Sure it was wrapped in luggage plastic film. But it still was a meter long tv antenna. And I clearly asked at every step.
Another guy apparently accidentally went onto a plane with a loaded gun (https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-lets-loaded-guns-past-security...)
And don't get me started on the security guys pretending to check backpacks at big public places.
If it’s the non-zero chance vs. privacy trade off you’re interested in, strip everyone naked at TSA, and get your clothes back at baggage claim at the other end, that’s better odds.
If you disagree with that, then you also don’t think safety beats privacy. You just have a different line.
Yet in 2018 they
- Discovered 4,239 firearms, 3,656 of which were loaded
- Smoke grenades
- An inert grenade
- Lighter fluid
- Fireworks
- Five replica mortar shells
https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2019/02/07/tsa-year-review-record-s...
In 2015 TSA seized knives from just ONE airport. 22,044 'dangerous items' total at U.S. airports that year.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-many-weapons-did-the_b_11...
Yes stuff is going to slip through but uh, 3656 loaded firearms last year... I'd call that a victory. I'm very, very, pro 2a. I am very, very, very against people carrying loaded firearms on a thin aluminum can at altitude.
A more likely reason why we we haven't had any air incidents since 9/11 is that most people have little interest in blowing themselves up (let alone other people) at altitude.
Some people are absolutely crazy and simply want to do harm to others, or just to be infamous which doing harm to others will potentially result in. If TSA only manages to find 1% of hidden firearms/knives/explosives/flammable liquids in baggage, that 1% could be the difference between 0 deaths and 10s or hundreds of deaths.
TSA needs to change, sure, a lot of what they do is ineffective. People need to get over their delicate sensibilities and be more comfortable with profiling, profiling works in security settings, just look at El Al.
El Al gets thrown under the bus for racial profiling but they just aren't looking at people based on race or accent, they're looking at many things and putting it together big-picture to determine who to look at closer.
TSA lacks this training and unfortunately are guilty or racial profiling, like when they detained YouTube personality Jus Reign some years back when he (most likely) was selected for secondary screening because as a Sikh he was wearing a turban. And yes, TSA gets carried away with searching elderly and children quite invasively at times, and this needs improved considerably but x-ray, back scatter, chemical testing, dogs, metal detection, I'm quite fine with this for air travel.
If an hour or two of extra inconvenience saves me 8, 16, 32 hours of driving then it is fine. It's an aircraft travelling at tens of thousands of feet above the earth, were something as simple as mercury introduced to a scratch in the aluminum fuselage can cause a catastrophic failure. Where a small fire can easily get out of control and be fatal for the entire flight at worst or just cause respiratory issues from burning plastics for multiple passengers and result in an emergency landing. Or where someone with a small blade can easily take out multiple passengers tens of minutes, or an hour or more from emergency medical response.
A clean shot through will be barely noticeable and the pressurisation system could easily compensate, people likely wouldn't need oxygen even at FL400 while descending.
A (likely) golfball size hole is something the aircraft's pressurization system can 'easily compensate' for? Common handgun rounds punching through soft aluminum isn't going to leave a small hole, especially with a bunch of higher pressure air following right behind it.
Genuinely asking here, I have no idea what sort of volume they can pump at.
So when my cynical side envisions selling disposable tyvek lab suits [1] as Travel Wear, maybe with a discreet frequent flyer status logo embossed on the breast to save everyone some trouble I think no, hell no. I don't want that to actually be a thing. Then again if the whole suit is just colored gold, platinum, etc, perhaps it saves a little time boarding and prevents queue jumpers. Heck maybe we just print the suits with a giant boarding number on the back. No suit? You board last, except on Southwest, of course.
[1] https://www.coverallsdirect.com/product-category/dupont-tyve...
https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2015/02/27/ex-delta...
I'm an advocate for security screening. I'm even fine with a bag swab or pat down. I've been flying all 30 years of my life to many parts of the globe.
What's going on in this article, if true, is not ok, it is not productive, and it is spreading a culture of fear and surveillance TO OUR OWN CITIZENS.
We are not China, Russia, or any other country that would create such a situation, but we are letting it happen.
I don't think people are against the accepted forms of surveillance you are mentioning, I think we're against the excessive stuff that's been going on.
The MSM is full of arrogant morons desperate for clicks, hating the government is popular, reporting on classified programs is hard, and the TSA has every incentive not to release accurate information - I would bet good money those numbers are wrong. The government does a lot of dumb things but I do not think the entire TSA would exist if it was only 5% effective.
What if it's 95% effective at providing jobs and funnelling money from the government to private enterprises (who just so also happen to lobby for more laws and such that just so happens to also support the expansion of the TSA, or purchasing, or hiring, or...).
Basically - you assume that the purpose of the TSA is about security.
You also make the assumption that, even if it were about security and everything was on the up-and-up (yeah, right) - that if it were only 5% effective that it would be shut down. I am almost 100% certain that there are and have been many, many programs in the past that have lasted for a far longer period of time than the TSA has so far, which were/are less than or equal to 5% effectiveness for their supposed purpose.
Again - likely because their primary purpose has no connection to their actual purpose, which is the funnelling of money from the public coffers to the private sector.
> I am almost 100% certain that there are and have been many, many programs in the past that have lasted for a far longer period of time than the TSA has so far, which were/are less than or equal to 5% effectiveness for their supposed purpose.
Why is it OK to make this assumption but not assume that the TSA is trying to to their job, even if their success is disputed?