TSA might end security screenings at 150 U.S. airports. Experts say it's dangerous.

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/08/01/tsa-might-end-security-screeni.html


Which experts? The article cites “CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank”. I’m not sure I’d trust a CNN “terrorism analyst” for sane analysis of airport security measures.


Bullshit. It’s all security theatre, so reducing the amount of theatrics will have no effect whatsoever on the risk level.


It might even reduce the risk level, by removing the big crowd of people packed densely into a queue before passing through screening.


Can we split the difference and just let everyone keep their shoes and shampoo bottles?


The TSA has a track record of making stupid announcements it doesn’t mean to implement because it finds the backlash useful. Consider for example the many times the TSA has announced a policy change miniature pocketknives will be allowed on planes. Never happens. This won’t either.


I fly in and out of a tiny local airport. There’s never been more than 6 people in line to get through security, ever.

I think TSA is a joke, but so is this proposal. My airport regularly displays the knives, guns and other dangerous material that people “forget” and try and bring on a plane. I really don’t want dipshit dumbfuck rednecks thinking it’s okay for them to bring their desert eagles (one was prominently displayed as recently confiscated) onboard to protect themselves from Muslims on their short flight to Atlanta. And once in Atlanta, I sure don’t want them with a gun in the airport.


TSA? Great job [on the tax payers dime] if you can get it…

1 Like

How would this work? larger destination airports are now going to have to have post TSA arrival gates?


The damn security screening is taking resources away from valuable efforts like Quiet Skies. About time they substituted the “following random strangers around” strategy for “inexpertly searching bags and bodies of people standing in enormous lines” strategy. Good on the good old TSA, I say!

I’m just wondering, if I were a rich white business man type person, could I pay for less hamfisted trailing by more attractive Quiet Skies agents, just like I do to get expedited screening in a shorter line up?


150% agree on that.

Sure you need to keep Joe 'murica from carrying his baby sister’s shotgun onboard but, the rest is mostly kabuki theater to keep the public pacified about flying.

Besides there are Patriot missile batteries now.

1 Like

On a return trip the Arcata CA airport questioned me about a tube a toothpaste. Houston didn’t say anything and I was perfectly willing to give it up, but instead I had to be lectured on the rules. Then he let me thru with my tube of toothpaste. All seemed a bit silly.



International airports already have either separate gates for, or gates with separate exit paths for international arrivals. I guess this would work the same.

If suitable gate facilities don’t exist, I guess they’d just deplane onto the tarmac using stairs, and have a shuttle bus take passengers to a door leading to the groundside (pre-TSA) area of the terminal, where connecting passengers would then go through the security screening.

1 Like

In place of TSA security screenings what will they be using? Hopefully the same old metal detector and baggage X-ray stuff from the old days?

And what happens if a terrorist brings a shoe bomb onto a little plane and hops on a bigger airplane / target at his connection airport? Or are they going to send passengers from the un-screened airports through an actual TSA screening line? That will be HUGELY convenient for connecting passengers who often have very small time windows between flights.

I never thought of that. I assumed TSA was run by the same disinterested, disgruntled, underpaid people that I get to meet at the airport – but what if DHS has reasonably decent propaganda acumen and is simply using this to create a smokescreen?

But then I remember New Coke, which was rolled out by top execs and marketing geniuses at the executive level, and I’m not sure.


I would argue it won’t even affect that. First, because those lines will still exist at the big airports, which are the ones they’d attack. Second, because the lack of any such attack in the 17 years since those corrals first formed strongly indicates there wasn’t any danger anyway.


Like the fighter jets to “escort” planes with unruly drunken a-holes back to the airport, those are not for the safety of the passengers. :sunglasses:

(The news frequently mention fighter jet escorts, but never mentions their real mission. I guess most people think the jets will dock mid-air with the airliner and send in a team of sky marines…)


Why the fucking hell would you want such a soul-sucking job? Money, sure. But I bailed after 3 months as a telemarketer and that was pretty damned soul-sucking. I was unemployed, but free.

1 Like

Regarding small puddlejumper airplanes, the ones we see here have completely separate terminals from the larger jets. You don’t go through TSA for the turboprops that fly into Hana Airport, but if you are making connections to a larger jet, you still need to allow for TSA screening time when you transfer.

eta: The one place I remember TSA being a waste was at Molokai Airport. 90% of the traffic there is on said puddlejumpers, except for the one slightly larger plane that held 40 people. TSA had a special line just for that.

Did you remember the new Coke recipe went through extensive taste tests and and overwhelming majority of people preferred it?

As to your first question, I am really not concerned/worry with air terrorism. I suppose metal detectors/scanners. Fine. That is what we had. I shouldn’t have to take out my laptop or remove my shoes.