We Know You Have a Choice of Gropers, and We Appreciate Your Business

A law that Congress passed last month makes it easier for airports to replace screeners employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) with screeners hired by private contractors. Sixteen of the country's 450 airports, including San Francisco's, already use private contractors for screening, and several others, including Orlando's, are expected to take advantage of the new law, which requires the TSA to allow such arrangements when they save money and do not undermine security. Although a 2008 TSA report claimed private screeners cost more, an analysis by the Government Accountability Office faulted the TSA's methdology. A 2011 report from the House Transportation Committee concluded that "airport passenger screening with private security screeners under federal supervision is dramatically more efficient and less costly than the all-federal screening model."

Any savings accue to the TSA, which covers the cost of paying screeners either way. Furthermore, private screeners are required to enforce the same stupid policies and use the same intrusive, ineffective methods as screeners employed by the federal government. But Larry Dale, president and chief executive of Orlando Sanford International Airport, says hundreds of passenger complaints about TSA screeners helped convince him to try the other option. "We've visited a number of airports who have opted out of the TSA screenings, and no one wants to go back," he told The New York Times. "We think this will be more efficient and customer-friendly for us."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Sixteen of the country's 450 airports, including San Francisco's, already use private contractors for screening, and several others, including Orlando's, are expected to take advantage of the new law, which requires the TSA to allow such arrangements when they save money and do not undermine security.

    You know what would save money and not undermine security one iota? Doing away with RapeScanners and Nutgrabbers altogether.

  • shrike||

    What if Delta employed the Nutgrabbers?

    Like Bill Maher I go way to the right on this issue. I'm good with profiling at the gate. But I do hate the Govt model.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It doesn't matter who signs their checks, rifling through passengers' genitals is pure theatrics. Metal detectors, x-raying and swabbing bags, and looking for behavioral cues are plenty effective at preventing weapons from getting on planes.

    Locking cockpit doors are plenty effective for preventing 9/11 v.2 if weapons do make it onboard, which they have in abundance since the excretion of the TSA.

  • ||

    Or excreation?

  • Suki||

    9/11 was more like V1's than V2's, just sayin'

  • Gojira||

    The genital fondling is supposedly because of the underwear bomber. Every time someone comes up with a new hiding place, that then has to be checked on every person going forward.

    I want to figure out how to put explosives in a wig or toupee, so that everyone will have to remove those for scanning.

  • Joe M||

    Still holding out for the butthole bomber.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And that would go a little something like this.

  • ||

    Yeah were good with profiling at the gate on January 20th 2009. And your comfort with this will end sometime around January 20th 2013. Got it.

  • Joe M||

    We should've been profiling for access to the presidency on Jan 20, 2009. *rim shot*

  • ||

    Shrike was all concerned about this stuff when Bush was President. Now not so much. I guess he pretends it is Obama feeling up his nuts every time he goes through a TSA checkpoint.

  • shrike||

    Actually my Hitchens like anti-religion sentiment creeps in here (like Bill Maher).

    I would let a private company like Delta profile at airport gates. I would also agree to profile Christian nutjobs at health centers.

    I remember one of your ilk gunned down Tiller in Kansas just recently. Let churches profile religious nuts, I say!

  • ||

    You used to be so worried about citizen surveillance Shrike. What happened?

  • shrike||

    Congress made illegal citizen spying legal in 2008 and even gave immunity to past law-breakers.

    And Obama voted "Yea". I knew that before I voted for him.

  • ||

    No they didn't you clown. Go read the FISA amendments. They can spy to their heart's content. And Obama voted for all of that. His policy is no different than Bush's. In fact, it is much worse since Obama never killed US citizens.

    Obama could be putting people in ovens and you would be on here defending him you nasty little fuck.

  • shrike||

    You don't recall the Telecom Immunity bill in 2008?

    I do.

    Congress whiffed completely (most of all Obama).

    Bush/Cheney and that little imp in CIA (forget his name) were desperately plugging it.

    Obama caved. He pussed out. We agree for once.

  • ||

    Shrike in a more optimistic era

    shrike|2.4.09 @ 3:46PM|#

    Obama "socialism" is no doubt better than Bush fascism - with the embryo police, constant citizen survelleince, Schiavo police, bank nationalization, internet poker police, drug wars, disregard for privacy, etc.

