1. Welcome to Tacoma World!

    You are currently viewing as a guest! To get full-access, you need to register for a FREE account.

    As a registered member, you’ll be able to:
    • Participate in all Tacoma discussion topics
    • Communicate privately with other Tacoma owners from around the world
    • Post your own photos in our Members Gallery
    • Access all special features of the site

TSA and a 6 year old

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussion' started by aaronatl, Apr 25, 2011.

  1. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:21 PM
    #81
    Dmonkey

    Dmonkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Member:
    #6360
    Messages:
    3,361
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Branden
    NorCal
    Vehicle:
    VZN159L (2002 DC)
    Eibach height adjust shocks in front, KYB monomax shocks in the back. Stock springs front and back. Level 8 MK6 10mm offset wheels on Cooper ATP tires (stock size)
    yeah well no one can achieve them when there is no more life liberty and pursuit of happiness.. which btw isnt in the constitution, its the declaration of independence
     
  2. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:21 PM
    #82
    OZ-T

    OZ-T You are going backwards

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2009
    Member:
    #27584
    Messages:
    50,399
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Peter North
    British Columbia
    Vehicle:
    Mag Grey 09 Trd Sport DCLB 4x4
    OME 885x , OME shocks and Dakars , Wheelers SuperBumps front and rear , 275/70/17 Hankook ATm , OEM bed mat , Weathertech digifit floor liners , Weathertech in-channel vents , headache rack , Leer 100RCC commercial canopy , TRD bedside decals removed , Devil Horns by Andres , HomerTaco Satoshi
    If you believe that story .
     
  3. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:22 PM
    #83
    Dmonkey

    Dmonkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Member:
    #6360
    Messages:
    3,361
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Branden
    NorCal
    Vehicle:
    VZN159L (2002 DC)
    Eibach height adjust shocks in front, KYB monomax shocks in the back. Stock springs front and back. Level 8 MK6 10mm offset wheels on Cooper ATP tires (stock size)
    Since no one cares about the constitution, I propose we should ban muslims from flying since the terrorists were muslim.
     
  4. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:24 PM
    #84
    97yota4wd

    97yota4wd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Member:
    #42280
    Messages:
    12,846
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Eric
    Mesa, AZ
    Vehicle:
    alot of metal, small engine, decent travel.
    caged, camburg long travel, 50t leafpack (soon to be installed) light rack over cab, 5pt harnesses etc
    just peopl being jackasses that think they know what they are talking about:locked::locked:
     
  5. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:24 PM
    #85
    Lost_Humanity

    Lost_Humanity Bad decisions make great stories.

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Member:
    #36774
    Messages:
    1,483
    Gender:
    Male
    Seattle
    Vehicle:
    It's a Toyota.
    Bumper Dent Mod
    I'm not questioning whether the system fails. It obviously does. I was only arguing that the TSA is better then no security at all.

    I am confident that many airlines/airports would run an efficient and effective security system, which both maximizes revenues with minimal invasion to its consumers.

    I am also confident that many airlines/airports will have entirely lax systems which would make the TSA look like a steel vault. I'm of the opinion that the net result would be a system not terribly unlike the one we have now.
     
  6. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:25 PM
    #86
    Dmonkey

    Dmonkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Member:
    #6360
    Messages:
    3,361
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Branden
    NorCal
    Vehicle:
    VZN159L (2002 DC)
    Eibach height adjust shocks in front, KYB monomax shocks in the back. Stock springs front and back. Level 8 MK6 10mm offset wheels on Cooper ATP tires (stock size)
    give everyone a gun when they board the plane and take them back after the flight, one time cost which would be less then running the TSA for like 22 seconds and bam, no more terrorism.
     
  7. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:26 PM
    #87
    jspadaro

    jspadaro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Member:
    #12342
    Messages:
    2,991
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jim
    Knoxville, TN
    Vehicle:
    Former Tacoma Owner
    Blue Oval Mod
    Really, I believe you're speaking out your rear. :rolleyes:

    Also, regarding that 9/11 happened without the TSA, granted. However, it was a brand new attack. The rules changed. It used to be that you complied with hijackers, they got you there safely in return for whatever they wanted, and that was that. Nobody saw it coming.

    What I'm saying is that I'd imagine the airlines, out of necessity to ensure they still have customers, would have done something, with or without the TSA. That being said, I would like to think it would be more than the ridiculous security theater foisted on us now.

