Sorry, No, Airports Can NOT Opt Out of the TSA

by George Donnelly on November 19, 2010

Joshua at People’s Press talked to a staffer with the US House Transportation Committee. She says that the airport opt out option is not really that. It just means the TSA will subcontract for the employees that work in the given airport. The machines and the procedures will not change. This is privatization, as we currently know it. The government hires a crony to do its job and the crony is even less accountable than the government.

What we need is complete abolition of the TSA. Government: get out of airport security. Al-Qaeda is an agile networked organization. The TSA is a slow, lumbering, top-down and not very quick-thinking giant. The TSA will never be a match for Al-Qaeda. We need to decentralize passenger security and empower, among others, the passengers. We are the ones who stopped the shoe and underwear bombers, after all.

The airport opt out is a marginal improvement at best.

It turns out that private contractors, while quite popular in the places where they are used, still have to obey TSA screening policies, and if TSA decides to put electronic strip-searchers at DIA, there’s no mechanism for DIA to resist. TSA is responsible for security, not DIA. This also means that the private contractors almost always are contracted to TSA, not to the local airport authority. The airport applies for an opt-out, after which the Feds put out an RFP and go through the normal contracting processes. There are some other models, where the private contractors work for the airports, but they still have to operates federal processes under federal supervision.

The innovations that Mica refers to are operational, not policy, but Mrs. Lyons did note that (not surprisingly) the private companies tend to be more responsive, more willing to open new lines, and more concerned about their public perception that the TSA. For instance, the handling of heavy bags has led to a higher rate of injury for security workers, and many have subcontracted out baggage-handing to cut down on injuries. In other instances, the turnover rate at private companies is far lower, further reducing operating costs.

Continue Reading

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Fark
  • FriendFeed
  • HackerNews
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • Mixx
  • PDF
  • Reddit
  • RSS

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

RothbardFan November 19, 2010 at 11:28 am

In doing my small part, I’ve created an xtranormal video denouncing the TSA at this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3yq_Pltlww

Please feel free to share it if you like!

Reply

zanlok November 19, 2010 at 4:29 pm

AGREED. Completely dismantle the TSA. Period.

Let government sickos grope my wife? No thanks. Let them grope my children: no way. Let them touch my junk? How about not. Refuse and get shot or go to jail?

Since when did we allow the federal government control over the free air. This is nonsense and an excuse for them to usurp more tyranny over us. The best protection we have is ourselves. Arm every passenger with a gun, and the problem is solved.

Reply

James November 20, 2010 at 6:38 pm

I think it would be preferable to have a private company instead of TSA at the inspection stations in Austin, TX.

Yes, the private company will have to follow the TSA policies, but if the policy is in writing, at least we can get our hands on it and then not be subject to pervert de jour’s interpretation of the unwritten and vague rules.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Comments must be polite. NO personal attacks. Keep the debate lively but respectful. Comments that violate this rule will be deleted. Overly repetitive comments will also not be published.

Previous post:

Next post: