The TSA wants to be everywhere in 2013 - here's why we shouldn't let it

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130102105144-332179-the-tsa-wants-to-be-everywhere-in-2013-here-s-why-we-shouldn-t-let-it

by mtgx • 14 years ago

185 97 14 years ago

linkedin.com

nazgulnarsil• 14 years ago

Newly created government institution uses resources to secure expansion of power, reach, number of employees, news at 11.

nacker• 14 years ago

Mother, should I trust the government?

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=45633

greenyoda• 14 years ago

It would seem that if a sporting event is held on private property (e.g., Madison Square Garden), the TSA would need to be invited by the property owners before it could operate there.

kelnos2• 14 years ago

Aren't many airports privately-owned as well?

colbyaley• 14 years ago

After an event I was at was targeted to be blown up, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Portland_car_bomb_plot) I have changed my views on anti-terrorist teams at events and mass-gatherings.

I do find it silly, however, that these teams are supposedly a devision of the "Transit Security Administration".

ta2342342• 14 years ago

    targeted to be blown up

Mainly by the FBI, based on that wikipedia article.

FBI: Hey, do you want to blow something up?

Terrorist: OK

FBI: Here's a bomb, go blow something up.

Terrorist: OK

[click]

FBI: You're under arrest!

Sure, the guy committed a crime, but was I wouldn't say the event was "targeted to be blown up". It was a sting operation. A small probability threat was amplified by the FBI for the purpose of making a case. Does that justify TSA goons everywhere? The same ones that won't let you bring your bottle of Coke on an airplane?

Governments love to use "larger than life" enemies to justify a disproportionate invasion of liberty. It used to be Communists, now it's Terrorists.

Aco-• 14 years ago

this happens way more than people (care to?) notice

anigbrowl2• 14 years ago

When you read the actual indictments and court transcripts in cases like this, the would-be terrorists turn out to be nothing like the passive actor you hypothesize here, but rather display a fair degree of initiative; they have typically come to the FBI's attention because people around them are alarmed by their aspirations and report them to law enforcement.

There are tough legal questions about where the borderline between facilitation and encouragement lies. But someone who willingly goes through the steps required t detonate what they believe to be a fully armed truck bomb is not a mere innocent victim. The correct answer to 'Hey, do you want to blow something up?' is 'No, because that would be crazy and horrible.'

mikeash2• 14 years ago

You shouldn't change your assessment of the risks just because you almost got unlucky. It's like suddenly deciding that lottery tickets are a good investment just because you know someone who won.

killermonkeys• 14 years ago

Without belittling the realization of ones own mortality which is a very healthy thing, the question here isn't whether a police state "makes us safer" (it probably does) but what level of trade off between civil liberties and privacy we are willing to make to be safer.

Since being safer is infinitely possible and impossible to measure, we should start and end the conversation with civil liberty, not with safety. Do you want the government to try to perform stings on would-be terrorists, potentially entrapping otherwise innocent people? I'm ok with that. Do you want a government agency to have sweeping search and detention rights with cause or warrant? I do not.

As others have noted, anecdotal evidence is the enemy of reason when cases of actual terrorist attack are so infrequent versus the frequent antiterrorist measures taken "at" you.

mikeash2• 14 years ago

Police states are notoriously unsafe. While they may keep you safe from independent criminals, your risk of being victimized by the government itself goes way up.

gosub• 14 years ago

A fool and his liberties are soon parted?

GFischer• 14 years ago

Even if your premise is valid, do you believe the people at U.S. airports are "anti-terrorist teams"?

Dozens of articles refute the usefulness of the TSA, some referring to real anti-terrorist teams like Israeli ones (see some below, I can't find the best one).

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/forget_t...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/on-...

Even if, like yourself, you want real security, you shouldn't like the TSA.

I'm not an U.S. citizen nor do I live there, but from the outside (plus some experiences by relatives and being shoe-searched on American Airlines) it doesn't look good at all.

slavak• 14 years ago

Interestingly, the Israeli authorities were at one point reportedly considering installing back-scatter scanners at airports.

For catching customs violations.

Thankfully the plan seems to have been scrapped, as that instant years ago was the first and last time I heard anything about it.

astrodust• 14 years ago

The FBI made sure nothing happened here, they seem to know what they're doing. They should be commended for keeping this situation well in hand.

The TSA is not the same thing. Their security theater would've done nothing to prevent someone from driving up a truck bomb and setting it off.

darkarmani• 14 years ago

So do you also never fly because it is "safer?"

ck2• 14 years ago

The only way to stop them is to stop funding them and that requires both parties to agree. Good luck with that.

Get used to the new TSA overlords. High school dropouts will now be groping you since it's the only job they will be able to get.

pyre2• 14 years ago

Both parties already agree. They agree that de-funding the TSA is political suicide. Especially if any sort of terrorist attack happens. Even if the public doesn't attempt to point fingers, political opponents will (during the next re-election campaign most likely).

city41• 14 years ago

The broad and vague ruling that enables the TSA to do anything they want in airports[0] can (and will) be applied to just about any public event. It's probably just a matter of a few years or so before the TSA is searching us at virtually all public gatherings. And there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

[0] http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-...

jmspring2• 14 years ago

A public that is passive and follows "the rules" enables this, unfortunately.

gasull6• 14 years ago

In 2011 and 2012 we had Occupy Wall Street and Anonymous. Probably the broadest protest movement online and offline in a long time, if not ever.

And the politicians won. Wall Street won. The TSA won. They all have more power than 2 years ago.

If the broadest peaceful protest couldn't make it, what possibly can?

sneak16• 14 years ago

c.f. Milgram experiment. It's human nature.

Germany is way more rule-following and is way more free than the USA.

sneak16• 14 years ago

The headline should read "everywhere _in the US_".

Your comment should read "all public gatherings _in the US_".

There is indeed something you can do about it. You can go live in a country where there is no TSA. (This has the added benefit of your productive energies no longer helping fund the TSA, as well, for incomes below about $92,000.)

A dozen countries have a similar standard of living as the US, and many of those are substantially more free.

amirmc• 14 years ago

> "There is indeed something you can do about it. You can go live in a country where there is no TSA"

In other words, give up?

I find it ludicrous (and terrifying) when statements like this are made. This isn't some web-app whose terms of service you don't like, it's a nation state. People throughout history took to the streets to win freedom/voting right/etc. If no-one's left fighting back then expect to get trampled. Soon there'll be nowhere left to move.

rafski2• 14 years ago

American illusion of freedom isn't something easy to grasp for people from "less free" countries who are, for instance, able to travel freely to Cuba.

American expats who moved permanently abroad have to file their taxes with IRS forever. In any European state your last contact with the country's Revenue is for the last year you lived there (unless you still have income in this country). You don't have to file anything, ever. You're free to go.

From that standpoint, Americans are effectively property of their government.

mtgx• 14 years ago

TSA was present in UK at the Olympics.

vijayr2• 14 years ago

You can go live in a country where there is no TSA.

This is possible/easy only if:

1. You have enough knowledge, skill sets to get a job in the "dozen countries"

2. Or, have enough money to start a business

3. Don't have family commitments, kids etc

4. The U.S is still the best place to be, if you are in tech and few other sectors

Also, it amounts to giving up. What if you relocate to a new country, and the same thing happens there too? There is no guarantee that it wouldn't happen.

That said, could you please list the dozen countries you mentioned? Just curious to know.

thecoffman• 14 years ago

While I agree with your similar standard of living statement, I'm not sure that I could name a country that is "substantially more free" with a comparable standard of living. We may have differing definitions of free, but things like relatively unrestricted free speech, minmal taxation, gun rights, etc are all very important and many countries just don't have them in the same degree as we do here.