    Can't tell an aborto-freak Bushpig that though.

    http://reason.com/archives/200.....nt_1202594

  • Joe M||

    Listing bank nationalization among those is pretty hilarious, because Obama would love that.

  • shrike||

    Obama REVERSED the TARP program via SCAP.

    Obama is the anti-socialist.

  • ||

    Obama voted for TARP in the Senate. And continued it once elected. Take your fucking delusions elsewhere.

  • shrike||

    Yes, he did. And once president he forced Bank of America to raise $34 billion privately to sustain their debt overhang and repay TARP.

  • ||

    So he followed Paulson's plans. Good to know.

  • ||

    And once president he forced Bank of America to raise $34 billion

    You say that like having a President ordering banks around is a good thing.

  • shrike||

    I stand by that comment.

    Earlier today I said I would never call Bush a socialist despite TARP. I still consider Bush guilty of those things.

  • ||

    None of those things changed under Obama. How do you live in such denial? Do you realize how foolish you look?

  • ||

    Do you realize how foolish you look?

    Do you realize who you're talking to?

  • ||

    Touche!!

  • shrike||

    Yes, we have made very little progress in those areas.

    On medical MJ Obama is a complete failure. As he is on internet poker as well. He is good on ESCR and other contraception/sex issues.

    I see you appreciate my hatred of lost freedom under Bush.

    Has Obama restored all lost? No. You win that point easily.

  • ||

    He embraced it and made it bi partisan Shrike. He fucked us royally.

  • ||

    Schiavo police

    I wish all police were Schiavo police. As things stand, they'd be safer for dogs everywhere, people with carving knives in Seattle, homeless schizophrenics in Fullerton, kids with FB accounts in Minnesota, gay barhoppers in Atlanta and myriad other people.

    No, I support Schiavo police. It's a lot of the others I can't abide.

  • Kochtopussy||

    Invasive Patdowns, now in Berry Blue!

  • Suki||

    A switch from socialism to national socialism is no switch at all.

  • ||

    It doesn't matter who signs their checks,

    Well, yes and no. People who aren't pubsec union employees who also enjoy sovereign immunity are likely to treat their fellow citizens a little differently, IMO.

  • Joe M||

    Yeah, accountability will finally exist, just a little.

  • mr simple||

    alt-alt-text:"You'll probably want to get this checked by a doctor."

  • ||

    "But, under the PPACA, shouldn't that be part of your job Mr. Grabby?"

  • ||

    I've always thought SFO's security screening was quite a bit better and more efficient than what you get at other busy airports. And they don't even have any of the Rapeyscan STEVE SMITH machines to send you through either. Guess this explains it.

  • ||

    I have no problem with the airlines individually doing this. I'll simply pick an airline that doesn't. Those of you, like Shriek, who are OK with having your balls fondled or tits groped can still get it done by going to the airline that chooses it as their security standard. I'm sure there will be plenty of people there with you.

    Again, what it boils down to for me is this: I do not want the government intervening in a private transaction between me and the airline. If I want to accept the airlines security policies (that are not made with a government gun to their head), then I can. If I do not want to, then I won't...or I'll choose a competitor with policies I am amenable to.

  • ||

    How can you people even concern yourselves with trivialities like this when Peyton Manning just decided to go to the Broncos, which will likely send Tebowmania to South Beach?

    What the fuck is wrong with you all?

  • Hugh Akston||

    The game of QB musical chairs continues in Denver, even after a pretty solid showing by Tebow last season.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Denver better do a hell of a job in the draft department, because Manning can't rush the passer or play in the secondary. And that bum neck of his is a 4-12 season waiting to happen if he gets injured.

  • ||

    send Tebowmania to South Beach

    So Tim Tebow will be taking his talents to South Beach, is that what you're saying?

  • WhereYou'reWrong||

    Orlando Sanford (less than 2 million passengers a year) is not, unfortunately, Orlando's largest and most used airport. That would be Orlando International Airport (more than 35 million passengers per year). OIA dumping the TSA would be much bigger news.

  • ||

    private screeners are required to enforce the same stupid policies and use the same intrusive, ineffective methods as screeners employed by the federal government.

    So no change.

  • ||

    Any savings accue to the TSA

    Something tells me the TSA will need lots of "supervisory personnel" if you know what I mean.

  • Bradley||

    Take out the sarcasm from the headline and you've got a Bob Poole article.

    Heyo

  • ||

    Dude are you kidding me? I mean like seriously??

    www.Anon-Planet.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement