To TSA or Not To TSA

[SB Shock]

With the latest round of TSA horror stories emerging .....I found out today there are ~16 airports in the U.S. (KC, San Fran, Key West, etc) who hire private security instead of TSA (Obama adminstration has tried to make it tougher to do). The private security have to perform the same protocols as the TSA. Sanford Airport in Orlando is now considering is kicking out the TSA. Those airports who have hired private security have performed better in secret tests to try and get weapons or explosive past security than TSA screened airports.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/19/private.airport.screening/index.html

All of Canada major airports use private security who are hired on 3 year contracts. If they don't do a good job, they are replaced at the end of their contract. In the U.S. they have found that TSA bureaucracy can't adapt to the needs of individual airports. Private companies tailor their services for the respective needs of the airport they are working for - unlike the TSA which is one mold fits all.

[WuDrWu]

So you're saying the government agencies are trying to get everyone to conform to their one model idea?

Shocking.


I want more government.

[im4wsu]

I used to fly out of Great Bend (not internatinal) Airport and the local sheriff deputy would arrive 15 minutes before takeoff to ensure "control." After 911 and the adoption of TSA, I was waiting for my plane 45 minutes in advance. I asked three times about when I'd go thru security. Finally, after the incoming flight had arrived and about five minutes before departure, I went through security. Put the briefcase on the converyor (TSA Agent #1), looked at the screen over the shoulder of the TSA agent #2, proceeded through the scanning gate (TSA Agent #3), was told I'd be wanded (TSA #4) and then was told that they'd have to search my bag (TSA #5). I was told TSA rules require a randomly selected passenger be wanded and bags searched. Since I was the only passenger boarding, I guess I was the one randomly selected.

I went on to find out that none of the TSA agents lived within 25 miles of Great Bend (TSA rules) so that they would not be likely to know the passengers personally. These 5 agents came to Great Bend for two flights a day. If one was lucky, there would be another passenger and the chances of being randomly selected dwindled to 50%. A ton of money could have been saved and security enhanced had they just had one person wand and search everybody boarding at Great Bend.

[Kung Wu]

jdshock ... does this mean a TSA staffer can sexually assault someone and there is practically no recourse? https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tsa-screen...150740124.html

Edit: fixed grammar typo

[jdshock]

jdshock ... does this mean a TSA staffer can sexual assault someone and there is practically no recourse? https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tsa-screen...150740124.html

Sovereign immunity stuff is outside my wheelhouse, so let me preface this by just saying this is my best guess. A quick google search didn't turn up the actual decision either, so I'm kind of flying blind. As a baseline, if you're suing an employee for something, you're really suing the employer. In most instances, the employee doesn't really have assets, so you want money from their employer if they screwed up in their line of work. So it makes sense that if a TSA agent screws up, you'd go after the government. But, generally, you can't sue the government. Eventually, people were unsatisfied with that so we passed the Federal Tort Claims Act which allows you to sue the government in certain instances.

For the most part, under the FTCA, you can't sue for things like battery and recover against the government. Which makes sense. If Rand Paul punches me in the face, I shouldn't get to recover against the federal government since him punching me in the face really didn't relate to his job duties. The only exception to this is "investigative or law enforcement officers" since if an FBI agent punches me in the face, it really probably was related to their job duties. In general, a fairly common sense rule, in my opinion. But, from my reading of that article, the court found that TSA agents aren't "investigative or law enforcement officers." I'd say, long-term, people should probably broaden that definition a little bit because TSA agents do have the potential for some serious abuses.

TLDR: the article is a little misleading. It says they're "immune from claims under a federal law governing assaults, false arrests, and other abuses." That's not really how I understand it. It's that they don't qualify as a specific subset of employees where the government ultimately has to foot the bill for those types of abuses.