TSA Thuggos Turn Into The "Security" Version Of Vindictive Uber Drivers, Secretly Rating You
Ron Nixon reports on the TSA's latest brill idea in a New York Times piece -- with a, uh...grammatically drunk headline that points to their firing their copyeditors:
WASHINGTON -- The Transportation Security Administration has created a new secret watch list to monitor people who may be targeted as potential threats at airport checkpoints simply because they have swatted away security screeners' hands or otherwise appeared unruly.A five-page directive obtained by The New York Times said actions that pose physical danger to security screeners -- or other contact that the agency described as "offensive and without legal justification" -- could land travelers on the watch list, which was created in February and is also known as a "95 list."
"An intent to injure or cause physical pain is not required, nor is an actual physical injury," according to the directive that was issued in March by Darby LaJoye, the agency's assistant administrator for security operations.
According to the directive, people who loiter suspiciously near security checkpoints could be put on the watch list. So could those who present what the document vaguely described as "challenges to the safe and effective completion of screening."
But on its own, the watch list cannot be used to prevent passengers from boarding flights, nor can it impel extra screening at security checkpoints, according to the document. That has raised questions about whether it serves a legitimate security purpose, and has heightened civil liberty concerns over the added government surveillance.
"If I'm running late, having a bad day and I'm rude to the screeners, do I get put on the list?" said Fred Burton, the chief security officer at Stratfor, a global intelligence company in Austin, Tex.
I would guess you would be.
And if the list looks back, I would guess that I am on it.
But the new T.S.A. database, according to people familiar with it, includes travelers who have simply had a verbal altercation with security officers or have taken other actions that the agency said interferes in the screening process."While people on the list are not necessarily subject to additional scrutiny, it seems likely that agents would single them out for additional attention, and there is no way to get off the list," said Faiza Patel, a director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.
She said that because the watch list will be shared with other law enforcement agencies, "it will be difficult to control the consequences."
We have too much damn government, and too much of it is just for show -- while enabling power-mad employees who'd otherwise be supervising a fry vat at a food court to violate our bodies and civil liberties.
As noted above, I tried to get people to speak up -- and act up -- to no avail.
This turn of events we're left with -- citizens as docile sheep in the face of our civil liberties being violated -- ultimately doesn't go in a good direction, let's just say, and it probably won't end well down the road.
Finally, a few NYT commenters had some good points. First:
George S, New York, NY
34 assaults out of the millions upon millions of people who traveled - and thus were screened by TSA security guards - is a very, very small number and not sufficient justification to create yet another set of secret lists. Were not those people arrested and/or punished? If the list won't keep people from traveling then what is the purpose?This again demonstrates a bizarre - and dangerous - notion that some seem to have, that we, the people are the ones who must be subservient and kowtow to public employees. No one should be assaulting anyone, screener or passenger, at an airport, but then we have zero obligation to "be nice" to them either; our obligation is to obey the legislated procedures for security screening, however dubious they may be. Given the lack of professionalism often seen from some TSA personnel (and many frequent travelers can relate many tales of rude, condescending and arrogant screeners) it is not unlikely that they will use the list as another means of intimidating the public.
This is also rife for abuse, with wrongful data being shared as if it were factual, with real law enforcement agencies, remembering, that despite the utterly inaccurate "officer" stamped on their badges, TSA screeners are not law enforcement personnel, not trained to or held to that higher standard.
And then:
Alex, Tampa, FL
This security theater charade has gone on long enough. It's time to get rid of the TSA and replace it with real, reasonable, security.If I go to a federal facility, military base, or other higher-security area, they're not grabbing my crotch and trying to dose my body with x-rays. They're not barking/yelling at me and they're not taking my water. If anything, security officers (often real LEOs) at these locations are dressed professionally in suits or other uniform, are usually soft-spoken, and are highly-trained.
Since it's inception, the TSA has caught exactly 0 terrorists and stopped 0 terrorist plots. Even by their own admission, their screeners are only successful <10% of the time. I don't know what school you're from, but anywhere I've been, below 60% is an F. Below 10% isn't even a consideration.
TSA's agents (they're not law enforcement despite their egos, blue shirts, and tin stars) are often rude and unprofessional. Over 500 TSA agents have been arrested for stealing from passengers.
