Fear of Information
The Transportation Security Administration has "requested that two pages of public, unclassified congressional testimony on airport security from a hearing last November be expunged from media archives," Congressional Quarterly reports. Some outlets are complying, while others -- including CQ -- are not.
I found the redacted version of McNeil's testimony online with little effort. To see the whole thing, terrorists and curiosity-seekers might have to buy a CQ subscription or pay for a Lexis-Nexis account; so armed, they can learn one part of the "training resolution" for "explosive trace detection" and they can read a description of just how some undercover agents managed to smuggle guns past screeners in Rochester. Or if they're cheap, they can just read CQ's free online article on the controversy, which spills the beans:
TSA undercover security agents easily smuggled small handguns past Rochester airport screeners by taping them to their thighs with Ace bandages and claiming they had just had surgery.
"The screener assumed the agent was being truthful and would not have thought of asking her to remove a surgical bandage," McNeil testified. "Moreover, the screener pointed out that she had never seen, or been trained to detect a small semi-automatic handgun by feeling it through layers of a bandage.
"The agent told us afterward that part of the reason this particular test was done was to show training weaknesses. We would welcome some guidance and training in this particular area," McNeil added.
Not to state the obvious or anything, but it would make a lot more sense to seek us outsiders' input on how to resolve the putative problem than to try to hide it from our prying eyes. Especially when the information is already there in the public record. But if there's one thing we've learned about the TSA, it's that it isn't particularly interested in what the public has to say -- except, of course, when it's interrogating us.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to let anyone and everyone carry whatever they want on to a plane?
Making "a lot more sense" is clearly not part of the TSA's mission.
TSA should be renamed CYA, because that seems to be their real mission.. to cover the government's butt from its own embarassing incompetence.
The TSA, when you cut through all the bullshit, is basically a government jobs program. It has nothing to do with security. TSA = Thousands Standing Around.
Ah, that makes more sense.
I thought it stood for 'Taking Scissors Away'
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to let anyone and everyone carry whatever they want on to a plane?
Not really. If some nut plugs the pilots with a .357 magnum, it's really not going to make me feel any better, as I plummet to my death, that I can shoot the guy who pulled the trigger.
You can't rely on ordinary people to actively police the plane -- i.e., to prevent the nut from reaching the cockpit. Ordinary people don't spend their time in a "ok, I need to car the cockpit" mindset and aren't ready to use lethal force at a moment's notice. It would take a minute or two for passengers to comprehend what was going on, psych themselves up, retrieve their weapon, and take action; that's too long.
If people *were* ready to use lethal force on a moment's notice... well, terrorist attacks on planes are rare. We'd probably lose more people, and more planes, to wild shots and unjustified shootings than we lose now to terrorism.
The very obvious libertarian solution is to let airlines set their own security policies on their own property, but also hold them liable for any damages caused by planes that crash as a result of terrorism. I bet you they'd find the best security measures real quick.
I'm having a "Why does God need a starship?" moment. Didn't these people with the guns under bandages, y'know, have to go thru metal detectors?
You can't rely on ordinary people to actively police the plane
Riiiight. After all, they have nothing whatsoever invested in the plane making it's safe scheduled landing.
Deterence, deterence, deterence.
You can't rely on ordinary people to actively police the plane
Not after you've spent so much time and energy making them all infants, no.
Not after you've spent so much time and energy making them all infants, no.
Macho bullshit is nice, but then there's reality. Ordinary people are not psychotics, sociopaths, or trained killers. It only takes a fraction of a minute to seize control of an aircraft and kill the pilots, and neither you nor anyone else in this thread will react in time to stop them.
Ordinary people are not [...] trained killers.
Again, we agree. Far more ordinary people ought to be trained on how to kill someone.
The very libertarian response by the airline would be to transfer all costs of security and liablility to the ticket buyer.
As opposed to the government, which pays for its "security" with sugarland money from the whimsical lollipop trees.
> As opposed to the government, which pays for its "security" with sugarland money from the whimsical lollipop trees.
dj,
Security thorough obscurity is no security at all.
> The very obvious libertarian solution is to let airlines set their own security policies on their own property, but also hold them liable for any damages caused by planes that crash as a result of terrorism. I bet you they'd find the best security measures real quick.
How smart is it to hold hearings
in attempt to ensure security
and in those hearings reveal to all
the very weaknesses to security?
What was the purpose of the hearings?
Were those purposes served or not?
Why don't other governments make intelligence
gathering as easy as we do in the US?
Why not just ask the Israelis what it is that they do at their airport(s)? Last time I looked it has been a hell of a long time since an El Al jet was 'jacked. And I'm not sure when the last time a jet was seized after departing from an Israeli airport, either. Could it be that Americans would not put up with the measures required to truly make them safe?
I'm just glad they raised the chocolate ration this month. It said so in the newspaper.
Dan:
"It only takes a fraction of a minute to seize control of an aircraft and kill the pilots, and neither you nor anyone else in this thread will react in time to stop them."
Really? Every U.S. airline hijacking attempted since 9/11 has been stopped by passengers overwhelming the hijacker. The only reason the attacks on 9/11 succeeded was the Official Airline Hijacking Management Policy of "If they want the airplane, give them the airplane. Otherwise someone will get hurt."