Freedom to Travel Event, Part 4

[foreverfree]

Well when I got there, the airline called down to the gate to say we're coming, something they've never done before.? Some head honcho TSA guy followed us around the airport outside the secure area.? Another seemed to be waiting inside with a cell phone.? The TSA guys who actually interacted with us were really nervous and making sure they got every step of the process perfect.

ROFL!!!

Was there an increased police presence as well?

When Jennifer with WMUR interviewed the airport and TSA, she asked why there was increased security, and the airport said there was no increase in security.? They said they were only following normal procedures.? Then she said "but there IS a visible increase in police presence!"? And the TSA guy was like "uhhh... we were just following standard procedure."? She caught them in a lie!? ?

I doubt there was increased police presence.  How many are there normally and how many were there that day?  Can you substantiate your claim of them lying?  Let's keep this factual.

[KBCraig]

http://www.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=56440

Commentary:
Airport security?s grand illusion
By ANNE APPLEBAUM
Guest Commentary

IF YOU happen to be reading this while standing in one of those disturbingly slow, zigzag lines at airport security ? looking repeatedly at your watch, wondering if you will miss the plane ? here?s something to make you feel worse: Almost none of the agony you are experiencing is making you safer, at least not to any statistically significant or economically rational degree. Certainly any logical analysis of the money that has been spent on the airport security system since Sept. 11, 2001, and the security that the system has created, must lead to that conclusion.

This is not to say that the uniformed screeners aren?t more professional than they were in the past or that their presence doesn?t create a degree of psychological comfort, both for government officials, who can claim to be doing something to keep us all safer, as well as for those passengers who continue to believe that engaging in ritualistic shoe-removal gives them mysterious, magical protection against terrorism. On the grand scale of things, though, that?s all it is: magical protection.

In fact, outside inspectors have found, over and over again, that federal screeners perform no better than the private screeners they replaced. Since they inspect only passengers and baggage, not the airport and its perimeter, they haven?t eliminated the need for other forms of law enforcement either. And even when they are doing their rather narrow job correctly, their impact is dubious. By their own account, federal screeners have intercepted ?7 million prohibited items.? But of that number, only 600 were firearms. So, according to the calculations of economist Veronique de Rugy, 99.9 percent of intercepted items were nail scissors, cigarette lighters, penknives and the like.

Yet this mass ceremonial sacrifice of toenail clippers on the altar of security comes at an extraordinarily high price. The annual budget of the federal Transportation Security Administration hovers around $5.5 billion ? just about the same price as the entire FBI ? a figure that doesn?t include the cost of wasted time. De Rugy reckons that if 624 million passengers each spend two hours every year waiting in line, the annual loss to the economy comes to $32 billion. There has also been a price to pay in waste, since when that much money is rubbed into a problem with that kind of speed ? remember, the TSA had only 13 employees in January 2002 ? a lot of it gets misspent. In the case of the TSA, that waste includes $350,000 for a gym, $500,000 for artwork and silk plants at the agency?s new operations center, and $461,000 for its first-birthday party. More to the point, the agency has spent millions, even billions, on technology that is inappropriate or outdated.

In fact, better security didn?t have to cost that much. Probably the most significant measure taken in the past four years was one funded not by the government but by the airline industry, which put bulletproof doors on its cockpits at the relatively low price of $300 million to $500 million over 10 years. In extremely blunt terms, that means that while it may still be possible to blow up a plane (and murder 150 people), it is now virtually impossible to fly a plane into an office building (and murder thousands). By even the crudest cost-benefit risk analysis, bulletproof cockpit doors, which nobody notices, have the potential to save far more lives, at a far lower cost per life, than the screeners who open your child?s backpack and your grandmother?s purse while you stand around in your socks waiting for them to finish.

But, then, this isn?t a country that has ever been good at risk analysis. If it were, we would never have invented the TSA at all. Instead, we would have taken that $5.5 billion, doubled the FBI?s budget, and set up a questioning system that identifies potentially suspicious passengers, as the Israelis do. Even now, it?s not too late to abolish the TSA, create a federal training program for airport screeners, and then let private companies worry about how many people to hire, which technology to buy and how long the tables in front of the X-ray machines should be. But every time that suggestion is made in Congress, someone denounces the plan as a ?privatization? of our security and a sellout.

Which is why I conclude that we don?t actually want value for money. No, we want every passenger to have the chance to recite that I-packed-these-bags-myself mantra to a uniformed official before boarding an airplane. Magic words, it seems, are what make Americans feel really safe.

Anne Applebaum is a member of The Washington Post?s editorial page staff.

[foreverfree]

The lines at the airport seem shorter since September 11th.  I would say that the newe system is a success.  There have been no attacks or casualties since the system was put in place.  And no one can say that it is worse because who knows what would have happened if it didn't change.  What we can say is that it has improved since no attacks have gone through.

[Dave Ridley]

wait, kat I'm confused...are you saying you got unusual treatment while dropping Kira off on the 17th?

[KBCraig]

The lines at the airport seem shorter since September 11th.

*shrug*

I haven't flown since 2000, so you can't prove it by me. But I'd say that your experience is different from the reports from just about everyone who flies frequently.

I would say that the newe system is a success.  There have been no attacks or casualties since the system was put in place.  And no one can say that it is worse because who knows what would have happened if it didn't change.  What we can say is that it has improved since no attacks have gone through.

No, you can't say that, because you don't know whether any repeat attempts have been made, nor whether any failures were caused by the new TSA system. This is completely unquantifiable, since no data are known.

One thing I feel absolutely confident in saying: there could never be a successful repeat, because the 9/11 attacks relied on the total surprise of "breaking the hijacking rules". The world now knows that any hijacking attempt can end the lives of everyone aboard the plane, plus thousands of people on the ground. There will no longer be pacifistic acceptance should a hijacking be announced; almost everyone aboard will fight so long as they have breath.

Perhaps you missed the one significant development mentioned in the article: hardened cockpits. Hijackers can't take control of the plane any longer. That is a change that we can be certain has prevented any repeat attempts.

Should there be another airplane attack, it will probably come from a cargo plane. You can stand in line in your socks waiting to be groped, and not do a darn thing about it.

Kevin

[foreverfree]

Well, I can't say that I am going to stand in line in my socks and be groped....I will stand in line with my tennis shoes, empty my pockets, walk through a metal detector and be on my way.  If you just know how to go through in a way to make your life easier it really isn't a hassle at all.  Also the amount of "hassle" you go through is so small as compared to the amount of protection you gain from it.  You have always had to go through a metal detector.  All's that they did was standardize it.  Is the TSA perfect?  No way.  Not even close, but it is a heck of a lot better than the civilians.  At least now we are getting employees that have benefits and a decent wage.  The TSA is going to attract a higher caliber employee than the civilian sector. 
I think that instead of crying "poor me. poor me", you should offer solutions to the "problem".  There is no such thing as a perfect government and there never will be.  There are too many individuals with indivualistic thoughts.  That is what makes this country so great and FREE.  Are there certain things that we have to go through to make sure the "whole" are safe?  Sure, but it is well worth it.  One day your sister, brother, mother, father, son or daughter might be the victim.  What will you say that day?  I hope it never happens to anyone and I believe this helps.

[jgmaynard]

"Does not officially support" probably means most of them support it "unofficially".?

That's the way I meant that line to be taken

JM

[KBCraig]

If you just know how to go through in a way to make your life easier it really isn't a hassle at all.

So if you cheerily accept the hassle, you don't feel hassled?

Also the amount of "hassle" you go through is so small as compared to the amount of protection you gain from it.

Why do you assume any protection is gained?

You have always had to go through a metal detector.

Absolutely not true.

  At least now we are getting employees that have benefits and a decent wage.  The TSA is going to attract a higher caliber employee than the civilian sector.

In many instances, they're the same employees. I work for the government, remember? I guarantee you that you're not getting a "higher caliber employee" over those who work in competitive fields. Lots of our employees switched to TSA and DHS because of the money... then came back begging for their jobs because they were absolutely disgusted with their new agency.

I think that instead of crying "poor me. poor me", you should offer solutions to the "problem".

This whole thread was about trying to bring about a solution to the problem. You don't like the solution we propose.

  There is no such thing as a perfect government and there never will be.  There are too many individuals with indivualistic thoughts.  That is what makes this country so great and FREE.  Are there certain things that we have to go through to make sure the "whole" are safe?  Sure, but it is well worth it.  One day your sister, brother, mother, father, son or daughter might be the victim.  What will you say that day?  I hope it never happens to anyone and I believe this helps.

Wow... I haven't seen such a nanny-state attitude since the less-than-a-million mom march. "Please protect us, we'll submit to any indignity if you'll just tell us is makes us safer!"



Kevin

[Lloyd Danforth]

http://www.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=56440

. By even the crudest cost-benefit risk analysis, bulletproof cockpit doors, which nobody notices, have the potential to save far more lives, at a far lower cost per life, than the screeners who open your child?s backpack and your grandmother?s purse while you stand around in your socks waiting for them to finish.

But, it won't create all of the new federal jobs that the screener bullshit does.

[Lloyd Danforth]

The TSA is going to attract a higher caliber employee than the civilian sector.?

You're kidding, right?

I think that instead of crying "poor me. poor me", you should offer solutions to the "problem".?

Did you catch the thing about cockpit doors ,above?

[Michael Fisher]

I doubt there was increased police presence.? How many are there normally and how many were there that day?? Can you substantiate your claim of them lying?? Let's keep this factual.

Please read my post again.

Channel 9 said it was obvious there was an increased police presence, even after the TSA said there wasn't.  The second time she brought it up and demanded an answer, the TSA did not disagree with her.

But I've boycotted airlines for the past few years because of nationalized airport security, so I cannot bring any perspective regarding the normal operations of Manchester airport.

[Russell Kanning]

There were tons of TSA and extra deputies......the lines moved quickly......unlike the usual.....

[Kat Kanning]

wait, kat I'm confused...are you saying you got unusual treatment while dropping Kira off on the 17th?

Yes.  I drop her off at the airport several times a year.  They've never called down from the ticket counter to the gate to say we were coming before.  I've never had head honcho TSA guys keep such an eye on us before, following us around the area outside the security checkpoint.  The TSA guys who interacted with us were really nervous...they acted like they were going through some checklist in their heads to make absolutely sure they did everything.  We didn't get any extra screening though.  They wrote some extra stuff on our boarding pass/checkpoint pass.

[Kat Kanning]

I'd estimate 20 sheriffs/ similar amount of TSA guys on the 11th.

When I went (which seemed normal) I saw ~3 sherrifs/10 TSA people.

The TSA guy did admit to the the ch 9 people there was an increased presence, just couldn't say how much...might endanger national security 

[KBCraig]

Here's an excellent FAQ from another activist:

http://freetotravel.org/faq.html