly over the size limit), and the burn lotion on the way back (which I think the first airport should have paid for!). For the record, do not suggest dumping out the surplus into one of those plastic trays until it's under the limit. While this seems to mathematically solve the issue, they don't seem to have a sense of humour about it. I've had me and my luggage examined enthusiastically by drug-sniffing dogs (oddly, I've only had this done in US airports, and never anywhere else).

In the past, I've had my suitcase entirely disassembled and then duct-taped back together again, including having the lining removed via the extremely delicate use of an x-acto blade (hey, how come he gets to use one!?!?) as a result of travelling with my friend, who apparantly looked very much like a Phillipino drug smuggler. We were 16 at the time, and the resulting body search stopped just shy of cavities, for which I was relieved. I've surrendered a number of excellent pocket knives (which I very much needed where I was going). I've had them run a camera through the machine over and over again until the film was wiped out. I've had pat-downs that range from the pathetically useless to the far-too-enthusiastic (really... the inside of my bra is pretty much the same as the outside, let GO!). I once had them tear a perfume sample card out of a magazine I had bought at the airport (granted, this one I would count as a public service, as even I found the scent offensive).

While I appreciate the need for airport security, I have always felt that the efforts were always put in the wrong places, using the wrong techniques. I, personally, have flown with a knife with an 8" blade (in the cabin) and four different endangered wild cats which required international CITES permits... but no one ever actually looked at the paperwork! I have family members who have flown with guns (concealed carry, visible carry, and once stacked in a plastic egg crate), ammo, a compound bow, and any number of combustibles of varying sorts. My father came back from Africa with an eight foot elephant horn under his arm. When asked if he had anything to declare, he said no, and went through the turnstile, albeit somewhat awkwardly. None of these things ever caused a fuss.

I would love to see the system overhauled to put the emphasis in the right places. I don't mind the diligence, but I want very much for it to be meaningful, and produce results.

[Aristotle]

I would love to see the system overhauled to put the emphasis in the right places. I don't mind the diligence, but I want very much for it to be meaningful, and produce results.

Exactly. Our efforts are all placed on treating all passengers like their are terrorists. That's why we have failed before we even start.