What's the book corporate America doesn't want you to read? Find out now -- or you could get scammed.

Ridiculous TSA reforms

October 5, 2006

Do it right — or don’t do it at all.

That’s what readers said when I asked how to fix airport security. And while I’m sure Søren Kierkegaard would be fascinated by this modern-day “either/or” proposition, I think there’s something in it for our friends at the TSA, too.

First, some background. Baggage complaints are soaring in the aftermath of the gel and liquid semi-ban, and one airline, British Airways, has even said its earnings will be affected by the combustible-liquid threat.

So what to do?

“How about just eliminating the TSA altogether?” asked Jerry Gershner of Ossining, NY. “It is a tremendous waste of money and resources, not to mention a hassle for travelers. With all of their screening and equipment, they have prevented nothing. Let’s face it. Terrorists are pretty cunning and with enough effort, anything can be smuggled on to an airplane.”

At the very least, suggests Joe Tavares, the TSA should buy a clue when it comes to its halfhearted liquid and gel ban. “I would advise the DHS and TSA refer to Snopes and other sites prior to making changes to the carry-on policy. From what I have heard, the meticulous nature of creating a bomb from liquids make it nearly impossible and virtually improbable that anyone could, in fact, bring on liquids and build a bomb on board,” he wrote.

If we don’t get rid of the TSA — and idea that I’ve entertained before — then at least they ought to do their job right, say readers.

“The way to fix this problem is — to use a dirty word — profiling!” wrote Jim Johansen. “Who are the terrorists? We know who. Let’s spend the time looking at them.”

Cliff Woodrick argues that we also know who the good guys are, and that we ought to stop hassling them. For advance-purchase tickets, the airlines should “forward the names for a computer verification of the name, address and background check,” and allow them to board without being wanded, frisked or prodded.

Others think a few simple steps would help the TSA do its job better.

“What the TSA should do is really simple,” wrote Lyn Greenhill. “Restrict the amount of material people carry on planes. If the airline limit on two bags per person, both of which must fit into the sizing templates, was truly enforced, then it would be impossible for anyone to carry on any quantity of destructive or dangerous material without it being caught.”

One thing that readers agreed on is that the current system just doesn’t work. The TSA has to do something.

“In my opinion, our security everywhere has become substandard,” wrote Diane Bures of Rome, NY. “To be honest, I don’t feel safe anywhere in the USA nowadays, but I’m sure that my government thinks it’s doing the best it can to protect us.”

Christopher Elliott is the author of Scammed: How to Save Your Money and Find Better Service in a World of Schemes, Swindles, and Shady Deals. Critics have called it “eye-opening” and “inspiring” — it’ll “grab your attention and won’t let go.” Order your copy now on Amazon, Barnes & Noble or iTunes.

7 comments

  • Ann

    “The way to fix this problem is — to use a dirty word — profiling!”

    As a tanned skin person that flies between the US and Muslim countries monthly, I strongly disagree. Mr. Johansen is probably advocating this plan because he figures he would walk through security untouched. Meanwhile, although I was born in the US and don’t have so much as a parking ticket, I would be hassled over and over and over.

    I am also infuriated by TSA but this is not the answer. The people who are saying abolish it or enforce existing carry on rules are more on target. When I think about how many passengers have flow before 9/11 and since, it boggles my mind how much money we are spending to stop what has to be an infinitesimally small threat.

  • Carver Farrow

    I am for profiling if it is done well and with a respect for civil liberties. The criteria for profiling cannot be just skin color. It should be primarily a computerized set of criteria, i.e. citizenship, recent travel patterns, etc. Additionally, if the TSA receives adequate training, the suspicious behavior would be a permissible reason for secondary screening.

  • Mark Terry

    Keep the skymarshal program, but otherwise abolish the TSA. Terrorists have a great many ways to hit us (such as poisoning the water supplies, EMP, suitcase nukes, nukes aboard ship, explosives in baggage, etc.). The security lines are a real annoyance, and do not keep us safe. The silliness of the “no fly” list is another such thing.

  • Douglas

    I think this fellow is right on the issue of profiling, but maybe not entirely for the reasons he thinks.

    Since we already know how cunning the dangerous people are, how long do you think it would take for them to catch on and recruit more middle-America “WASP-y” types to do their dirty work.
    TSA would never think of doing a complete going over of a Mr John Doe from Bloomington, Indiana because he just would never fit the profile of a darker skinned middle-eastern type.

    The proposal also overlooks the fact that occasionally you can’t tell the difference between an Arab and an Israeli. Both are semitic peoples, and occasionally one can easily be taken for the other. IT happens.

    The best idea I think is the one that’s somewhere in that paragraph. There should be some kind of a registry, whereby the person who buys his ticket 7v or more days in advance has his name automatically forwarded to a data bank for verification. This still, however, leaves the possibility of the mid-westerner being recruited by the bad guys.

    Take a look at Richard Reid, for example, the thwarted bomber with the device in his shoe. Not a name you’d expect of a middle-eastern terrorist.

    I think maybe we should just content ourselves with the idea that NOTHING will ever be infallible.

    Where MUCH MORE ATTENTION Must be paid is to the stuff going through the CARGO areas of large airlines…or any airlines. That’s the MAJOR Achilles heal in our whole commercial air travel and transport systems security-wise. What good is all this screening of paying passengers if the real danger is on the cargo pallets brought over from the other side of the field, where the cargo loaders have only what’s on paper to describe what’s in those boxes? Worthless! Profiling or anything else is ultimately useless until this REAL danger is addressed effectively. The best rule they can make right now — before they address more efficient ways of handling pre-boarding passenger screening — is that NO CARGO can be loaded onto passenger-carrying aircraft. It should ALL be carried on cargo-exclusive aircraft. No exceptions.

  • Andy McGehee

    I am for profiling, but only in the sense of looking for certain types of behavior. I read an article years ago by a customs agent who said that when judging whether someone was smuggling drugs, he would look for nervousness or extreme calm. Nervousness due to the inability to forget what was being carried, or calm due to the Valium taken to combat the nervousness. Innocent people simply behave differently than people with something to hide.

    Prior to boarding a flight to New York City a few years ago, the screener going thru my mother’s bag never looked up at her, and even made the point to say that she never looked at faces. This PC attempt to factor out ethnicity also factored out observing nervousness, the inability to maintain eye-contact, sweaty palms, etc.

    I am also reminded of when Al Gore made the news because he was randomly pulled out for increased scrutiny when flying. Now, to say that I am not Mr. Gore’s biggest fan would be an understatement, but whatever my view of his politics, he is not a threat. He took the experience with good humor, but what a waste of resources.

  • Gail Turley

    I actually feel sorry for the TSA with the attitudes of some of the people they have to deal with. Maybe a little more cooperation and following of the rules by passengers would make things a little easier on everyone. Not only are there the passengers with bad attitudes, we also have the passengers who think it’s funny to joke about bombs, terrorists and so on. Then they have the nerve to critique the authorities and call them Nazis and so on. Passengers need to get a clue themselves before they can critique the TSA for what they do.

  • WH

    This arguement is completely full of holes. I would like to point out that the TSA has cought people trying to get on planes with illegal things, but it doesn’t make the news until something blows up. Second, I’m sorry British Airways is being affected by the ban, but I think a mid-air explosion would be worse. Third, I’m glad all of you know who the enemy is. Who do you think would be more likely to get through security: Muhatma Ghandi or Timothy McVeigh? Finally, someone says “Terrorists are pretty cunning, and with enough effort, anything can be smuggled on to an airplane.” Then other people go on to say, “creating a bomb from liquids [is] nearly impossible and virtually improbable,” and, “it would be impossible for anyone to carry on any quantity of destructive or dangerous material without it being caught.” I believe that people should think and be informed before they speak.

Previous post:

Next post: