Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sen. Rand Paul Introduces TSA Reform Legislation

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the freedom-from-getting-pawed-and-groped dept.

Transportation 585

OverTheGeicoE writes "Over a month after Sen. Rand Paul announced his desire to pull the plug on TSA, he has finally released his legislation that he tweets will 'abolish the #TSA & establish a passengers "Bill of Rights."' Although the tweet sounds radical, the press release describing his proposed legislation is much less so. 'Abolition' really means privatization; one of Paul's proposals would simply force all screenings to be conducted by private screeners. The proposed changes in the 'passenger Bill of Rights' appear to involve slight modifications to existing screening methods at best. Many of his 'rights' are already guaranteed under current law, like the right to opt-out of body scanning. Others can only vaguely be described as rights, like 'expansion of canine screening.' Here's to the new boss..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The screeners used to be private (2)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339559)

Back in the 90's we still had metal detectors and screeners would use the wand if it went off

Re:The screeners used to be private (3, Interesting)

CimmerianX (2478270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339631)

Hell, back in the 40's you would just walk on a plane.

A lot later than that. (2)

daninaustin (985354) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339811)

It was also legal for pilots to have guns with them.

Re:A lot later than that. (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339883)

"It was also legal for pilots to have guns with them."

It still is. The laws that temporarily took guns away from pilots were misguidedly attempting to somehow keep us "safe"... from the very people we were trusting with our lives when we stepped on the plane in the first place.

What a boneheaded, f*ed up thing to do.

Fortunately, some politicians who had at least a few working brain cells left got that situation reversed, and explicitly made it legal (again) for pilots to carry guns.

Re:A lot later than that. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340091)

Indeed. The only person "guaranteed" do understand that firing a gun on a plane (especially in/near the cockpit) is stupid would be the same pilots. They would also be the ones you'd most want to be able to defend themselves.

I quote "guaranteed" because there are exceptions - but if the pilots don't realize this you're already in trouble.

Government is more efficient than private industry (1)

mozumder (178398) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340007)

This privatization of the TSA will only serve to hand tax dollars to private companies with zero return.

In all cases, when government does a task themselves, you don't have to worry about waste corporations' demand for profit. Waste is only introduced when private for-profit corporations are brought in. Corporations just can't compete against government.

This is why sending mail via government costs pennies, while sending mail via UPS or FedEx costs $10 or more. Privatization only makes things wasteful and inefficient because companies can't compete when they have to make a profit.

We need to make sure people understand that socialism is a better solution than private corporations when solving societal problems, and we need to make sure to give more power to government in solving social problems, since private industry simply cannot solve social problems.

Re:Government is more efficient than private indus (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340099)

You clearly don't understand a word about what you think you do.

Re:The screeners used to be private (2, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339659)

There's a big psychological difference behind the attitude towards passengers of the average screener empowered by the federal government and one empowered by the local airport.

Re:The screeners used to be private (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339885)

That big psychological difference is only in the minds of people like Rand Paul. The screeners are, in most cases, the exact same people, and they're working the exact same crappy job with the exact same crappy supervisor. The signature on their paycheck doesn't matter in their mind, only in yours.

Re:The screeners used to be private (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339915)

yeah, even less professionalism and less recourse in the instance of abuse

Re:The screeners used to be private (0)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340105)

Bullshit. Well, not about the lack of professionalism. But you can actually have a chance to win if you sue a company.

Re:The screeners used to be private (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340155)

You can sue private screeners much easier.
Because they'd be funded by the airports, they're less likely to splurge for multi-million dollar backscatter machines that have no use.
They're a hell of a lot more likely to discourage the customer-hostile practices that are currently in place.

But yeah. This would totally make the situation worse.~

Re:The screeners used to be private (5, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339959)

Yeah you can sue a private screener. You can't sue the government. Well, you can, but the government won't let you win the case, as happened recently. A man was thrown to the ground and severely injured, so he sued the TSA, and the TSA refused to turn-over the videos because of "national security". The man was forced to drop the case since the evidence was being withheld.

Re:The screeners used to be private (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340109)

Yeah you can sue a private screener.

Says who?

You watch, Federal regulations will end up giving these guys immunity in exactly the same way the TSA has immunity.

Re:The screeners used to be private (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340095)

There's a big psychological difference behind the attitude towards passengers of the average screener empowered by the federal government and one empowered by the local airport.

Maybe psychological is the extent of the difference.

These goons will be less well trained, have fewer background checks, and just as legally protected from lawsuit as the current goons.
They will end up working under the same federal guidelines and regulations.

There seems to be at best, a distinction without any real assurance of a difference.

Re:The screeners used to be private (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340113)

September 9th, 2001, I have video of me running through Palm Beach International Airport, holding up my camcorder to the security guards as the metal detector starts beeping and I don't even slow down. All I say is that my plane is taking off in less than 10 minutes as I run by. Nobody did a thing.

If I did that today, I would be tackled, tasered and handcuffed.

Nathan

It WAS privatized before TSA (4, Insightful)

BenJeremy (181303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339569)

That's the main problem here... the Federal government offered up "free" security services to airports, what else were they going to do? Now we seem to be stuck with the stellar service that is the TSA - government managed security theater.

Get rid of it. Problem solved.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339629)

Idea: get rid of the TSA, and don't force airports to do shit.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (3, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339703)

correct, it's on the airline to worry about whether their planes are taken over or fall out of the sky. it's on the passenger to choose an airline that makes them feel safe. Note most skyscrapers aren't cost reduced crap like the Twin Towers were, you run a plane into say the Sears Tower and you'll ruin a perfectly serviceable jet aircraft.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (1, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339995)

The Towers were actually designed to withstand a direct hit by a 727... the largest common aircraft at the time of their design.

Why they didn't is a matter of speculation for government-contracted (of course!) engineers and conspiracy theorists.

One thing working in the conspiracy theorists' favor is the fact (discovered by reputable scientists with expertise in the subject and no conflict of interest, and independently verified) that the dust from the buildings contained bits of high-tech thermite. Not your everyday garage variety, either, but real high-tech stuff that is usually only available to government and military.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (2, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340069)

>>>bits of high-tech thermite

Nonsense. All we have is someone CLAIMING there was thermite. All that tells me is someone should be writing episodes of 24... not that there was thermite in the building.

And yes the building was designed to handle the IMPACT of an airplane. Unfortunately the engineers forgot (per usual) to account for the effect of a thousand-degree fire on the steel beams. Ooops.

Fire melting steel? Unpossible! (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340147)

Just ask any blacksm...

Oh.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (4, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340141)

I suggest all the thermite you speak of is merely dripping sweat from the brim of your tin foil hat.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340009)

Except that it would have actually taken out just about any modern, steel structure. Post-9/11 testing has pretty conclussively proven the effects were far, far worse than was widely reported at the time; which in turn empowered the stupidity which was the 9/11 truthers.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339653)

No That is Not what happened.
The Minimum wage, poorly trained, high turn over, private screening companies where determined to be un-fixable after 9/11. It was decided only a government run professional service would do.
so;
What a difference 10 years make.
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Apparently private industry did not do everything better.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (1, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339721)

eh, the only reason some of the 9/11 were in the country is because government agencies were watching them to see what they would do. and so we saw.

really there needs to be an inquisition and some executions of some of OUR people for high treason regarding 9/11. Obama shot off his mouth about a full inquiry, but of course didn't do jack as he a mega-corprate bitch just like bush/cheney

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340005)

>>>private screening companies where determined to be un-fixable after 9/11

By whom? George "duh" Bush?
hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha.
We should just take those 8 years under Bush, admit that every decision he made was wrong, throw out those laws he signed (TSA, Patriot Act, Protect IP Act, DHS, etc) and start over.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340061)

I don't believe molesting people at airports and violating their rights is the answer. In fact, I'd much rather risk a terrorist attack (even more unlikely now given we seal the cockpit doors and citizens are more likely to fight back) than resort to TSA-like security.

Is the TSA working? There hasn't been a 9/11 since, so it must be because of the TSA! But then again, there also wasn't a 9/11 before 9/11, and there are plenty of other reasons why there hasn't been another...

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (2)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339681)

Yup, we're going to go back to how things used to be, and much money was spent to get there.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (5, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339789)

The TSA wouldn't bother me so much if (a) it was just the airport and (b) they operated with professionalism. BUT in reality the TSA is expanding its operations to our streets, with random stops-and-searches along interstates (border states), bus stops, train stations, and publicly-open facilities like malls, unemployment centers, hotels, post offices, and most recently: Chicago parks.

As for (b) I have close to 1000 stories about the TSA groping women's breasts, men's penises, forced strip searches of elderly women, dumping urine or feces bags on the floor, forcing a woman to demo a breastpump (else they'd steal the ~$100 device), tackling a woman like she in a football game, holding a man in St. Louis because he was carrying ~$3000 in cash (not a crime), detaining a Senator because he opted-out of being groped & wanted to be scanned, forcing a woman to stand inside a glass jail for over an hour because she had milk for her child (which was then dumped & she missed her flight), and on and on and on.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339735)

Right, because private airport security before TSA was so much more effective, as demonstrated by the way they caught those al-Qaida operatives in 2001.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340055)

There's nothing about Pre-9/11 screening that was done wrong. Box cutters weren't prohibited items and crew/passengers had been trained to cooperate with any terrorist demands (previous terrorist events simply involved having the plane fly somewhere other than intended, not using the planes as weapons).

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340063)

Right, because private airport security before TSA was so much more effective, as demonstrated by the way they caught those al-Qaida operatives in 2001

Airport security didn't catch them because they weren't breaking any rules - In 2001 it wasn't against the rules to bring box cutters onto a plane (it shouldn't be today, either, but that's a different tangent). The 'operatives' should have been caught by law enforcement long before they turned up at the airport.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340107)

Cockpit doors are no longer unsecured and citizens won't just stand idly by while someone tries to hijack the plane. The TSA is a useless organization that I don't believe should exist even if they weren't completely useless. I'd much rather take the minuscule risk of a terrorist attack than violate everyone's rights at airports.

Re:It WAS privatized before TSA (2)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340135)

Right, because private airport security before TSA was so much more effective, as demonstrated by the way they caught those al-Qaida operatives in 2001.

Those al-Qaida operatives weren't carrying anything prohibited onto the plane.

Election Year Bullshit.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339579)

'Nuff said.

What sickens me though is that there are a lot of people who fall for these shenanigans.

People are too stupid for a Democracy and for a Republic for that matter. But the alternatives are horrific.

Re:Election Year Bullshit.. (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339739)

not in Ron Paul's case, he's been doing these kinds of things for decades, and whether you love or hate him he is NOT suddenly pressing this issue, he's been activist for it and similar since 9/11

Re:Election Year Bullshit.. (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339809)

His proposal is to change virtually nothing. Pretty much the same security theatre, but performed by the private sector rather than the public sector. Pointless.

Re:Election Year Bullshit.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340087)

His proposal is to change virtually nothing. Pretty much the same security theatre, but performed by the private sector rather than the public sector. Pointless.

Privatizing security again would allow airlines to delivery the appropriate level of security demanded by their customers. Some airlines might operate a "secure flyer" program with background checks to avoid the theater entirely.

Re:Election Year Bullshit.. (4, Insightful)

codeAlDente (1643257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339871)

This is Rand Paul, not Ron. Rand supports Mitt "Indefinite detention of Americans without trial" Romney for president, though he claims to be a supporter of liberty and the constitution. Here's to the new boss indeed.

Re:Election Year Bullshit.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340027)

This is Rand Paul, not Ron. Rand supports Mitt "Indefinite detention of Americans without trial" Romney for president, though he claims to be a supporter of liberty and the constitution. Here's to the new boss indeed.

As opposed to Barack "summary execution of Americans without trial" Obama - though HE claimed to be a Constitutional scholar.....

Re:Election Year Bullshit.. (1)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339891)

not in Ron Paul's case

This legislation is from Rand Paul, not Ron Paul.

Re:Election Year Bullshit.. (1)

kylog (684524) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339893)

This is his son, Rand Paul.

Re:Election Year Bullshit.. (1)

kylog (684524) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339875)

Rand Paul's term runs through 2016, so I don't believe he's in an election this year.

Re:Election Year Bullshit.. (3, Interesting)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340023)

Yup. He's just generally morally bankrupt.

Because remember this: when the government privatises critical services (and the TSA is most certainly deemed critical), the services still need to be "provided". With the extra overhead of making shareholders rich.

Because nothing will go wrong with private armies of people mandated to stop and search you...

Populism? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339597)

Does introducing bill after bill with no plan to pass it count as populism?

Fiscal-meets-political conservatives. (0, Flamebait)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339615)

They object to the government actually doing anything as a matter of ideology. To most of them, if a job has to be done and isn't going to be sorted by the free market, then the government needs to pay a commercial interest to do it.

In their more extreme form, they become the Rand-spewing market-worshipping objectivists.

Re:Fiscal-meets-political conservatives. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339785)

No. Libertarians object to the government doing anything because it's necessarily based on initiating force. Non-initiation of force is the ideology, no government is the logical conclusion.

By advocating for a government run X, you are saying that you are willing to throw me in jail for not agreeing to fund X. Do you really expect anything positive to result from this paradigm? Should not all social interactions be voluntary?

"But how will we manage the roads without the government!?" - without the initiation force; that's how. Can't be done without force you say? well that's just a limitation of your imagination, not objective truth.

Re:Fiscal-meets-political conservatives. (0)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339827)

No, it's a limitation of people. Government serves to correct and act as the will of the people, and forces us all to get along even when we'd really rather not (some of us like killing those who are different).

"privatization" (1, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339627)

Fun Fact: In some parts of the US, the pronunciations of "privatization" and "profitization" are nearly indistinguishable.

Re:"privatization" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339737)

I don't much mind if a private company profits on it. That's not a bad thing.

Just so long as the job gets done properly, it doesn't cost us more and we can fire a company that does it poorly. Because it's clear that's not something the government can manage.

Re:"privatization" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339803)

That's mighty generous of you with our tax money. But it's the assumption that a for-profit business will do the job properly that's so laughably naive. Have you seen what the titans of private industry have been fucking up, even just lately? And how much of the tax-payers' money they're getting away with in the process? Most privatized ventures where someone takes over for a government agency can be "fired" only in theory. In fact, they funnel just enough of their profits back to the legislators who are supposedly overseeing them, to make sure that they keep the contract.

Re:"privatization" (5, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339947)

Exactly; just take a look at the private for-profit prison industries.

If you have to have a government service, and there's no way to make it competitive, it simply makes more sense to have the government do it outright. There's no way to make the TSA's job competitive; it's not like there's 5 different airports right next to each other that you can choose from if you don't like the screeners at one airport. By having the government do it directly, it's more answerable to the people than a private company is. However, as in the case of the USPS, it does sometimes make a lot of sense to have the function done not by a government agency, but rather by a government-owned and managed corporation, so it's not subject to as much politicization. But for the TSA, I don't think that's such a good idea; it really should be more like the FBI or police departments.

Re:"privatization" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340093)

That's mighty generous of you with our tax money. But it's the assumption that a tax-grubbing government will do the job properly that's so laughably naive. Have you seen what the titans of government have been fucking up, even just lately? And how much of the tax-payers' money they're throwing away with in the process?

FTFY

As for this:

All public employee unions that take over a government agency can't be fired - at all. In fact, they funnel damn near all of their forced-membership dues back to the Democrat legislators who are supposedly overseeing them, to make sure that they keep the gravy train going, soaking the taxpayers in the process.

Sounds great, don't it?

Re:"privatization" (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339877)

I don't much mind if a private company profits on it. That's not a bad thing.

Just so long as the job gets done properly, it doesn't cost us more and we can fire a company that does it poorly. Because it's clear that's not something the government can manage.

BIG newspaper headlines, or lack thereof aside, how are you going to know they're doing a good job? Government monitoring for compliance... gee, might as well just leave it where it is. My problem is most of what they are doing is unproductive. All these scanners and pat-downs. Hire some smarter people, pay them better, promote those who do a good job when unannounced testing happens and they catch things.

Re:"privatization" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339773)

Because, you know, your tax dollars are so much better spent on the TSA as it is now!!!

Re:"privatization" (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339861)

That may be true, but the advantage of privatization is I can choose. Using cars as example, I can choose Ford or Honda or GM or Toyota or Volkwagen or Kia or Chrysler or Hyundai (et cetera). In the case of government control, you have a monopoly. In East Germany you had Trabant.
In the U.S. in trains we used to have several companies to choose from. But not anymore. Now we have the government-owned Amtrak. A monopoly. I'd rather have privatization and choice.

Re:"privatization" (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339981)

Bullshit. How many airports are there near you? I live in a metro area with 4 million people, and there's a single airport here for any real flights out-of-state. Whatever private company gets the contract from the airport becomes an effective monopoly; it's not like I can choose to go with a different screening company if I don't like the screeners at my city's airport.

Your comparison with trains sounds pretty idiotic too; did those different companies all run trains to the same destinations? If not, that's not real competition. The only reason cars are competitive is because they can all run on the same roads; it doesn't matter if you buy a VW or a Kia, you can drive it to all the same places, and you get to share the road with people who bought all different makes of cars. Airports and railroad tracks aren't like that (railroad tracks don't let lots of different train companies all share the tracks), and there's usually only one airport per city.

Re:"privatization" (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340115)

>>>Bullshit. How many airports are there near you?

Well let's see. 5.
7 if I'm willing to drive 1.5 hours to the port. So YES privatization would give me choice to avoid the sucky airports for the better airports...... as opposed to the government monopoly called the TSA that treats customers like scum. (And hands-over our information to the DHS computer system which includes the FBI, CIA, NSA, and who knows what else.)

Re:"privatization" (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340075)

"In the U.S. in trains we used to have several companies to choose from."

To be fair: passenger trains had almost entirely faded from existence in the U.S., which was the justification used to form Amtrak in the first place.

The development of (at the time) cheap travel by car and by air, both of which most people vastly preferred to train travel, was the cause of the demise. Not some nefarious government plan. Perhaps passenger rail would have come back on its own, perhaps not.

But regardless: as with most government projects, there is little doubt that Amtrak is an abomination that should have been eliminated long ago.

Re:"privatization" (0)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340085)

You are an idiot. There can be competition amongst car manufacturers, not between train companies: they need to share the same tracks, FFS!

If you give the TSA function to a bunch of companies, you either end up with the overhead of a thousand boards of directors to feed and dealing with the interaction of all these companies. OR you get a massive oligopoly of a handful of private armies of goons mandated to stop and search you for profit.

Never mind that the government can be inefficient, at least it is not trying to harass you for money. Well, used to, until they privatised the prison system...

Imagine the profits if the police becomes private! and a subsidiary of your local friendly state prison!

Re:"privatization" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340151)

Oh, so CSX transports goods on different rails than Amtrack uses for passengers since according to you they can't share the same tracks.

Perhaps you should think out your comment before exposing how retarded you are and calling others names.

Re:"privatization" (3, Insightful)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340119)

LOL, you think you're going to be able to choose among competing pat-down companies? You'll have as much choice as you have in your (privatized) electric company, your (privatized) trash service, and, I bet, your (privatized) cable company.

Privatization simply means your money is being funneled into the pockets of a company rather than government workers.

Re:"privatization" (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340157)

How much choice do you anticipate having with airport screeners? Are you expecting an airport to have multiple lines, each going through a different screening company's employees, where you can choose which line to go through? Are you expecting multiple new airports to pop up, each using different screening companies, such that you can pick and choose which airport to use based upon the security theater you will endure?

The best you can hope for is that the airport has some feedback mechanism where you can complain about the security contractor and hopefully do something about it. I'm not sure that mechanism is much better (if at all) than our current system, as we at least have an illusion now of being able to impact the TSA through our votes. If the airports choos to omit this feedback mechanism (as they likely will - airports don't usually have competition), we'll actually be worse off than we are now.

The best option is to eliminate the TSA and go back to the old security model (only with locks on cockpit doors). I would still have a far greater chance of dying in a car accident while driving to the airport (several orders of magnitude!) than I have of dying in a terrorist attack.

Rand Paul is disappointing the Libertarian base (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339639)

If Libertarians can be said to have a base, the younger Paul has disappointed it. First he endorsed Romney, and now he's offering this bill that's just shuffling the deck chairs from the public to the private side of impositions on your rights.

Thos of us who are not "the base" of Libertarians yet find some sympathy with Libertarian ideas (especially when it comes to individual rights) can't take much solace in this either. The younger Paul is just transferring the right to grope from government cronies to private cronies. Same shit, different toilet.

Rand Paul, you rode your father's coat tails to the Senate, you sold out. Nothing left for him to do but go to Disney World (TM) (note, this post not sponsored by Disney, but I'll be happy to take their money if they offfer it. Why should big time corporate shills get all the scratch?).

Re:Rand Paul is disappointing the Libertarian base (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340013)

I disagree, about the attitudes of Libertarians. You're right, he's just transferring the right to grope from government lackeys to private lackeys. However, the Libertarians think this is great, because they're always in favor of privatization, no matter what. To them, government is always "bad", and private industry is always "good". Somehow, they don't get it that private industry getting a handout from the government and doing a job the government should do isn't any better than the government doing it themselves.

Next thing you know, the Libertarians will be demanding that police services be privatized too, because "competition" will somehow make everything better when your city has contracted with a single big private police corporation.

Private security theater is no better than public (5, Insightful)

Schezar (249629) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339651)

I fly around the world on a regular basis. There is one thing that every single foreign airport I have ever flown out of shares in common: a lack of security theater.

From Mumbai to Istanbul, Narita to that tiny little airport on the island next to Toronto, I never have to:

1. Take my shoes off
2. Submit to a body scanner
3. Suffer a pat-down
4. Wait more than ten minutes to get through security

Flying within and out of the US is slower, more difficult, more humiliating, than flying through airports where terrorism is ACTUALLY a common threat. I am embarrassed every time a foreigner has to deal with my country's ridiculous soap opera of security, and simultaneously enraged when the outside world reminds me that, outside of the US, flying is a wonderfully pleasant experience from start to finish.

I don't really have a new or insightful point here other than to vent, to be honest. It's deeply frustrating to see the ludicrous amount of money we've spent on body scanners that are not only trivially fooled, but simultaneously don't catch anything actually dangerous a metal detector wouldn't have already caught and still require me to take my god damned mother fucking shoes off. Security is worse, yet somehow takes longer. I have to choose between a ridiculous body scan or an intrusive physical search in my own relatively safe country, but can travel in comfort everywhere else.

It's maddening. I avoid flying as much as possible literally because of the TSA. It's a sad state of affairs when a 12-hour train ride (which, mind you, costs MORE than a flight) is an attractive option to dealing with airport security.

It's maddening to the point that I supported Rand Paul's original initiative to ban/reform the TSA. Rand Paul is a lunatic, yet I dislike the TSA so much that he and I agreed on this one issue.

So now, it turns out, he doesn't want to do what he'd said at all. His proposal address NONE of the things that madden me so, and in many cases make them worse. Privatized security theater is no better than public security theater. The THEATER part is the problem, not the public or private part.

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (2)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339761)

I fly around the world on a regular basis. There is one thing that every single foreign airport I have ever flown out of shares in common: a lack of security theater

It's amazing how easy it is to spot Americans in foreign airports. They're the ones who are taking their shoes off at the x-ray machines while everyone else is walking past them.

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (1, Funny)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339771)

I'm shocked, shocked, I say, to learn that your planes around the world haven't been hijacked yet. I'm certain that the only reason they're not being hijacked left, right and center is that the US security screening system is also protecting the rest of the world. In fact, the service the TSA provides is so great that we should go all around the world and demand tribu...payment for our services.

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339907)

>>> I'm certain that the only reason they're not being hijacked left, right and center is that the US security screening system is also protecting the rest of the world.

Is this like that "communal vaccination" theory? Unprotected planes/persons don't get blownup/sick because of the protection provided by the TSA/DHHS?

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (-1, Troll)

ewoods (108845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339795)

Private is no better than public? Either you're uninformed (let me help you with that: http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/06/15/2118257/sen-rand-paul-introduces-tsa-reform-legislation [slashdot.org] ) or you're another socialist piece of shit.

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (2)

Ziggitz (2637281) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339953)

Of course! How could he possibly be informed AND disagree with your point of view? Must be a piece of shit socialist.

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340011)

Name calling so soon? Next you should threaten to find him and kill his dog.

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339815)

You have to take off your shoes? How mad is that!

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (1, Interesting)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339889)

I used to travel abroad at my previous job, and I had similar, though often worse, experiences in other countries. For example, when leaving Luanda, Angola, here was the process:
  1. Arrive at airport, get in line
  2. Go through metal detector, have your itinerary checked against your passport
  3. Get in line for the check-in desk. Start filling out a passenger information sheet
  4. Get interviewed for a few minutes by a security person who again checks your itinerary against your passport
  5. Airline checks your itinerary against the passport and the passenger information sheet
  6. Move to the next line to actually check in
  7. Stand in another security line, bags get xrayed, you go through the metal detector
  8. Go into a small room to be interviewed to make sure you're not carrying any Angolan currency out
  9. Go wait in waiting area (not by the gate) until it's about time to board
  10. Go through another check of boarding pass vs. passport
  11. Bag search to *really* make sure you're not carrying currency
  12. Pat-down to *really* *really* make sure you're not carrying currency
  13. Another check of boarding pass against passport (by airport security)
  14. Another check of boarding pass against passport (by the airline)
  15. Go out the door to board a bus which takes you to the airplane

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339925)

Flying within and out of the US is slower, more difficult, more humiliating, than flying through airports where terrorism is ACTUALLY a common threat

Doesn't this prove the point then that it's not security theater and it works?

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (1)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340097)

It would, if there were successful terrorist attacks at those airports. As there isn't, it proves that it is just (bad) theatre.

Re:Private security theater is no better than publ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339983)

Flying within and out of the US is slower, more difficult, more humiliating, than flying through airports where terrorism is ACTUALLY a common threat.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you have never flown in or out of Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv.

good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339665)

Privatizing it means making the airlines and airports pay for it. As long as airlines and airports aren't legally required to have screening (like I'm sure they effectively are today), they will simply stop screening as a cost-cutting measure.

The TSA is government-sponsored overhead. Remove the sponsorship and you'll remove the TSA.

Private Screeners (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339671)

He is saying "Yo big government, keep your hands off citizens". Getting groped by private screeners (punny) is totally more liberating than when done by TSA agents.

Re:Private Screeners (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339777)

It's a little easier to take private screeners and a private screening industry to court if you feel violated.

100% foolproof plan! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339713)

No more security.
Put the doors to the cockpit on the OUTSIDE of the plane.
Give all passengers a large knife.

The plane WILL be going to its destination. guaranteed. any terrorists pop up in flight.. well. we have garbage bags.

Problem solved. Dirt cheap. And we can even reuse the knives.

Re:100% foolproof plan! (1, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339783)

Like it, but with a couple changes:

- Sub cudgels for knives. Last thing I want is to get cut by some potentially diseased, random jackass who doesn't know how to properly handle a sharp. plus, a Louisville Slugger has a much greater range than a box knife.

Also, rubberize the interior of the passenger compartment to make cleanup a breeze.

Re:100% foolproof plan! (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339837)

No more security.
Put the doors to the cockpit on the OUTSIDE of the plane.
Give all passengers a large knife.

The plane WILL be going to its destination. guaranteed. any terrorists pop up in flight.. well. we have garbage bags.

Problem solved. Dirt cheap. And we can even reuse the knives.

Take off and landing is the only part the pilot plays now. Small matter of having remotely-flown jets if their hijacked. The plan becomes less clear, which results in a lot of spineless back-seaters not wanting to be responsible for the outcome of a decision, when you have someone claiming to have a bomb on board and want the jet diverted. Defy them, call their bluff and it goes off .. we won't hear the end of it for over a decade.

Re:100% foolproof plan! (3, Insightful)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339857)

In addition:
1. Remove the ability for the passenger compartment to talk to the pilots except for a single emergency button that informs the pilots that we need an immediate emergency landing at the nearest airport. Hijackers can't tell the pilot where to go and they can't even threaten to kill people to achieve that goal.

2. Upon emergency landing the plane is met at the gate by EMTs and police. Hijackers aren't given a chance to negotiate before police are expected to enter the passenger compartment. This makes it impossible for them to use hostages as a buffer against police entry. EMTs, of course, are in the much more likely case that the emergency is medical in nature.

3. Once the plane touches down for an emergency prevent it from starting back up unless initiated from an access panel requiring a physical key held by the airport or local police and a password in the middle of the passenger compartment requiring at least two officers to operate. This means that unless an authorized technician is allowed into the center of the passenger compartment the plane can't just be reloaded with a new pilot and take off after the hijackers have had a chance to talk to the police. They need to allow multiple actual police officers into the compartment to even get off the ground again.

Or, even better, just keep the locked cockpit door and make sure passengers understand that hijackers are more likely to kill you than let you go nowadays. This requires almost no changes to the plane...

Private Screeners (2)

slash-hash (2663357) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339769)

Nothing speaks of liberty more than a shift from government agency to a private agency. Why waste taxpayers' money on TSA when we can spend double the tax money and get groped the same way by "private screeners"?

Re:Private Screeners (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339851)

Private gropers would mean that the money would come from ticket sales, not taxes.

Stop the Whining (0)

fullback (968784) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339781)

Americans shouldn't complain about the humiliation they suffer at the hands of mouth-breathing, tin-badge TSA goons.

You keep electing politicians who create, empower and fund these government programs to hire the stragglers from your high school who barely made it though, so you should just suck it up and stop whining. Sleep in the bed you made.

Radical... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339791)

Nothing radical about privatizing stuff which should remain in the government, though run much better than it currently is, it's typical of the right side of the aisle.

What I worry about is when our safety is a matter of profit for someone, perhaps eyeing a new house or boat or something.

Sad how disfunctional goverhment has become since 1999. It's all about posturing and then getting as much for your campaign donors as you can get. Hard to believe we once had a pretty effective government, split between parties, in Washington DC in the mid to late nineties. Even with their faults considered they did a pretty darn good job. Recovering from the innattention of the one-party dominated government of the early to late 2000's decade is taking a back seat to playing more divisive politices than ever. Opportunity lost.

Paul (2)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339821)

B-b-b-but... his last name is Paul, and his first name starts with an 'r', so it must be good for the country right? RIGHT!?

Re:Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40340045)

Relative to people whose last name is Obama, Bush, or Clinton, yes.

Why!? (1)

tehlinux (896034) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339879)

Why reform the TSA instead of just disbanding it?

Simple logic (2)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339895)

The TSA employs about 60,000 people. The number one thing that voters care about in the US is jobs.

The TSA will not be curtailed anytime soon.

Re:Simple logic (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340001)

Those jobs aren't going away based on this legislation, since this legislation merely privatizes them. The "need" for those jobs won't be going away because of this.

the tea party (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40339901)

they have a problem with the power the government has, and want to remove it

they don't understand this power vacuum merely gets filled by corporations

at least with the government, there is the pretense that they are ultimately accountable to you

a corporation does away with that pretense, they have to answer to nothing except the need to make more cash, however possible, without any concern for rights whatsoever

if the tea party gets its way, every abuse they complain about will be magnified, in the name of making more cash, and now there will be no recourse whatsoever, the tea party dismantled all the means of recourse

morons

Airport/Airplane Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40339935)

For a whole lot less money and less lost time, one of three options could be employed:

1.) Everyone boards with a loaded functioning hand gun.

2.) Everyone flies nude.

3.) Place a live pig on every flight.

lack of courage (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40340059)

Really this is typical of the Paul fiefdom. They want smaller government, the claim to be libertarians, but then, as soon as he gets in office, he is the same borrow and spend politicians that have characterized republicans since Reagan(debt as percent of GDP went over 50% since WWII). Just like everyone else, he knows he needs public tax dollars to pay off his friends who funded his election. Both Pauls have said, and have acted, to make sure their friends get their share fo the federal purse.

So what is wrong with current situation. It is that the TSA is a symptom, not the cause. The cause is Homeland Security, a department, which this year is adding $3billion in deficient spending over what it has been adding all the years since Bush decided that bigger government was the way to go. If we want smaller government, Paul should be giving us legislation to get rid of the DHS, putting the duties into other departments. He should get rid of medicare part D. He should stop the department of education from doing anything but reference curriculum and grants for innovative local teaching ideas. This would be smaller government and real savings. But instead he will continue to attack workers and pretend to care about the people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?