Viable TSA option?
 

"Orlando Sanford International Airport has announced that it will opt out of the TSA’s screening program."
http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-...-tsa-screening

It will be interesting to see if insurance providers for the airport operator will allow this.

The airport can't really be held responsible if a federal law enforcement agency screws up.

But if they hire private contractors, they will probably buy into some responsibility for their effectiveness...as well as liability for their mistakes.

I'd like to see it happen but we'll have to wait and see.

It boils down to the passengers.

Are they willing to put up with TSA goons? If no, the airports will be willing to Opt-Out on TSA and pay the difference in insurance cost/wages to keep passenger traffic up.

If travelers keep flying, then TSA is here to stay.

I'd like to see it happen too. But the private contractors will still be required to conduct full-body scans, pat-downs and whatever else TSA guidelines require. No doubt, free-market competition will produce a higher level of customer service and so on. But I think, reqardless of whether or not an airport opts-out of TSA screening, the fight must go on.

There is a real question of the legality of these invasive techniques and whether or not there is a violation of the 4th amendment. And then there is the issue of profiling. El Al doesn't feel that profiling is the same as discrimination and I would have to agree.

Bottom line, TSA needs an overhaul. And airports threatening to opt-out of TSA screening will certainly help the cause.

Program's been around for a while. And it works.

TSA: Frequently Asked Questions - Program

Lots of great information in that link.

I thought the explanation of constitutional rights was particularly interesting... that the screening is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary"

So is it necessary? I don't know.. I'm thinking it goes too far. Certainly its a valid question that needs a deeper review.

And the overall attitude of TSA seems to be a core problem as well.

Another big factor, along with the insurance/pay, will be equipment cost. If the airport doesn't already have the AIT's they will have to BUY them. And MAINTAIN them. These are not cheap machines to buy, let alone to have techs from the different companies coming down all the time to do routine maintenance or if one breaks down. The airports that 'opt out' will face HUGE increases in their expenditures, that will have to be borne by who? Either the local taxpayers, or b*tch enough to have the Fed's step in and 'grant' them the money, which just means that ALL the taxpayers have to pay for their grandstanding...

Couldn't it also be that the passengers flying in/out of that airport will end up paying... through higher tickets prices? Some kind of airport fee or however these things work?

THat case os old law and no longer the standard

So, whats the standard? I reccommend you notify the Rutherford Institute immediately with your insight on case law. They are representing two pilots in a lawsuit that claims their 4th Amendment rights were violated. We wouldn't want them to waste their time.

Not Haliburton any more...
Why Is Michael Chertoff So Excited About Full-Body Scanners?

Since 9/11, we have had at least two known attempts by islamists to bring down pax airliners using bombs hidden on the body of a terrorist. One of these would have almost certainly succeeded if a pax had not interfered with Richard Reid.

Does that not lead one to conclude that it might be necessary to find out what terrorists carry on their bodies?

No? Then what do wait for? Maybe a successful attack by an underwear bomber? That attack method certainly posed a valid threat, and was foiled only by the incompetence of the bomb maker.

You need to ask yourself if you would change your mind if a widebody (or two or three) were brought down this holiday season. If that would change your mind, then you might as well change it now BEFORE the horses are out of the barn.

The current security system worked in the case of RR, but the layered defense failed all the way up to the very last layer (alert pax). that's cutting it too close.

The security system completely failed in the underwear case...the terrorists screwed that up all on their own (regardless of what Janet would have you think).

Such an attack would be a big game changer for us...it would almost certainly mean a permanent career change for the bottom 20% of every airline's list. This industry will not bounce back so quickly from a second 9/11. Even if the pax are willing to come back the added security costs will kill us economically (it's expensive to shut the barn door!)

I certainly understand folks who don't like these screening techniques, but no one is forcing you to do it! Flying on airliners is not a "right". There are numerous other travel options, feel to take one them. NYC-LAX used to take sis months by covered wagon...in those terms 3 days on a bus is not such a big deal. If enough pax do it there will be first class, meal service, etc.

Fair enough. But there is still the 4th Amendment. It doesn't just go away and we will have to wait and see how these lawsuits play out. In the meantime, as long as we're strip searching and groping little boys, clearly the terrorists have already won.

YouTube - Young Boy strip searched by TSA (Original w/ Full Story Description)

And if a wide-body (don't know why it would have to be a wide-body, but your words).. so if a wide-body was brought down this holiday season, it would only serve as proof that these invasive techniques are not effective.

You say the industry won't "bounce back" so quickly from a second 9/11. Do you think the industry has quickly "bounced back" from the first one??

You're absolute right about one thing.. less and less people will be flying the airlines. The NYC-LAX on a bus example was a bit extreme. But driving your car from ATL to IAD, for example? Absolutely. Probably take less time than flying. And you get to keep your clothes on and not worry about who's touching your wife and son. And just forget about the coveted business class flyers. Those that can will be flying privately, and the others will using GoToMeeting and WebEx.

I was passing through security on a personal trip recently. TSA found a large bottle of aerosol in my bag. It was foot spray for my smelly feet. I forgot it was in there. They hand it back to me... they tell me its fine because it classifies as medicine. Wow. Meanwhile, a little girl has to ask grandma why they are touching her "girl spots" ..

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/new...molested'-

When do the cavity searches start?

The 4th amendment is probably not going to be an issue because...

1. The screening is probably not excessive, in light of the threat.
2. Airline travel is a voluntary, optional activity. The constitution makes no reference to the any right to fly airlines, or even to fly at all!

Just like random, mandatory drug and alcohol testing, which would be extremely invasive if applied to the public as a whole, is OK for pilots in a certain context...flying is optional for us too.


Public opinion might create more of an issue for the TSA than any legal wranglings.

I think we should have screened and non-screened flights...crewmembers and the public can chose which they prefer: solid screening techniques or a very, very small risk of getting blown up on each leg. Actually statistics show that (since 9/11) you are far more likely to die from regional pilot error than terrorist acts.

The after-affects would not be changed by the type, or lack, or pax screening used. I'm just saying it would be bad, and should be avoided

No it didn't. But compared to what would happen the SECOND time around it bounced back remarkably well. Families don't really seriously consider driving 1500 miles to Grandma's house today...allow another 9/11 and they would drive.


At some point the terrorists win. I think we can all agree that cavity searches would be that point.

Whole body scanners are not an issue for me, but I have a technical background which allows me to understand exactly how these scanners might affect the human body without resorting to internet conspiracy theories.

I also don't really care if TSA sees a grey scale negative image of me, but I can understand that is a personal thing and other folks may feel differently.

I think the end result will be based on what percentage of the public is OK with the security vs. privacy tradeoff. Personally I am far more concerned with certain other government encroachments on our rights...a photo of my bod can't actually be used to harm me or infringe on my rights.

I suspect that a large majority will be OK with this...you are just not hearing much from the because it is the activist minority which makes the headlines.

First off, the 4th Amendment relates to searches by law enforcement. The searches that are conducted at airports are administrative and are exempted from the 4th Amendment... Just as drug and alcohol screening are allowed for public transportation employees...

As for the YouTube clip, the FATHER took the son's shirt off. TSA did not ask nor require him to do so. In fact, TSA were the ones who helped him put the shirt back on, while the father stood there being a jacka**...

These searches are not "exempted" from the 4th Amendment. These searches may have been found to be "valid" ... but that is something entirely different from exemption.

Now, the TSA (from their website), puts it this way...

Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives "

Notice not even the TSA says their searches are "exempted" from the 4th Amendment. They say they are "valid" under certain conditions. So lets wait and see where these lawsuits go. It's far from over.

Also, I understand that everyone has an agenda. It doesn't matter who took the boy's shirt off. The point is, the terrorist in the next line over is passing through security with explosives up his butt or inside an aerosol can of foot spray, while TSA is busy searching a small boy with their hands. IT IS ABSURD.

What's a couple of wide bodies? 500 folks? In 2008 alone 11,773 people were killed as a result of drunk driving. I didn't check before I posted to make sure, but I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't make any specific mention of a "right" to drive a car either. In 2001, 17,448 people were killed as a result of drunk driving. That's almost 6 times as many that died on 9/11. Why don't we have 24/7 drunk driving check points? Why aren't all cars federally required to be equipped with a BAC tester that must be used before the car will start? Why don't cops give a BAC test regardless of the reason you were pulled over? I'm not saying that even one death as a result of a terrorist using an airplane is acceptable, I'm just saying that if your going to use invasive techniques to prevent deaths, and justify it with the "(insert your preferred mode of travel) is not a right" argument, there might be bigger fish to fry.