Ron Paul's Push to Privatize Airport Security

[billvon 2,991]

>Ron wants to put security in the hands of the airline, not the airport

That's fine, as long as they meet the same standards.

Note that before the TSA that's what happened. Often airlines got together and paid for a single airport security force together; they can do that if they so choose even now.

[BIGUN 1,314]

Quote

Photos/scans of private citizens found all over the internet, near-fatal beatings of some who have teased others over their small 'members', belongings stolen by government agents, loss of dignity for any number of persons by having their diapers (young and old) examined and sexual parts groped is hardly "nothing."

This country was founded on the concept of liberty and while your definition and my definition of "liberty" might be different; I'm pretty confident the Founding Fathers never considered the groping of testicles and breasts as being a liberty of the State.
Privatizing airports may well help restore at least *some* dignity, but I honestly think we're too far into the government-funded rabbit hole to back out. Government wins, airport wins, the only loser is the traveler.

I fly no less than two times a week. In each case, I tell TSA I'm opting out of both machines AND would like a private screening. It is often met with, "Why?" Because I can and its in the regulations that if requested; though shalt perform. They've "tried" to tell me I can't do that and I suggest they get a supervisor, who tells them to give it to me. If I'm going to live in a Nazi America; you're going to have to work for it.

Personally, if I ran for President - Step One... dismantle DHS.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[nanook 1]

Quote

"loss of liberty" does not necessarily equal a "right."

I'll agree with you here. The TSA put in place puts restrictions in someone's ability to move as quickly in persuit of their personal choices. Rights are not removed, but annoyance is much higher.

In respect to liberty, the TSA may bottleneck it, but liberty lost without them in place will me much higher. This liberty taken away by the bombs finding their way on board. The Gov't policy in place restricting personal liberty a bit or, just as Ben Franklin's fight for Liberty, another force outside putting restrictions for our citizens. In this case, the terrorists. Take your pick. The TSA may not find much bombs, but their presence forces the bad guys to change their tactics. They are forced to use more elaborate schemes that pushes the planning and construction of devices furter out and into areas where we have more ability to fight it. This is where we are winning.
The Govt's restrictions are nowhere near the crush of liberty that the bad guys will achieve. Truth is, enough bombing, people will not fly. They won't risk their lives. There may be a considerable amount of bravery in the poplace to say "we will not be afraid of the terrorists", but many will not risk widowing their families for business trips. It's easy to talk tough. So in my opinion, the loss of Liberty isn't present. What's present is the protection of Liberty.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[DSE 5]

Quote

Have you yourself had a major incident that was not either A) blown grossly out of proportion or B) largely your own fault?

I say again that people need to climb down off their high horse and contribute to something that while mildly inconvenient, and far from perfect is in its most basic form intended to help us. Its not the perfect solution but its better than nothing.

Dunno....having a 300,000$ camera stolen (later recovered damaged beyond use) from a locked, hand-inspected air case...having to remove my pants because of my leg brace, being regularly examined for whatever profile I fit on virtually every flight I go on....(and I'll put my miles up against the best of em') constitutes my attitude.
It varies from airport to airport, but having flown almost as much outside the US demonstrates clearly what a joke US security is.
Ben Gurion is no where near as obtrusive, yet I challenge anyone to suggest they're concerned about security at that airport.
Most of Canada, Stockholm, Orly, Heathrow, Changi, Incheon...all significantly more secure and less obtrusive, more professional, and I'd wager that security is less costly at these facilities than it is in the US. American security at airports is inept at best, crime, power-hungry, corruption-ridden at worst.

I disagree that it's intended to 'help us.' It's intended to intimidate, tax, and burden.
Airport security is a necessary process; high school educated hall monitors do not constitute "airport security." I have few doubts that if there were competitive opportunities for airport security providers, cost would go down and quality would rise.

We have different experiences. Glad yours are always positive.

[billvon 2,991]

>I disagree that it's intended to 'help us.'

That's the intent; to "keep us safe." (And no surprise there, because after 9/11, that's exactly what we asked for.) But like any bureaucracy, once it started it took on a life of its own and started changing.

[quade 4]

Quote

I disagree that it's intended to 'help us.' It's intended to intimidate, tax, and burden.

I believe those are the "didn't give a crap about it" consequences, but the real intention was theater.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

having to remove my pants because of my leg brace,

So you wear a solid bulky object on your body and decide to conceal it? I've had to travel in knee braces too and I make sure I wear clothes I don't have to completely remove for it to be inspected. Maybe you missed the part where I said "not caused by you." I could personally think of a few ways to hide a sharp object or ignition device in a knee brace, and I can think of a group of hijiackers that used ceramic blades hidden in shoes. This is a necessary evil.

Quote

being regularly examined for whatever profile I fit on virtually every flight I go on

That one holds no water, everyone I know that complains about airport security says they are profiled, from my 5'3" asian female best friend, to people I know with names that are obviously inspired by their Jewish heritage. They all have the same story. Wanna venture to guess how many times I've shown my military ID as they check it against the name on my ticket at the entrance to the screening checkpoint and still been singled out for extra screenings? I'm a clean cut white guy, and I travel in clothes that typically leave little room to conceal anything, I also treat the agents with respect and deal with them politely yet I still get searched quite a bit. So the profiling complaint means absolutely jack.

Quote

having a 300,000$ camera stolen

I'll give you that one, sorry for your loss, but that still leaves you merely 1 for 3 in the realm of legitimate complaints.

Quote

Most of Canada, Stockholm, Orly, Heathrow, Changi, Incheon...all significantly more secure and less obtrusive, more professional, and I'd wager that security is less costly at these facilities than it is in the US

What is the basis for your assumption that they are more secure? Are you an expert in doing security assessments? Do you maybe have red cell experience?

Strangely enough assessing threats is a large part of my job, and its become such a big part of my life that anytime I travel I am doing assessments in my head of how I could breach security just to keep myself thinking about it 24/7 so I don't get complacent when I travel in dangerous areas and it allows me to keep an eye on danger areas.

When people talk about how much better security is at foreign airports they usually base it on the simple matter of convenience. Using simply a metal detector and a wand is awfully easy on the traveler, but last time I checked they are the exact measures that were passed through the last time airliners were hijacked. So obviously not a reasonable way to secure a facility.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear about some of the experiences you've had, that sucks for anybody. Honestly though the majority of the time when people complain about cumbersome security practices the complaints are based on nothing more than people being whiners. Everyone has seemed to have built these liberties, rights, and freedoms which they have granted themselves in their heads and use them as a reason to create issues when they perceive their self-manifested freedoms to have been breached. Apart from your loss of property everything else is nothing more than business as it should be conducted. Hopefully those responsible for you loss of property got what they had coming, other than that we all just need to suck it up, there is far more at stake than your convenience.

take care

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[tkhayes 348]

and this is where Ron Paul's theories start to fall apart. If you privatize airport security, then eventually it will become a profit business. It will become corrupt and those with money will get through and those without money will not.

We have already see grotesque abuses within private prisons - corruption and such and judges taking payoffs to send people to them.

Some things should NOT be in the hands of corporations driven to make profit.

but again, it ALL works if everyone does what they are supposed to do and plays by the rules. But that is not actually the reality. The government is supposed to be there to ENFORCE those rules. No government? no rules...... no taxes? No way ot pay for that.

Great if you're on the top of the pyramid - sucks if you are not.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

>Uh, you realize that the TSA still gets to set the security standards for the private
>security company, right?

Yep. Similar to how airlines are privatized but the FAA sets standards for them.

yes, it's just that the FAA standards don't involve what many people would call groping. I think that's the salient difference.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

So each airline you flew would have its own security?

It was that way for many years. The primary airline at an airport was the employer of airport security.

Quote

If you switched airlines on a layover would you have to go through different security? That doesn't make sense.

Some airports (Kansas City) had security checkpoints for each gate area. This was good and bad. If you had to change flights there (it was a hub for Braniff at one point) you had to go through security (bad) but the security checks were so spread out that there was rarely more than a few minute wait.

Quote

It's simple: The airport provides the security (private or TSA) as part of its services and just include that in what they charge the air carrier per gate, fuel, takeoff and landing, etc. The air carrier then adjusts prices accordingly. No more TSA fee per ticket.

so back to the first system except rather than the primary airline carrying the employees, they would be airport employees... ok.

Quote

The eventual goal would be to privatize TSA and/or make them at least self sufficient.

I think the TSA doesn't need to be a department with thousands of employees. It needs to be a document that sets standards and roll the overhead of the agency in with another department. Shrinkage in this case is good.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Had the TSA gotten their initiative through to demand checks of skydivers-per-load, would you find yourself still saying "You don't have to fly?"

Yes. You are not being told that you can't skydive.

so just as travel isn't infringed by not flying, skydiving isn't infringed by not flying? "you're not being told you can't skydive" what, you're going to take the elevator?

--
Rob

[DSE 5]

Quote

So you wear a solid bulky object on your body and decide to conceal it?

Where did I indicate it was concealed? Quite the opposite; it's bright yellow/blue and doesn't fit under pants.
Fail.

Quote

Wanna venture to guess how many times I've shown my military ID as they check it against the name on my ticket at the entrance to the screening checkpoint and still been singled out for extra screenings? I'm a clean cut white guy,

And there ya go; two solid reasons why you're typically bypassed for what many others experience on a regular basis. "Random" doesn't consistently, constantly include you to the point that it's become harassment. Even you not-so-subtley point out what you perceive a terrorist to not be. [note to self-"clean cut white guys are less of a risk. Like McVeigh, Stack, Kaczynski--those guys.

As Paul mentioned, it's theatre. That's all it was, is, and will continue to be.

Quote

When people talk about how much better security is at foreign airports they usually base it on the simple matter of convenience.

That's the best response you've got?
What kind of dolt could possibly suggest that Ben Gurion (as only one example) is an equal or lesser secure airport to any airport in the USA? I fly through there regularly and the difference is permeable. Exceptionally professional. Exceptionally well-trained. Exceptionally clean. Managed by security PROFESSIONALS and not goat-f**k stupid highschool dropouts, many of whom can barely form a complete sentence. It's the same at all of the airports I previously mentioned. Have you flown through them?
One does not need to be a security professional to perceive a professional process.

Paranoia is your business; I get it.

[billvon 2,991]

>yes, it's just that the FAA standards don't involve what many people would call groping.

?? Private companies can grope, too - and far more easily. If you want to change that rule, then change it, and enforce it both for the TSA and for private companies. If you don't want to change it, then let both do it.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

>yes, it's just that the FAA standards don't involve what many people would call groping.

?? Private companies can grope, too - and far more easily. If you want to change that rule, then change it, and enforce it both for the TSA and for private companies. If you don't want to change it, then let both do it.

you seemed to be comparing FAA standards in airlines to TSA standards for security. I was indicating the difference between the acceptability of the two.

as for changing the TSA standards... The last time a state threatened making those searches defined as illegal, the feds leaned on the politicians to withdraw the bill.

And you know full well that administratively changing those standards isn't happening any time soon. And apparently changing them through establishing laws at the state level is met with threats from the feds.

your government, at work for you... yeah right.

--
Rob

[billvon 2,991]

>I was indicating the difference between the acceptability of the two.

In that FAA standards are more acceptable than TSA standards because they apply to fewer people, or because "groping" should always be unacceptable to any governmental or private agency?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

>I was indicating the difference between the acceptability of the two.

In that FAA standards are more acceptable than TSA standards because they apply to fewer people, or because "groping" should always be unacceptable to any governmental or private agency?

now you're being intentionally obtuse. Or at least I hope it's intentional.

--
Rob

[JohnnyMarko 1]

Quote

>But why on Earth would they then they can shove the costs off to the tax payers at large?

Have a few more assault charges filed against TSA employees and you might start seeing some good reasons.

Is it still assault if I purposefully ask to skip the scanner thingy to get a pat down and get a boner to make it awkward?

[billvon 2,991]

>now you're being intentionally obtuse.

Nope, just trying to understand you.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

>But why on Earth would they then they can shove the costs off to the tax payers at large?

Have a few more assault charges filed against TSA employees and you might start seeing some good reasons.

Is it still assault if I purposefully ask to skip the scanner thingy to get a pat down and get a boner to make it awkward?

Hm. Under contract law, that would be Offer, Acceptance and Consideration.

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

Quote

So you wear a solid bulky object on your body and decide to conceal it?

Where did I indicate it was concealed? Quite the opposite; it's bright yellow/blue and doesn't fit under pants.
Fail.

Quote

Wanna venture to guess how many times I've shown my military ID as they check it against the name on my ticket at the entrance to the screening checkpoint and still been singled out for extra screenings? I'm a clean cut white guy,

And there ya go; two solid reasons why you're typically bypassed for what many others experience on a regular basis. "Random" doesn't consistently, constantly include you to the point that it's become harassment. Even you not-so-subtley point out what you perceive a terrorist to not be. [note to self-"clean cut white guys are less of a risk. Like McVeigh, Stack, Kaczynski--those guys.

As Paul mentioned, it's theatre. That's all it was, is, and will continue to be.

Quote

When people talk about how much better security is at foreign airports they usually base it on the simple matter of convenience.

That's the best response you've got?
What kind of dolt could possibly suggest that Ben Gurion (as only one example) is an equal or lesser secure airport to any airport in the USA? I fly through there regularly and the difference is permeable. Exceptionally professional. Exceptionally well-trained. Exceptionally clean. Managed by security PROFESSIONALS and not goat-f**k stupid highschool dropouts, many of whom can barely form a complete sentence. It's the same at all of the airports I previously mentioned. Have you flown through them?
One does not need to be a security professional to perceive a professional process.

Paranoia is your business; I get it.

When you spend more time in your responses trying to pick the fight directly with me and not finding ways to justify your original opinion there is no more point in me trying to discuss anything with you.

It also doesn't make it possible to argue with somebody that can't grasp what you say. When I pointed out that I show my military ID and don't fit the profile for what many people consider a threat I was pointing out that I STILL get searched as much as anybody else. So the whole profiling thing everyone complains about doesn't have any merit. Traveling with my buddy recently, who is of asian heritage, but strangely looks the part of someone of middle eastern decent, we have both received just as many extra screening as the other. Please try to understand what I am pointing out, I wasn't trying to trivialize anybody's experience, rather I wanted to show that people of every type get th same treatment.

And don't forget that you as a moderator are responsible for enforcing the standards here, please refrain from referring to anyone with a dissenting opinion as a dolt. Its incredibly unprofessional and displays a lack of character when its done. I haven't intended to insult or make a negative statement towards anyone, merely used people's examples to help prove my point. Same goes for the paranoia statement. Some of us spend most of our lives in countries that are controlled by terrorist organizations who have million-plus dollar bounties on our heads. Security assessments are a matter of survival, not paranoia.

Either way, you seem to be more content picking a fight with me than trying to prove your point, so I'm going to move on to other things. You have just demonstrated why I no longer enjoy these forums, and rarely spend time in here. You would rather take the first person to respond to your post and pick a fight directly with them than try and find some common ground and lead a healthy debate.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin



http://video.foxnews.com/v/1044166865001/ron-pauls-push-to-privatize-airport-security/

I like Ron Paul and i share his view .
get the government out !

Who was doing airport security on September 11th 2001 again???

The way the government has enacted this new system is pretty much a cluster fuck.. since for the most part all they did was hire the same mediocre morons who were doing it before.


If they want to do it right.. turn it over to the Israeli's and let them run it.

Yep I say run it like the Israli's. You do know they profile and that is illegal here because of those on the left.

[DanG 1]

The Israelis profile by looking at patterns of behavior, not just skin color. That type of profiing is completely legal, and actually effective. Searching only brown people is not only illegal, but highly inefffective as well.

- Dan G

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The Israelis profile by looking at patterns of behavior, not just skin color. That type of profiing is completely legal, and actually effective. Searching only brown people is not only illegal, but highly inefffective as well.

Oh come on..... you dont really wanna bust his bubble now do you.


I think someone needs to take a trip to Israel if he like certain other people really here in SC do believe that all the Jewish Israeli's are of white european heritage... I seem to remember a hell of a lot of rather, to use a couple of posters terminology, people who were very very tanned.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

The Israelis profile by looking at patterns of behavior, not just skin color. That type of profiing is completely legal, and actually effective. Searching only brown people is not only illegal, but highly inefffective as well.

If it is brown people blowing up planes wouldn't you check them first? why waste time checking the rest? smae as if it was white people blowing up planes I would check them first. Profiling is an elimination of people that are not causing the problem giving more time to check a greater number of those that may be cuasing a problem. this is not racial discimination it is doing the best job to reach a goal. only the ignorant left would waste millions of $s and thousands of manhours to make sure all groups got equally searched.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

The Israelis profile by looking at patterns of behavior, not just skin color. That type of profiing is completely legal, and actually effective. Searching only brown people is not only illegal, but highly inefffective as well.

Agree to profiling far more than just skin color but it seems as if even including it as a possible criteria these days isn't allowed.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.