... to stop recording them.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/25/passenger_acquitted/

Video at the link

Quote :

"Prosecutors' case against Phil Mocek was so weak that he was found not guilty without testifying or calling a single witness, the Papers, Please! blog reported. The Daily Conservative said Friday's acquittal was the first time anyone has “successfully challenged the TSA’s assumed authority to question and detain travelers.” "

1/25/2011 7:32:00 PM

Excellent. Now if only we could get similar results on filming the police.

1/25/2011 8:19:12 PM

wow, that is a massive blow makes a huge amount of what the TSA does voluntary

Really, they would have a hard time continuing to operate if everyone saw this and protested accordingly

Quote :

"You have the right to fly without ID, and to photograph, film, and record what happens"

i mean really, this pretty much invalidates the entire TSA

1/26/2011 12:21:46 AM

Quote :

"i mean really, this pretty much invalidates the entire TSA"

good

1/26/2011 1:06:18 AM

Not so much. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ71/html/PLAW-107publ71.htm

1/26/2011 9:57:10 AM

Quote :

"that is a massive blow makes a huge amount of what the TSA does voluntary"

Everything they do is voluntary at the airport management level. They've been fired from a number of smaller airports and replaced with private security.

1/26/2011 9:58:47 AM

Question: Does a private security force assume liability if they don't catch something going on a plane that leads to the plane crashing?

For instance if a terrorist somehow snuck a bomb through security and detonated it on a plane, killing all on board, would family members of the victims be able to sue the security company?

1/26/2011 10:09:32 AM

if the airport is paying them, then yes probably. if the government is paying them, then lol no of course not.

1/26/2011 10:15:34 AM

Quote :

"Question: Does a private security force assume liability if they don't catch something going on a plane that leads to the plane crashing? For instance if a terrorist somehow snuck a bomb through security and detonated it on a plane, killing all on board, would family members of the victims be able to sue the security company?"

No idea but if it's anything like mercenaries, they are practically immune to just about everything

1/26/2011 11:05:25 AM

Heres how it would go down.

If the airport kicked out the TSA and hired private contractors and a plane from that airport was hijacked, the fed would come down with an almighty fury and heads would roll. The airport and the contractors would probably be liable for the resulting losses up to a certain amount. (similar to how there are limits on corporate liability or limits on the impact of offshore drilling). Rather than removing the liabiltiy limits (which would make the private contractors more careful), they'd use it to force legislation through requiring all airports to use the TSA.

If an airplane is hijacked from a TSA airport, then as government agents they would be immune from prosecution. The fed would create a special panel to investigate and after 2 years they would conclude that everyone within a 500 mile radius was responsible. They would use it as an excuse to implement more invasive security measures.

[Edited on January 26, 2011 at 11:22 AM. Reason : a]

1/26/2011 11:21:45 AM

The only reason I ask is it seems like that would be a huge liability. Walking a line between not being too invasive, but not being "willingly neglectful" and covering your ass is not something I would want to try to do as a business.

1/26/2011 11:39:36 AM

the resulting costs of a hijacking/accident can be factored into the costs of doing business and either A) you're still profitable in which case you go forward with the business or B) you cant be proitable because of the costs so you dont go into business unless the fed limits your liabilities.

I have no idea which one it is but i'd be willing to guess its A but the aviation industry convinced the fed and lawmakers that its B. (same as offshore drilling).



[Edited on January 26, 2011 at 11:59 AM. Reason : t]

1/26/2011 11:58:57 AM

^^^ Yup.

1/26/2011 12:04:39 PM

Quote :

"the resulting costs of a hijacking/accident can be factored into the costs of doing business and either A) you're still profitable in which case you go forward with the business or B) you cant be proitable because of the costs so you dont go into business unless the fed limits your liabilities. I have no idea which one it is but i'd be willing to guess its A but the aviation industry convinced the fed and lawmakers that its B. (same as offshore drilling)."

More like same as the nuclear industry. The WHO estimates for the cancers from Chernobyl are at around 4,000, which isn't much different from the # of people who died in 9/11. Regardless of what you believe about those numbers, that's basically how it's factored into the safety outlook of a nuclear plant - a meltdown and release is basically taken to be a 9/11 kind of event or worse. Again, reality doesn't matter, I'm talking about what the logic behind the safety regulations can be taken to imply.

Because of that, they have to have $300 million + insurance which is socialized. Can you have this privatized? Maybe, but for nuclear it hasn't been done in this nation. The airlines are in a similar boat for counter-terrorism. There is almost no way we restructure this without socializing something. If the government will not step in at some point, and the airlines are expected to take responsibility for the worst case scenarios, frankly we might just shut down the entire industry.

The key difference is that the airlines have customers that will be affected by their existence or nonexistence (the same is not true for nuclear until we run out of fossil fuels). If you use the risk valuation that other industries use, you realize the airline industry is a subsidy to the well-off who travel a lot from the rest of us who don't. This could change, depending on how you value a human life, for instance. But for nuclear power, we've halted the industry with safety standards that explicitly come from a valuation of a human life that allows effectively almost no economic tradeoff for it. The auto industry has some history that has put the value at something like $5 million per life in the 90s or so, but I think they found this to be a toxic tradeoff and I would claim that they incurred significant more costs than that (consider the $5 M was from certain court rulings, and those don't include all costs to the company).

I think companies that have to do any risk analysis where they weigh their costs against a life will be doomed to failure. An affluent public is the wrong party to have on the other side of a bargaining table from you. Due to how politics works, they rarely have any motivation to concede anything. And then if you disagree, you'll be painted as... well, a killer. This leads to standards creep, and soon no requirement will be too burdensome.

In their favor, this exact experiment hasn't quite been done before. Their goal is to put the public on both sides of the table, painting the shutdown of their business as economic ruin. Plus, what's burdensome to the industry is burdensome to the public within the security arena.

Just my 2 cents.

1/26/2011 3:20:48 PM

Like I said im not sure how that stuff is calculated. I didnt realize how much variance there was in the cost per human life, but i guess it makes sense that you wouldn't want to use it as a key cost because people tend to inflate it out of emotionalism. And like you mentioned with nuclear power because they dont think they need it they dont think its worth any cost.

For me the costs in human life for nuclear power has been nonexistant for years. Unless im way off the science makes melt downs that could impact health pretty much non-existant in modern designs. Compare that to airplanes where theres way way more things that could go wrong much easier.

Personally I think the hassles and extra costs to me as a consumer to travel by air are not worth anything. I'd much rather not deal with that and risk the turrrists because I think its such an overblown risk. If you wanted to cause real terror there are a million other easier ways to do it and the fact that no ones blowing up busses or shooting up malls is enough evidence for me to dismiss plane-based terrorism. I'm way more afraid of someone missing a failed part on the landing gear or something than i am of terrorists.

Obviously thats rational thinking to me so I see different costs involved. I think likewise if the people running the airlines were the ones making the decisions on what risks were reasonable they'd make the same decisions as me. As opposed to taking the HOLY SHIT WITHOUT THE TSA TERRORISTS BE KILLIN EVERYONE ON PLANES 24/7 based risk analysis of the fed/media.

But I'm not a risk management guy so im really just talking from my ass here. Which I love to do. alot.

[Edited on January 26, 2011 at 4:20 PM. Reason : q]

1/26/2011 4:19:57 PM

How are people in this thread looking at risk to fliers versus the public?

Sure, you could say that you accept the risk versus having ball grabs, but I could see the rest of the nation calling you selfish for not taking into account the risk to the public.

And there's a reasonable argument for that. Flying presents a risk of unintentional crash, which is certainly greater than of hijacking (historically). And considering past hijackings, the death toll of people on the ground was much greater than passengers.

So what say you? Is it up to the fliers to decide? Should it be?

1/26/2011 9:01:41 PM

haha, one of the affadavits from TSA says the he was taking pictures of the officers "in a threatening manner"

1/26/2011 9:27:38 PM

the risk of crash is way way way higher than the risk of terrorist attack. there is almost 0 risk of terrorist attack.

no ammount of tsa ballgrabbing will ever stop anyone who really wants to do a terror and it wont stop terrorists from doing other forms of terror away from airplanes.

The TSA is a complete and total money sync with absolutely 0 benefit.

Our piece of shit education system is 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x more of a threat to the public than terrorism ever will be. And yes, alot of morons may look at the TSA and think they're doing something and that its too much of a risk to get rid of them, but those people are morons. We as a country put far too much stock in protecting the feelings and self-esteem of morons to the point were they are ruining this country.

tl;dr: Terrorism is a non-threat and the TSA is non-effective. As a result the risk to the public of plane based terrorism with and without the TSA (or other security) is next to 0. Its so low to the point that mechanical failure or pilot error are far more pressing threats.

Disband the TSA.

1/26/2011 11:05:48 PM

Quote :

"The TSA is a complete and total money sync"

lol, ok.

anyhow, if the TSA is kicked out of an airport, as is happening in one of the Florida airports, it will be replaced by a private agency charged with performing the exact same duties as the TSA is now. the only difference is that instead of the cost of security paid by the airport to the government (ie back to the people), the payment goes to the shareholders or principals of the private company (ie a few people).

whichever profit scenario is preferable can be argued, but changes to passengers' experience will be minimal if any.




[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2011 12:32:33 PM

haha. my brain to keyboard parser doesnt always handle autocomplete or homophones

the TSA or any other replacement security force will not and cannot protect against anything but the dumbest terrorists.

There is no benefit and if airports could legally get away with lowered security they totally would because it means lower cost. Unlike the fed private airport owners have no obligation to spend money on devices manufactured by the people who got them elected.

Private airport owners are in the business of extracting the most money possible out of those who fly. Making it easier to fly and lowering overhead = more $$$.

The fed is in the business of spending taxes and increasing power. Buying equipment and hiring more public employees = more power and more spending.

The incentives are completely opposite. You wont see private airports without the TSA groping people unless the Fed mandates the groping.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2011 12:41:10 PM

Quote :

"wow, that is a massive blow makes a huge amount of what the TSA does voluntary"

i dont see how this is a blow to the TSA. IANAL and I dont know the details but the TSA is operating on federal authority. a local jury decision is hardly a precedent.

in practical terms, this man was detained, arrested, held in jail for some period of time, maybe had to post bond, had to retain a lawyer, and had to appear in court. a rather large disruption in his life, relatively speaking.

On the other hand, I'm pretty confident that nobody at the TSA has been particularly inconvenienced by this.

1/27/2011 12:43:53 PM

Quote :

"the TSA or any other replacement security force will not and cannot protect against anything but the dumbest terrorists. "

well.... pull that out of your ass, much? i dislike the TSA as much as anyone, but you can not merely state such a "fact" without any sort of data. Tell me, please, how many malcontents have chosen not to try and bring on a weapon due to the presence of overwhelmingly intrusive security checkpoints?

Quote :

" Private airport owners"

huh?

you seem to have an inability to distinguish airport "ownership" with security firm ownership. the vast majority of airports in the US are owned by a city or county government-controlled Port Authority. we aren't talking about private airstrips with their Cessnas clubs or fat cat Lear Jets here.

Quote :

"You wont see private airports without the TSA groping people unless the Fed mandates the groping. "

yes, you will. Private security firms will be governed by the same Federal mandates and will employ the same methods to profile and pat down passengers who opt out of being scrutinized with the surface x-ray scanners.

For passengers it will be the same experience, and likely the private security company will merely rehire many of the local displaced ex-TSA employees, but at a lower pay scale. Although, I do suspect that the private company will force their employees to smile more, as they will understand the importance of PR and perception.

the problem here is not the TSA vs. private security. the problem is the federal mandate in the first place. the *source* of the regulations needs to be addressed, not changing the name of the secondary party that implements the regulations.

I actually agree with your sentiments more than you realize. But you really should do some research instead of just tossing out opinions based on your readings of Ayn Rand.








[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2011 12:58:19 PM

underpants bomber walked through security without issue. he was an idiot. if he had been a non-idiot he could have done some damage. There are ways through every form of security especially at something with as many entrances and exits as an airport. If someone wanted to do some damage they could bide their time and get their own people into the places ncessiary to bypass security. I mean hell. even after the groping was instituted Adam Savage walked through security with razor blades.

Regardless of who owns the airport if their ultimate goal is to serve passengers and get money they're going to want as little security as possible. Security agencies are going to provide them with whatever level they ask for. Obviously they'll always want to provide as many different services as possible but its up to the airport owners to decide on the level of security. With the TSA theres only ever 1 level of security.

And all of this is really retarded anyways because there are 100000000 other ways to do a terror and the fact that we've focused soley on airports is because people are idiots. If anyone wants to do a terror they can just make some bombs and blow themselves up on busses. or buy some guns and shoot up a school/hospital/mall/whatever.

This continued idea that airplanes are the only way the terrorists will ever attack us is the height of stupidity.

1/27/2011 1:24:48 PM

Quote :

"Tell me, please, how many malcontents have chosen not to try and bring on a weapon due to the presence of overwhelmingly intrusive security checkpoints? "

Apparently not enough since the dumb ones keep getting through. It's also a reasonable assumption that given that reporters and ordinary citizens like Adam Savage can bring 12 inch razor blades and other weapons on to a plane on an almost regular basis despite the checkpoints, no terrorist intent on actually inflicting harm is going to be scared off by the security check points as they exist now.

1/27/2011 1:26:23 PM

Quote :

"the only difference is that instead of the cost of security paid by the airport to the government (ie back to the people)"

Dude, cost is just that . . . cost.

"The people" won't get the cost of scanners, salary, benefits, overtime, incidentals, fuel costs back . . . they'll go to private corporations who provide everything but the labor. The labor, being employees, will take that money home with them.

The US Government is running a $1.5T debt this year . . . there isn't a fucking dime going back to "the People"

1/27/2011 8:09:50 PM

So I didn't find a "TSA and the farce of airport security" thread but this will do. For all of the TSB "opt out" proponents like myself, good luck trying to opt out of the scanners in the future...

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-tsa-pia-32-d-ait.pdf

This was promulgated on Dec. 18, conveniently enough right before the holiday travel season. Luckily I don't have to fly anywhere for Christmas, but I'd be interested to know how this was applied in Charlotte or Raleigh. DHS hasn't completely barred opting out but this new policy will likely have the same effect.

[Edited on December 23, 2015 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ...]

12/23/2015 3:14:53 PM

I am not a fan of the TSA and would like to see it dissolved.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM. Reason : clarity]

1/5/2016 1:01:28 PM

Quote :

"The only reason I ask is it seems like that would be a huge liability. Walking a line between not being too invasive, but not being "willingly neglectful" and covering your ass is not something I would want to try to do as a business."

That is not how liability works. A man brought guns into a private movie theater and shot the place up, the theater had no security what-so-ever and yet was found not liable for anything that happened. Why? Because no security what-so-ever was both appropriate and the industry norm.

Negligence is required here. In other words, you have to do something wrong to be liable for the losses of someone else. Those suing you would have the burden of proving that your security was below industry standards and could have prevented the injury suffered. If terrorists get through your private gate security with bombs, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that those same bombs would not have made it through most other airport's security. That said, as most other airports use the TSA, which seems to be particularly incompetent as far as security theater goes, therefore plaintiffs would be hard pressed to demonstrate that your private airport security was worse than the TSA, given all the publicly documented failures of the TSA throughout its history.

1/21/2016 3:46:57 PM