US Rep Mica Attempting to Dismantle TSA

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by barbell, Mar 28, 2013.

  1. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    From the "sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't" department, Rep. Mica is planning to propose legislation that would disband TSA and return screening to private contracts.

    According to an article in Bloomberg, Mica recognizes that "people have had it right up to their eyebrows with TSA."

    Unfortunately, as we've discussed many times, replacing government morons with private industry morons isn't going to solve all of our problems if the same stupid policies remain in place. However, it's clear that people in Washington may be finally "getting it." Of course, the largest private security firm is also in Mica's district, so well yeah. :rolleyes:

    It appears, though, that he has the clout to start pushing some change through:

    FetePerfection likes this.
  2. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    agreed. does it really make a difference whether the man feeling your testicles is paid by uncle sam or by some local schmoe?

    The uncalled for, illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional groping of our bodies is what needs to stop, Congressman Mica. Focus on that, and not on all the money you can make from privatizing this. don't privatize our privates, just declare them off limits.
    KrazyKat and barbell like this.
  3. TravelnMedic

    TravelnMedic Original Member

    Yes but having a private security dolt would be alot easier to get perp walked infront of cameras then the current blue shirts
  4. Well, I still think this monster has to be hit from all sides before it finally goes down. This isn't the final solution, but it's one angle of attack and a baby step.
    KrazyKat and barbell like this.
  5. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    MCO is considering private screeners as well. The article also cites that private screening firms have liability exposure unlike a government agency. If nothing else changes, being able to easily sue these buffoons would be a huge plus.

    The link to this schizophrenic news cum propaganda piece is below. Note that these morons are also too clueless to know that the IATA code for their local airport is MCO, not OIA.

    9 Investigates: TSA security changes at OIA
  6. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    If that were true, it could be a move in the right direction. I"m not so sure it is though. Have you seen any lawsuits proceeding against, say SFO and its security staff?
  7. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    No, but then again they haven't been in the news like say, EWR.

    If they don't harass and humiliate passengers like TSA, or maybe not as badly as TSA, people wouldn't be inclined to sue them.
  8. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    The past few times I've been to SFO, it's been through the international terminal, so they may act differently than domestic flights. Other than an immense loudmouth barker woman, the clerks there seemed ok when I was going through. I did see a female clerk really go to town rubbing the butt of some poor Indian woman who made the mistake of wearing a floofy skirt, and getting embarrassed. They had a 30-40% hit rate on the women going through the scanners, usually a bra strap issue, but they felt over the area anyway.

    And the ETD tests I'm sure, result in the same obscene genital rubbing in the private hut. Those, of course, I wouldn't have seen. I still maintain the issue is not who is doing the rubbing, but the fact that they are allowed to do it at ALL, without probable cause.

    May have to go through SMD one of these days. I'll report on the difference, as those are regular TSA. I did pick up some friends there since they went to MMW last year. Beady eyed, sour looking BDO glaring at everyone on the escalators.
  9. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    The private screeners at EYW weren't quite as rude as most TSA but were equally gropey.
  10. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Totally agree. The administrative search is to be done basically in public, not behind closed doors. Once the ETD has alarmed (or something else alarms "requiring" the hut search), then it becomes a probable cause search and is a matter for LE, not the TSA.
  11. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I'm a proponent for the ETD testing but with my experience at DFW and my camera bag alerting on the test I'm not so sure TSA's use of ETD testing on a wide scale isuseful. Seems to me that the chemicals tested for could be refined to eliminate alarms on hand lotion and highly diluted levels of peroxide. For TSA purposes the machines should have no capability to alarm on drugs since that is outside of a TSA administrative search.
  12. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    I'm quite certain the ETD as "performed" by the TSA is useless. False positives generated by personnel incapable of grasping the concept of "contamination" make it impossible to winnow any wheat from the chaff.
    phoebepontiac and barbell like this.
  13. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Don't quote me, but I believe the machines we use do not have the drug settings enabled, they may be a part of the software/testing package on them, but I believe they are not enabled. I have never had an alarm for drugs in any way shape or form with one of the ETDs I have used. Some of the people that come through have certainly had residue on them and in their bags that I have tested, but no hits for drugs on the ETD.
  14. RB

    RB Founding Member

    It's not a matter of being turned on it's amatter of having the capability.
    phoebepontiac and barbell like this.
  15. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Just like the AIT that doesn't save images? Pardon me while I scrape that particular bit of horsepuckey off of my boots... again.
    barbell likes this.
  16. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I do not know enough about the software packages to be able to comment on the ability/non-ability systems. It may be that when the items were ordered, they had a single set of software, and each locations needs were set before being shipped, or that could be completely wrong. I simply do not know how that all worked out when we place(d) the orders.

    Edit to add the following thought:

    It may be that DHS placed the orders, and some of them were assigned to CBP for use, or a similar situation where the machines are used across a spectrum of LEO agencies with different testing needs, and the specific capabilities are set based on that need - but all machines have to be able to be reassigned to another location... Of course, that may be wrong as well.
  17. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Just like everything else the TSA does, from equipment "specifications" to "training" to "hiring."
  18. FliesWay2Much

    FliesWay2Much Original Member

    I'm one of the guys who keeps bringing up the procurement and operational specifications for the systems. BTW, if you're aren't familiar with federal government procurement (Not a personal poke in the eye -- just caveating what I'm about to write), these specifications turn into requirements documents that become part of the contract.

    In a nutshell, there is a requirement to store and transmit images for the "training" mode and "testing" mode. The units are installed with the training and testing modes turned off. This is a only a software configuration. Another part of the specifications identify which individuals, by position, have access to the password required to place the machines into either of these two modes. In one case, the software simply turns off a USB port.

    Blogdad Bob and other TSA Spokesholes state that the machines "cannot store or transmit images." What they are careful not to say is that every machine out there is only one password away from enabling this capability. The bottom line is that we, The People, are one password away from having our naked images stored and transmitted who-knows-where -- maybe home with a clerk on his thumb drive.
    KrazyKat likes this.
  19. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Is anyone else wondering if they take as much care with that password as they do the TSA "master keys" for the luggage locks, or background checks for SIDA?
  20. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    Privatizing all screening employees may be just a baby step, but consider this; how would the TSORons of the world feel about working for a private company? The private companies can dress them up like third world military dictators and give them all the title of Grand Poobah for all I care, the fact would remain that they are no logner "officers" on the federal payroll. That's gotta hurt the ego! :eek::p

    I'll concede that I've had some :rolleyes: with a few private screeners, but when I set them straight its like they're a little more deflated than the bigger kids with the TSA patch on their sleeve. :D

    The TSA has stated in their own documents that they have drug testing capability, so it's more that just buying equipment from a vendor that happens to have the capability that they never plan on using.


Share This Page