    Oh, to begin with the fallacies in your entire stance on the TSA. You assume so many things I blatantly cannot agree with, but at least I'll couch this as my opinion, not fact. ;)

    1) You make a huge logical leap in assuming that airlines do not have a vested interest in keeping their customers safe in an efficient manner. I agree that this cost would passed to the customer, but I disagree that it would necessarily be exorbitant.

    It is in an airline's interest to ensure that its passengers do not get killed, or else customers will seek another form of travel. It is always a PR disaster when a plane goes down.

    2) You assume the TSA is doing its job in any way that could be called efficient. At several billion in the hole, this is laughable at best. I realize that securing the entire national airline industry is expensive, but based on both anecdotal and real (next point) evidence, they are anything but efficient.

    In fact, I think they're very inefficient in a manner that most government agencies do. They have absolutely no incentives to keep costs under control, and as a result, their costs have gone up by billions year-after-year.

    3) You assume the TSA is doing it's job at all. The body scanners have been shown to be unable to detect the famed underwear bomb. This "security", body scanner or pat down, has been routinely passed by agents. I can pull the article if you'd like, but they routinely fail. As in, they fail more often than they succeed. Edit: "they" meaning the TSA fails to catch those tasked with trying to sneak weapons through security.

    I've given my opinion on the matter in other threads here so I won't rehash. I think the TSA has a very hard job to do in that they are trying to find a needle in a haystack. There are millions flying every day, and only a very, very, very, very tiny minority are terrorists, and that minority changes their approach every time. Thus, looking at the attacks done prior, finding a way to detect them, and ensuring they can't be done again is by and large an enormous waste of time.

    The TSA is wasting our money to make us feel better.
     
  8. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:28 PM
    #88
    Dmonkey

    Dmonkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Member:
    #6360
    Messages:
    3,361
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Branden
    NorCal
    Vehicle:
    VZN159L (2002 DC)
    Eibach height adjust shocks in front, KYB monomax shocks in the back. Stock springs front and back. Level 8 MK6 10mm offset wheels on Cooper ATP tires (stock size)
    It's a known fact when someone brings capitalism and free market economics into a conversation that is lacking the need of those 2 ideas.. They're probably against those 2 ideas and at the very least, have no idea wtf they mean
     
  9. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:32 PM
    #89
    jspadaro

    jspadaro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Member:
    #12342
    Messages:
    2,991
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jim
    Knoxville, TN
    Vehicle:
    Former Tacoma Owner
    Blue Oval Mod
    I suppose I would much rather take a system that might work and doesn't result in me and mine getting groped and scanned, than another system that might work and does.

    If the system merely failed without invading my privacy, I wouldn't complain so much.

    If it failed without invading my privacy and without wasting oodles of cash on idiocy like the body scanners, I wouldn't complain at all!
     
  10. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:46 PM
    #90
    Lost_Humanity

    Lost_Humanity Bad decisions make great stories.

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Member:
    #36774
    Messages:
    1,483
    Gender:
    Male
    Seattle
    Vehicle:
    It's a Toyota.
    Bumper Dent Mod
    Says the person who thinks giving guns to all the passengers is a good idea.

    I obviously came to the wrong place for intelligent discourse.

    My apologies all. I'll take logic and reason elsewhere. Good day.
     
  11. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:48 PM
    #91
    Dmonkey

    Dmonkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Member:
    #6360
    Messages:
    3,361
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Branden
    NorCal
    Vehicle:
    VZN159L (2002 DC)
    Eibach height adjust shocks in front, KYB monomax shocks in the back. Stock springs front and back. Level 8 MK6 10mm offset wheels on Cooper ATP tires (stock size)
    please do :typing:


    I'm also the person who pointed out you think life liberty and pursuit of happiness is in the constitution, so lets not go too far with your "logic and reason" argument lol
     
  12. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:48 PM
    #92
    jspadaro

    jspadaro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Member:
    #12342
    Messages:
    2,991
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jim
    Knoxville, TN
    Vehicle:
    Former Tacoma Owner
    Blue Oval Mod
    I had figured you could ignore the trolls. Apparently not. As such, I have to say, my only response to your condescending, crappy response to my long, thought-out response is. Um.
    :brianr:
     
  13. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:57 PM
    #93
    96Taco

    96Taco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Member:
    #48827
    Messages:
    765
    Gender:
    Male
    Alberta
    Vehicle:
    2014 DBL CAB Tacoma
    As crazy as that sounds.... statistically you would probably be right
     
  14. Apr 27, 2011 at 1:58 PM
    #94
    Dmonkey

    Dmonkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Member:
    #6360
    Messages:
    3,361
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Branden
    NorCal
    Vehicle:
    VZN159L (2002 DC)
    Eibach height adjust shocks in front, KYB monomax shocks in the back. Stock springs front and back. Level 8 MK6 10mm offset wheels on Cooper ATP tires (stock size)
    oh it would work but its against the law.


    we could make everyone wear bikinis and speedos on planes, this would make smuggling items impossible.
     
  15. Apr 27, 2011 at 2:00 PM
    #95
    slmgt

    slmgt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Member:
    #44921
    Messages:
    662
    Gender:
    Male
    Greater Seattle Area
    Vehicle:
    11 TRD Sport w/ JBL DCLB V6 AT
    Husky floor mats (Fr and Rr)
    Airlines have a strong vested interest on at least two fronts:
    A) Their capital assets (aircraft, human, etc)
    B) Their customers/PR

    The TSA has no objective but to get increased funding for their own agency which cannot catch evil-doers, but instead screws [virtually and physically] law-abiding citizens in a theatrical presentation of 'security.' If an evil-doer wanted to, they could easily get through security with weapons, bombs, you name it. Like I said before, I would test them if it wasn't illegal...

    Convenient that their undercover testers who find they fail to detect weapons/bombs are the only ones allowed to do the tests, but unable to talk about how piss poor the agency really is... Where's wikileaks!?!?!

    Not a chance could any security be less useful than the TSA, unless the Treasury Department takes over, then MAYBE.

    No one here said there should be no security, though one would wonder if no security would really be that bad. If all bags were thoroughly analyzed and people could board with weapons and the like, it could be dangerous or perhaps safer since it would be mutual destruction. You shoot another passenger only to be shot right back... Whereas now a terrorist can board and do harm without concern about law-abiding citizens fighting back. Not perfect by any means, but I'd argue it'd probably be better than the TSA :p

    Yes focus on the one person who presents an extreme idea. Could it work? Sure. Would it work better than the TSA? Probably [for obvious reasons]. Is it politically palpable? Probably not...
     
  16. Apr 27, 2011 at 2:17 PM
    #96
    darkgreentaco

    darkgreentaco XXXL Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Member:
    #38712
    Messages:
    2,227
    Gender:
    Male
    NorCaL
    Vehicle:
    Timberland Rocket
    King RR C/O's, Extra mustard, All-Pro expdtn Leaf, sesame seed bun, Icon UCA's Fox Resi's BAMFsliders, sweet candy coating, LCAskids, diffcover 17" Addicts Yukon 4.56 Mt/r kevlar
    Could you imagine the smell on some airplanes?
     
  17. Apr 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM
    #97
    Lost_Humanity

    Lost_Humanity Bad decisions make great stories.

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Member:
    #36774
    Messages:
    1,483
    Gender:
    Male
    Seattle
    Vehicle:
    It's a Toyota.
    Bumper Dent Mod
    Because you did take the time to write this out, I'll at least return the effort.

    --> Without a doubt it is in the airline's/airport's best interests. I'm not going to argue that. Of course they will implement their own versions of security.

    But that's where the costs come into play. Currently, they pay a fee to the TSA in order to have security and liability covered for them. The amount of protection offered by competing airlines/airports would vary differently depending on their organizational methods and focus on the bottom line. Companies with robust security and legal departments would need to pass that overhead onto consumers in order to retain their profits.

    --> Actually, you're putting words in my mouth here. I have no illusions that the TSA is a horribly inefficient organization. I never made any excuses for the level of their incompetence.

    --> I've seen the articles. I know the stats. I don't disagree. I don't think the body scanners amount to a hill of beans aside from public relations maneuver. The greatest good they do is probably as a deterrent to uneducated terrorist wannabes.

    --> Yes and no. There is essentially no difference in the amount of money, be it via TSA or private security.

    Let's get one thing straight here. I do not like the TSA. It is a top-heavy, inefficient, cumbersome organization which does an abysmal job of handling its public relations and aside from a macro deterrent, essentially does not provide good protection for the cost. I want to be clear here...I think the TSA sucks.

    What the TSA does is allow airlines to continue to offer airfare at substantial discount over what it would be were they to front that overhead individually. It takes on the burden of liability and policy and alleviates the individual carriers of those responsibilities.

