TSA: They Confiscate Your Personal Property And Then Sell It At A Profit
That's what commenter Dev said on CNN.com about the TSA. His comment in full:
So they confiscate your personal property, acquired for nothing, then sell it for a profit, which is no different from stealing, but it's all legal....sounds like a great business model.
Aaron Smith writes at CNNMoney:
Last year the Transportation Security Administration collected 888,000 items -- from knives and scissors to snow globes and sunglasses -- that were confiscated or left behind by airline passengers as they boarded their flights.But airport contraband has an afterlife.
It ends up in state-run stores, where thrifty customers can rummage through bins of objects from the TSA's no-fly list. In warehouses around the country, bargain-seekers browse through crates of knives, tools and even box cutters, the weapon used in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Everything is sold at a steep discount, sometimes for $1 apiece, and sometimes by the pound.
"These places actually collect what's discarded at our checkpoints," said TSA spokesman David Castelveter. "We are required to give those leftover items to the state governments, and then they decide what to do with it."
The "leftover stuff" includes not just items that can be used as weapons, like meat cleavers, ice picks, sabers, bows and arrows, nunchucks, hammers, power saws and cattle prods, but also forgotten items like books and jewelry. Some of the items are sold at state-run stores and some are auctioned off in bulk on the website Govdeals.com.
Pennsylvania press secretary Troy Thompson said that his state has made $800,000 in revenue from the online auctions since they began in 2004. The state's Harrisburg store, which sells things surrendered at airports in New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Maryland and Washington, D.C., has logged $15,000 in sales since it opened last year.
The stuff they've stolen from passengers is "contraband" only in the world of "security." As somebody tweeted last night:
@dijjidog
Thank You #TSA for catching the lady with eye drops & the book " 101 ways to make a bomb out of eye drops! "
9/11 was a game-changer. Before that, we thought terrorists wanted a bag of money and a trip to Bolivia.
These days, nobody's going to bring down a plane with a gun, an ice pick, or even a cattle prod. There are reinforced doors and we've all heard about the 72 virgins the gullible jihadists think they'll get after they kill a bunch of "infidels" -- which means a bunch of big American guys will tackle the ass of anybody who stands up with a boxcutter and screams Allahu Akbar.
But, this was a great excuse for our government to roll back our civil liberties, while creating a jobs program and more bureaucracy, and while funneling dump trucks of cash to disgusting "public service" employees like Michael Chertoff who've cashed in big on their government jobs and connections.
which means a bunch of big American guys will tackle the ass of anybody who stands up with a boxcutter and screams Allahu Akbar
Whaddya mean "tackle"? the unfortunate fellow tripped and fell on his box cutter.
72 times. It was totally an accident. Could happen to anyone. I pinky swears it.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 12, 2012 6:42 AM
"a bunch of big American guys will tackle the ass of anybody who stands up with a boxcutter"
Then the press will write a story about the "brave men and women" who stepped up. Funny how few feminists one finds in that situation, isn't it?
Jay R` at December 12, 2012 8:04 AM
And they make you remove your sun glasses so they can see your face !!! So here is the scenario they are looking for... Terrorist: "Ill just put on these sunglasses and then they wont notice me" ..."ill just stand in line here..."
TSA AGENT : "Sir can you remove your sunglasses please?"
Terrorist: AHHHHHGH you have caught me you sneaky American with your tricks !
Our freedoms have been and are being slowly taken.
I took notice when they made the seat belt and helmet laws and started putting safety switches on cigarette lighters
dijidog at December 12, 2012 9:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/12/tsa_they_confis.html#comment-3514241">comment from dijidogOur freedoms have been and are being slowly taken.
Absolutely. Always thrilled to find others who notice and care.
I took notice when they made the seat belt and helmet laws and started putting safety switches on cigarette lighters
They start small and encroach from there.
Amy Alkon at December 12, 2012 9:32 AM
It ain't just the property, it's the sex.
These people are going to get tail one way or the other.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 12, 2012 10:03 AM
Also, more photos. We need a blog post where we can post funny or stupid or offtopic comments* without distracting from the flow of your conversation. Make every commenter send in a personal funny foto every three months and post one per day, or something like that.
* Like this:
Let's agree that while Gawker blogs can be tiresome, they can sometimes really nail it to the wall:
It's important to have that voice at work in pop culture, and Letterman lost it twenty years ago.Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 12, 2012 10:07 AM
Given the large number of items that are not allowed through the checkpoints, I have never understood why the airports or airlines don't step in on behalf of their customers.
Set up a counter right at the checkpoint, with a stack of envelopes and small boxes. Offer to mail objects to people's home addresses, at cost.
This would be called "customer service". Of course, that is a term that the US airline industry hasn't understood for at least 30 or 40 years. If they did, they would have long since kicked TSA out (as they have the right to do), and put in their own personnel.
a_random_guy at December 12, 2012 10:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/12/tsa_they_confis.html#comment-3514361">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]We need a blog post where we can post funny or stupid or offtopic comments* without distracting from the flow of your conversation.
Good point. Forgotten to do that lately.
Amy Alkon at December 12, 2012 11:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/12/tsa_they_confis.html#comment-3514366">comment from Amy AlkonYour wish...
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/12/off-topic_vulga.html
Amy Alkon at December 12, 2012 11:11 AM
For all you regular readers of the Goddess' blog you can skip past this post. I'm going to post my regular rant about not needing the TSA. For all you new readers, please read it carefully and refute any statement or misstatement. ;-)
=================================================
The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!
The paradigm, the norm, the expected, what everyone was taught to do was to sit down, shut up and wait for the plane to land and the negotiations happen. That was the model from Entebbe onward.
The passengers on board did not really know what was about to happen on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:30 when Flight 11 struck Tower I.
Even the passengers on Flight 175 probably didn't realize what was about to happen when they struck Tower II at 9:03:02.
The Pentagon crash of Flight 77 at 9:37:46 may have been still a matter of ignorance.
At 10:03:11 on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after the brave souls counter-attacked and caused the hijackers to crash the plane.
The time difference is 60 minutes and 9 seconds from Tower II being struck to the crash of Flight 93. The shoe bomber and panty bomber were taken down by fellow passengers as well. Recently, JetBlue's Flight 191 pilot was taken down by the passengers once he was out of the cockpit. Additionally how many times have you heard of passengers' concerns and diverted flights?
The TSA is and has always been a joke, no make that a total stupidity, that has wasted our country's fortune going down a rabbit hole.
If you don't believe me look at the 9/11 timeline.
There will never be another 9/11 style attack unless the attackers can arrange planes full of geriatrics, and even then it would be doubtful.
Oh, and someone brought bombs being an issue. If bombs were effective and simple then the Lockerbie bombing would have been repeated multiple times between 21 December 1988 and 11 September 2001. That's 4647 days or 13 years. Where was the TSA in that time? There was one successful bombing that was done in Colombia and two unsuccessful attempts in that time. The bombing in Colombia was a drug dealer assassination and not a terrorist attack.
Jim P. at December 12, 2012 7:28 PM
"Then the press will write a story about the "brave men and women" who stepped up. Funny how few feminists one finds in that situation, isn't it?"
I'm a woman and I have no problem laying my life on the line to protect others by tackling a terrorist on a flight.
Unless you have a grandmother or other female relative that marched and was beaten, jailed and abused to get women the right to vote, and you have laid your life on the line to protect others, shedding your own blood in the process...sit down and shut up. Your misogyny isn't needed.
Keliandra at December 12, 2012 7:29 PM
I live literally across the street from Clackamas Town Center and the specific part where the shooting happened. This morning an idiot reporter asked if I'd support TSA-style screenings at mall entrances to make them safer. Hell no! I don't support them at the airport let alone anywhere else!!!
BunnyGirl at December 12, 2012 8:31 PM
Okay, where is Jeff? Mike Hunter? "Knowing"?
Where is the defense for this practice?
After all, if screenings are 100% effective, then ordinary possessions can be allowed on a plane.
Just as they were for the previous 70 years of commerical air travel.
Radwaste at December 13, 2012 2:32 AM
Keliandra, rather than calling men misogynists for pointing out things we all see but are forbbiden to talk about how about you police the faux feminists who cause the problems, rather then the men who dare mention it?
lujlp at December 13, 2012 7:27 AM
Radwaste:
Why do you call upon me to defend a practice I don't advocate?
If I was the Head Dude What's in Charge (as if it was possible that Obama could make a clear, declarative statement) I would make the obvious perfectly clear: hijackers won't get on the flight deck, pilots won't respond to hijackers' demands. And, the US relies upon American men to take action as required. Any incidental injuries to the attacker would be a shame (wink).
The focus should be on keeping explosives off airplanes. Period.
Jeff Guinn at December 13, 2012 3:46 PM
Your focus on the 86 bombing attacks overall since 1933 among the 18,250,000 commercial aircraft launches per year. The chances come out to 0.000000471232877% per flight. And that is just for this year. Let's multiply to 8600 bombings so that means your chance is chances come out to 0.0000471232877%.
Even if it was a 200 people killed per bombing -- that means 17,200 died in all the aircraft bombings. The death rate on the highway is about 35K+ dead each year.
Jeff,
Please try to get with the realities.
Jim P. at December 13, 2012 10:49 PM
Jim P. - while your example is illustrative, it is also fallacious. ALL the highway deaths in the world are UNRELATED to the risk of flying.
Logically, the risk of an activity must be compared to its benefits.
And this is what you miss, Jeff: you are supporting a mechanism that does NOT provide what you claim, while this product - the confiscation of property - is the direct result of its policies.
It seems to me you've moved the goalposts, too, to defend only a search for bombs, but that might just be me.
Meanwhile, here's a relatively mild article from Patrick Smith which might be more effective than rehashing things here.
Radwaste at December 14, 2012 6:55 AM
No, my focus is on suicide attackers, which scarcely existed before 9/11, which involved 19 and are now the Islamist de rigueur. Suicide bombers are far more difficult to defend against.
You might remember from a previous thread where I cited what people will willingly do when it is their skin in the game. (Getting a colonoscopy every 10 years reduces your chance of dying from colorectal cancer by .014% ).
For that payoff, people willingly subject themselves to all manner of indignities. But for 2000 times less personal risk, the thought of standing in a scanner for five seconds is nearly unbearable.
Okay -- that makes sense. Obviously, at some point the risk-reward ratio tips in favor of not doing something.
Provided, of course, you have gotten the math right, which you haven't, because you neglected to consider populations.
In the decade since 9/11, there have been two cases where bombs got on board US airplanes (from outside the US, which ought to raise a question or two). If they had worked, what would have been the risk of fatality?
Depends on the population. I don't know the number exactly, but there are roughly 50,000 pilots flying for major airlines, and that group is very stable -- by that I mean more than 90% of the pilots at the start of any five year period are still flying at the end of that period. Which means that any bombing of a U.S. airliner is going to kill some number of people from that group.
Besides the crew itself (2 domestic, 3 international), most flights in the U.S. have at least one jumpseater. Positioning pilots via deadheading is also common. Conservatively, then, each successful bombing will yield a pilot fatality rate of 6 per 100,000.
Amy, you, and Radwaste will purge, get anesthetized, bent over, and have strangers shove a garden hose up your fundament for the payoff of reducing your odds of dying from CRC by .014%. Yet you can't be arsed to stand in a scanner for a few seconds to yield more than triple the payoff for another group of people.
Interesting material for an ethics seminar.
Sometime back I explicitly stated that hijackings are a matter for the history books.
You keep saying that checkpoint screening provides no security, in complete contradiction of the facts.
Has the threat gone away?
Have their been bombing attacks on airliners?
Have any happened in the U.S.?
I think the threat is Iran resorting to false-flag asymmetric warfare. Imagine the consequences if there were to be three successful airline bombings in one hour.
I think the TSA is silly when it prohibits utility knives (heck, I can't carry a leatherman, yet I have both the airplane and a crash axe). Remember though, I am not defending the TSA, only trying to make the case that screening sufficient to keep bombs large enough to bring down an airliner is essential, because the payoff for a successful attack is orders of magnitude greater than for any other target.
That's why I want to know what you would do instead. So far, I haven't heard.
Jeff Guinn at December 14, 2012 11:14 AM
I find it funny that after rad accuses you of moving goal posts you then move goal posts.
So your argument now is that the TSA exists to safeguard pilots and to a lesser extent flight attendents becuase they are the super secret targets of suicide bombers?
Tell me Jeff, you ever consider a career in twisting pretzels?
lujlp at December 15, 2012 7:23 AM
And yes you have heard what we would do we've said it nearly a thousand times now.
NOTHING more than what was done before 9/11 aside from the reinforced doors
lujlp at December 15, 2012 7:30 AM
Have you considered an extensive course in remedial reading comprehension?
I was clearly talking about risk, what people will do when the risk is to them specifically vs. someone else, and the misunderstanding of risk as something uniformly distributed when it is nothing of the kind.
Amy willingly undergoes even pelvic exams despite having much lower mortality payoff than colonoscopies, but won't spend a few seconds in a scanner, which has far higher survival payoff for someone else. Why is that OK?
Why can you not take on board this isn't about hijackings?
Jeff Guinn at December 16, 2012 8:44 AM
One, the fact that you stole Amys medical files is a felony
Two, gimmie your money, you paying my bills reduces the risk to my wallet
lujlp at December 16, 2012 11:02 AM
lujlp, that is some truly heroic point missing.
Jeff Guinn at December 17, 2012 2:00 PM
I've got to say Jeff, I never expected you to reach such an insight about yourself. Congrats
lujlp at December 17, 2012 2:22 PM
Other than hardening the doors on the cockpit doors, what has the TSA done to fix the model?
Jim P. at December 17, 2012 10:09 PM
Why can you not take on board this isn't about hijackings? -- Jeff Guinn at December 16, 2012 8:44 AM
Please refute any of this. I will gladly listen.
For all you regular readers of the Goddess' blog you can skip past this post. I'm going to post my regular rant about not needing the TSA. For all you new readers, please read it carefully and refute any statement or misstatement. ;-)
=================================================
The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!
The paradigm, the norm, the expected, what everyone was taught to do was to sit down, shut up and wait for the plane to land and the negotiations happen. That was the model from Entebbe onward.
The passengers on board did not really know what was about to happen on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:30 when Flight 11 struck Tower I.
Even the passengers on Flight 175 probably didn't realize what was about to happen when they struck Tower II at 9:03:02.
The Pentagon crash of Flight 77 at 9:37:46 may have been still a matter of ignorance.
At 10:03:11 on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after the brave souls counter-attacked and caused the hijackers to crash the plane.
The time difference is 60 minutes and 9 seconds from Tower II being struck to the crash of Flight 93. The shoe bomber and panty bomber were taken down by fellow passengers as well. Recently, JetBlue's Flight 191 pilot was taken down by the passengers once he was out of the cockpit. Additionally how many times have you heard of passengers' concerns and diverted flights?
The TSA is and has always been a joke, no make that a total stupidity, that has wasted our country's fortune going down a rabbit hole.
If you don't believe me look at the 9/11 timeline.
There will never be another 9/11 style attack unless the attackers can arrange planes full of geriatrics, and even then it would be doubtful.
Oh, and someone brought bombs being an issue. If bombs were effective and simple then the Lockerbie bombing would have been repeated multiple times between 21 December 1988 and 11 September 2001. That's 4647 days or 13 years. Where was the TSA in that time? There was one successful bombing that was done in Colombia and two unsuccessful attempts in that time. The bombing in Colombia was a drug dealer assassination and not a terrorist attack.
=================================================
Jim P. at December 17, 2012 10:12 PM
Somehow, I doubt it. But ...
How many suicide attacks were there prior to 9/11?
How many on and after 9/11? (Include failed attacks, since they all involved suicide, as well.)
How many bombing attempts worldwide since 9/11? How many successful? How many bomb attacks on U.S. airplanes since 9/11?
How many hijackings since 9/11?
The refutation you seek is in the answers to those questions.
Try sneaking something that might plausibly be a bomb onto an airliner sometime. whether on your person, or in your checked luggage.
Then tell us how it turned out.
Jeff Guinn at December 18, 2012 8:20 PM
Leave a comment