They may have similar, or in many cases higher, standards of living, but I don't think you can make the argument that they're "more free." Not that America is really all that free anymore either....

ataggart• 14 years ago

Few men want to be free; most just want fair masters.

AutoKorrect• 14 years ago

exercise your 2nd amendment rights

ams6110• 14 years ago

That the TSA is expanding its scope should surprise nobody. It's what bureaucracies do. Also it wasn't named the ASA (Airport Security Administration) it was named something much less specific. Probably won't be long before they're patrolling interstate highways in stealth-black Dodge Chargers with officious logos on the sides.

narag• 14 years ago

I wonder what private contractors in Irak will do when their assignment there is over. IIRC there was many of them. Trained men with real OT experience, that used to be well-paid...

n3rdy• 14 years ago

Every time I hear about the TSA trying to expand to other places such as this, I can't help but think they are like the Westboro Baptist Church of the government agencies.. and I believe that's really saying something.

That's right TSA, congratulations on accomplishing the impossible and becoming more hated than the I.R.S.

If you only would use your power for good and not evil.

pyre2• 14 years ago

  > and passengers may avoid the search by electing
  > not to fly

Tell that to the people that were threatened with fines when they backed out of the screenings once they got to the front of the line and didn't want to be groped or subjected to backscatter x-rays... The idea being that once you entered the line for the security checkpoint, that you were not allowed to leave.

gasull6• 14 years ago

I'm already thinking it's too late to prevent the US (and most of the Western World) from becoming an Orwellian dystopia. The US is already more corrupt than Singapore, a country with no democracy:

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results

So every year we have more corruption, less freedom, more taxes and more IP trolling.

Can someone convince me that the pendulum is going to swing back?

beedogs• 14 years ago

Not without an overwhelming amount of capital (both human and financial) losses, I'm afraid.

saraid2164• 14 years ago

I doubt it. American cynicism pretty much makes it impossible. If you can't bring hope to the table, you put a double burden on someone else.

Not sure why you think Singapore is not a democracy, though.

jmspring2• 14 years ago

Call me a pessimist, but the lemming nature to following the reactionary rules of the TSA makes me believe the person you responded to is correct.

gasull6• 14 years ago

> Not sure why you think Singapore is not a democracy, though.

It's a an "hybrid regime", "partly free":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore#Government_and_polit...

Maybe that's what the US is too already.

eru2• 14 years ago

This just goes to show that democracy and transparency / non-corruption do not march in lockstep. (By the way, I just moved to Singapore from Britain. It's nice here.)

smutticus3• 14 years ago

How many people here are willing to get arrested?

Because that's what it's going to take to reverse this trend. We need hundreds/thousands of non-violent protesters politely and professionally refusing these intrusions and getting arrested for it. Until that happens these intrusions will continue.

sneak16• 14 years ago

None, as the ionizing radiation and sexual assault at airports has clearly and unambiguously illustrated.

Your notion of vast public dissent is a fantasy.

smutticus3• 14 years ago

I hold no such fantasy.

I'm simply pointing out that until mass non-violent protest and the accompanying mass arrests civil liberties will continue to degrade. I never said it was going to happen. I just said it's what needs to happen.

polyfractal3• 14 years ago

I'm not condoning the TSA in any way (I also think it is a deplorable organization), but as a biologist I feel compelled to state that you receive vastly more ionizing radiation looking out the window of your plane than you do in the one of the TSA scanners.

Again, not condoning the invasion of privacy for security theater, but the "threat" of ionizing radiation is almost always over-stated.

WettowelReactor• 14 years ago

A very small percentage of Americans ever enter an airport. If the TSA presence expands beyond that their tactics will be felt by a far greater percentage of voting americans. It may be that expanding beyond airports will be very detrimental to the TSA's longevity.

The TSA wants to be everywhere in 2013 - here's why we shouldn't let it

Related Stories