    But I also harbor no illusions about the greed and incompetence of private enterprise. There will be companies that let people walk right through the gates because they are unable/unwilling to provide adequate security due to financial constraints. There will be companies which mark up the fees and costs of their security to pass a higher return to their investors. Attacks will happen because these lapses will be exploited.

    There's your response.
     
  18. Apr 27, 2011 at 2:56 PM
    #98
    jspadaro

    jspadaro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Member:
    #12342
    Messages:
    2,991
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jim
    Knoxville, TN
    Vehicle:
    Former Tacoma Owner
    Blue Oval Mod
    Thank you, sorry for being a bit childish. I like that emoticon though :D

    I suppose I would like to see competing ideas on securing airports, rather than one monolithic failure. So to me, this variety would not be wholly a bad thing, necessarily.

    Good!

    Great :)

    What makes you say this? I would suspect, for example, that non-TSA organizations would not have put bodyscanners into place... That's a few million right there, both in terms of the machines themselves and also lost fares.

    And I would find it hard to argue against the airline industry having lost a lot of passengers since TSA. Correlation is not causation, but I doubt 9/11 scared this many people off. However, I could believe fewer people are choosing to fly because of the TSA's procedures if they have other options. I have no evidence to back this up at all, just speculation.

    I do see your point. I suppose what I'm really saying is not that private companies are that great, but that government agencies are by definition inefficient, because while private organizations may cut corners for the bottom line, public organizations are encouraged to spend more.

    The more an agency like Homeland Security spends, the larger the budget next year and the more important they are. If they do not spend their budget, they lose it next year. There is direct incentive for these idiots to continue buying more and more bodyscanners and other expensive, useless gadgets.

    I suppose I see two ineffective approaches, and what I'm really saying is, given this binary choice, I choose the cheaper one, because at least I'm not wasting money on ineffective security (as a taxpayer vs as an airline traveller really makes no difference, it's still a drain on the economy.)

    I could see the argument that a version of TSA that has incentive to keep costs under control may be ideal, if it were run by somebody competent (Janet Napolitano is clearly not) (and the same reform, albeit I have no idea how to do it, would be great for every government agency). But that's not what we have.


    Well thank you, that actually clarifies your position a great deal, and in that light, it is certainly more reasonable.
     
  19. Apr 27, 2011 at 3:03 PM
    #99
    samsung

    samsung Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Member:
    #48601
    Messages:
    1,149
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    George
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Vehicle:
    2011 PreRunner doublecab TRD Offroad
    undercover lid/Ipod integration kit/Pop n lock/bed rug, fumoto drain valve, full piping Wet Okole covers, Blacked out badges, Lamin-X fog light cover yellow, window tint, ARB deluxe bumper with fog light kit,DSM UCA'S,3 support shrockworks sliders,complete OME lift with 886X coil and dakar leaf spring with 3 degree axle shims and center pin lenghtener,warn VR10000 winch,amsteele blue synthetic rope, daystar winch isolator, daystar delrin rollers, IPF 900xs Extreme Driving H9 Kit 900XSD (900XSD),Horn on fire with shot Penning,
    Give me a fucking break TSA. it's the rock throwers that you need to be profiling. I know everybody need to fly at some point. I personally try to stay away from the fucking airports.
     
  20. Apr 27, 2011 at 3:04 PM
    #100
    Lost_Humanity

    Lost_Humanity Bad decisions make great stories.

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Member:
    #36774
    Messages:
    1,483
    Gender:
    Male
    Seattle
    Vehicle:
    It's a Toyota.
    Bumper Dent Mod
    Here's three links to articles on the costs of TSA screeners vs. Private Security screeners.

    (NOTE: this does not include the costs of legal overhead)

    Blog about the importance of the TSA Screening Partnership Program:

    http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2011/01/29/tsa-screening-partnership-program-why-its-important/

    Washington Post article about the TSA and it's revisions of cost assessments:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031006039.html

    Link to GAO PDF on TSA’s Cost and Performance Study of Private-Sector Airport Screening:

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0927r.pdf

    In the interest of full disclosure, these articles tend to NOT support my arguments. The current estimate is that the cost of private screeners is 14.5% higher than TSA screeners, but that the customer service advantages and flexibility offer airports opportunity to attract more business to offset the difference.

    So here's my effort at due diligence. I'll keep reading. Maybe I'll change my mind, maybe not.
     

Products Discussed in

To Top