Actually we are not wasting too much time on doing tsa. Tsa is just letting us revise in the things we've just learnt in school. And we just need to finish it in a time like half an hour. Half an hour isn't a lot of time, right? Some people think that doing tsa is wasting time but I'm not.
Airliners used to have their own security and already long before 9/11 was even a possibility international flying was much more strict kinda like the TSA of today.
The airport rules before 9/11 were not broken in anyway except not checking overstaying Visas and passports that were invalid due to fears of *racism* if they did.
Airliners have the incentive because otherwise they go out of business where the TSA is protected by government unions which don't go out of business so the same stupid crap gets recycled.
Here is a article from 2000 about how the FAA can sue airliners for hiring felons. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/18/us/us-charges-impropriety-in-security-at-airport.html
Airliners were effective at defusing a bad situation in the late 90s where a gun wielding man held himself hostage inside a jet liner cabin for several hours demanding to go several weird places before giving himself up.
The idea of TSA is actually quite old going back to 1970s. Here is an article from NY Times airport security archive section.
Federal Control Urged for All Airport Security
[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 16 (AP) -- Secor D. Browne, chairman of the Civi Aeronautics Board, suggested today that the Federal Government take over all airport security "before we lose an airplane full of people."
Unfortunately you need to pay to view the full article so all I was allowed was a snippet.
The TSA really is effective just not at stopping criminals. Airliners would have an incentive to change because otherwise they go bye bye from the public's eye.
We were much better off when an airliner did the job as they were able to gauge response time better and their was airport police for back up.
In the 90s the rules were for no later then 3 minutes I believe in the event of an emergency such as when a man at the JFK airport had a gun and ran into an airline locking himself in the cabin in the late 90s.
The crew immediately killed power so the jet plane couldn't take off and the gun wielding man demanded going to different places that were weird before giving himself up to the police after several hours and it wounded up he was *mentally deranged*.
The only reason he even got into the airplane was that airlines security had their screening too close to the door for it to be closed in time while other airlines had their checks much further away.
Even disregarding the fact that another major terrorist has not occurred (and scores foiled), the TSA (I would argue) is still necessary. Consider a house robber deciding which house to rob on a given street. If nine of the ten houses have security systems set up (and the appropriate sign on the lawn), which house would you guess the robber will break into? The answer is clear; the TSA acts as a deterrent to terrorists, which is why most successful terrorist plots in recent years have not been in the US.
Also, it should be mentioned that both legally and morally no one's right to privacy (or any other rights) are broken by the TSA. If you buy an airline ticket and ride that plane, you must accept that you will be surveyed (or perhaps receive a pat-down), and by accepting that you have no expectation of privacy in that regard. Therefore, because it is the passenger's choice, he or she has no grounds on which to say that his or her rights were violated by the TSA.
When you consider the purpose of the TSA, to protect airlines and passengers, and national security in the wake of the 9/11 attacks I would have to say that they have been effective. There has not been a major attacked that has succeeded since the creation of the TSA. There objective was not to be convenient, logical, constitutional or friendly, if those were their objectives it would be a different story.
After the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center there have been no hugely significant terrorist attacks on the United States. The TSA may be harsh, but they do get the job done. Besides would you rather weather half an hour of general discomfort, or an eternity of being dead? I for one would rather be uncomfortable.
Due to terrorism, the TSA is having to use extreme measures to make sure we are safe. I believe they are doing everything that they can do to ensure that airplanes, buses, and trains are safe transportation for all of us. No system is perfect and our enemies will think of creative ways to kill as many Americans as possible!
The TSA simply fails at doing its job. I might be misremembering this as I read it about 2-3 years ago, but I believe in a test the TSA failed to detect a man carrying an AK47, 6 magazines of ammo for it, a handgun, 2 magazines for it and 2 hand grenades as well as a bomb hidden in his check-in luggage. In addition, he apparently had a strange accent, dressed oddly (many jackets in summer if I remember correctly, to hide his weaponry) and acted extremely nervous! If the TSA could fail such an easy test, how well do you think they would be able to stop a real attack? They haven't gotten better either, a test 6 months ago (mid 2015) showed that they failed to detect 95% of weapons and bombs, even at their "most secure" airports!
By their own admission they have never stopped an attack, have let numerous through that have been foiled other ways, and miss more items than they catch. The only chance of effectiveness is terrorists possibly not wanting to wait in ridiculous lines and deal with the ill mannered TSA screeners and thus just stealing a plane instead.
Bug spray taken away because it could "potentially be used as a bomb" yet we're able to get plastic knives on the other side? Uhhh....
Also, I don't think that taking away my wine key, 3.2 oz bottle of shampoo, or baby formula really makes this world a safer place, just air travel a more obnoxious space.
According to every report I've come across (which, admittedly, is pretty much limited to only news stories covering the topic), in studies conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA has about a 70% failure rate of detecting normal weapons and an almost 100% failure rate of detecting explosives, even with the newer (and more invasive) scanners. Furthermore, despite repeated assurances by the TSA that the scanners cannot and will not be used to record the scans, there have been cases involving as many as 30,000 stored images on a single machine. Also, despite what many people think, those images are incredibly revealing, not fuzzy amorphous blobs. Finally, and also found by government agencies, it is fairly easy to sneak things through the new scanners, ranging from explosives to handheld weapons.
The TSA is only effective at violating people's individual rights, not at actually stopping terrorism. We can clearly see this in the ineffective track record it has had on preventing attacks and preventing issues with airport and airplane security. It's the illusion of security and we shouldn't be duped by it.
9/11 was, at best, a total failure of an inept intelligence community. At worst it was a fraud perpetrated on us by Cheny's gang as a pretext for war and an excuse to broaden federal powers. Do we really need the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS and TSA? No, we the people need to start taking our country back. The TSA seems like a good place to start. Where is the data that proves we are much safer now than when we had metal detectors and simply had to answer those big questions. Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=uQdC-e82gmk
The TSA doesn't catch anyone it is merely in place to provide a sense of security for those traveling. Even the TSA admits this by saying "we have missed 70% of the red list items tested" (http://blog.Tsa.Gov/2013/05/tsa-week-in-review-25-firearms.Html) with this alone it should be very evident that the TSA is more there for piece of mind rather than actual security. So they should quit wasting our time and go back to the way things were. The American people won't allow another incident to happen such as the shoe bomber case where he skipped past security and the people on the plane secured him.
It feels charitable to say that ANY amount of sacrifice is worth spending to save a single soul. Unfortunately, though loaded with good intention, this is the mentality that leads us to captivity. Following this through to the end of where it is headed is a scenario where everything is spent to keep everyone in a padded cell. That is the picture of total security. Any freedom comes with a risk and any security comes with a loss of freedom. It's not about picking which end of that spectrum we want to live in. It's about finding the right balance. The take i have here is simple. With two of the largest threats to our historic way of life being financial ruin and loss of freedom, the huge expenditures of time and resources, as well as the cost to personal freedoms and travel time for every single taxpayer and every traveler, is simply not justified by the small amount of un-debatable success the TSA has had comparatively to the security we had prior to the TSA. In fact there are VERY few cases that are unlikely to have been found through previous security methods and most people will admit they've personally seen no actual improvement in their safety since the inception of the TSA. On the other hand there are very few who do not have complaints, and all of us are paying a great price for this "improved" safety. Taking dangerous things away from good people is mostly what the TSA does and this historically has never been a problem with air travel. It is always those with ill intentions that are the problem and there are many cases that show previous airport security and the masses are far more effective than the TSA at resolving problems related to these types of people, especially when they are armed and assertive. If you want to continue to become more captive, then continue to condone and support expensive government waste like the TSA. If you want more freedom and prosperity be willing to take on more risk.
No. A lot more needs to be done to ensure the safety of people who are traveling, but at the same time the extreme lengths they go to are ripping good and innocent people of their human rights. The methods they are using need to be thrown out entirely and another alternative has to be determined.