Now, we find out they have a watch list to be vindictive towards people who find the TSA's behavior unacceptable?
Since the TSA's inception, we've spent $105 BILLION on them. That could have bought a lot of healthcare or other social services, and still could have provided some form of airport security.
9/11 was 17 years ago. Today's high schoolers and college students have no memory of it. It's time to move on.
Problem: There are fewer and fewer malls with so many closing. Without food courts, who will employ all those valuable "security" forces of the TSA?
That's a stupid argument. Pearl Harbor was over 75 years ago. Do we dismantle our early warning systems and shut down the CIA and the NSA to "move on?" Do we do what we did at the end of World War I and dismantle our military, just so we can "move on?"
The attack on 9/11 shook our complacency and taught us of a vulnerability, just as the attack on Pearl Harbor did. Whether the TSA as configured today is an adequate response to that is debatable. The idea that we should just forget about it and "move on" is not. High school students may have no memory of 9/11, but terrorists do and they will be happy to exploit that lack of personal memory.
I'm really beginning to hate that phrase, "move on," as it is usually used to advocate little more than burying our heads in the sand and willfully ignoring an unpleasant reality.
The Federal Air Marshalls and FFDOs are part of the TSA. And they are law enforcement officers. The TSOs, however, have no law enforcement authority, despite their officious attitudes and shiny badges.
After the 2013 shooting of a TSO at LAX, there have been sporadic arguments to arm TSOs and to make them law enforcement officers. The TSO training program was made a part of FLETC in 2017.
Like too many government programs, effectiveness is an ancillary concern. The TSOs have caught no terrorists, hijackers, or criminals. There is no indication that the program, as configured today, would even be effective at doing so.
Obama allowed the TSOs to unionize, creating a monetary gift to his political allies and further compromising what little security the TSO program actually provides. This move imposed rigid union work rules on a situation that should be fluid and flexible.
TSOs are petty functionaries who've gotten a taste of power without responsibility. Like John D. MacDonald's lamented contentious people in The Empty Copper Sea, they will not tell you the time of day without their little display of hostility, that petty affirmation of their own importance.
Conan the Grammarian at May 18, 2018 6:58 AM
Amy,
On a side note, when I first saw the news report of the watchlist of "unruly" people last night, the reporter said there were about 50 people on it and I wondered if you were one of them. I don't know who else is on it, but I'd venture you're in good company.
Conan the Grammarian at May 18, 2018 7:03 AM
In truth, I'm surprised Amy isn't on the "no fly" list. She'll probably be on this list, tho.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 18, 2018 9:25 AM
Why do you always shit on mall food court employees? I find the people that serve me food in malls to be competent, helpful, and utterly avoidable. The only intrusion is the occasional free bite of bourbon chicken.
Please stop sullying the name of people gainfully employed providing a service some people actually want whose pay is funded by voluntary commerce.
Sam at May 18, 2018 2:02 PM
Conan, what you apparently don't get is that TSA has never been a useful precaution, because it has never caught any terrorists and would not have done any good even had it existed before 9/11. (The box cutters were smuggled aboard by airline employees who had been bribed, and TSA does not search them.)
TSA has only ever been theater, and accomplishes nothing but making flying even more of a pain than it already was.
* * *
Amy -- Perhaps we should start our own list, of the names and faces of cops (and cop-wannabes such as TSA) who violate people's rights, so they can be avoided and perhaps shunned in situations where they're not in charge. Let's give the list keepers a taste of their own medicine.
jdgalt at May 18, 2018 6:05 PM
"Whether the TSA as configured today is an adequate response to that is debatable."
Really? Which of their gross failures to do the most basic of jobs have you missed?
All of them.
Radwaste at May 18, 2018 7:03 PM
And you guys got that from my saying “The TSOs have caught no terrorists, hijackers, or criminals?” Good reading skills.
Or, perhaps it was when I said, “There is no indication that the program, as configured today, would even be effective at doing so.”
And,yes, you can debate whether the TSO program was an adequate response to 9/11. I come down on the “con” of that argument, as I made clear.
Now you’re starting to sound like one of those nutty truthers.
Conan the Grammarian at May 18, 2018 9:34 PM
Leave a comment