Note: I had originally submitted this as an OpEd to the Washington Post last week (to the great support of many – Thank you!) Alas, the Washington Post chose not to run it, so I thought I’d share it here (with a brief update about the TSA Director of Security), especially after reading Gary Leff’s TSA piece, which, I think gears toward a similar end result.
It is Time for the TSA to Step Aside
The summer travel season is fast approaching. This is a time when many facets of the US economy are relying on travelers and vacationers. While airlines are most pronounced, this travel season extends far beyond them, to the hotels, bed & breakfasts, and rentals, to the seasonal shops that are only open in the summer, to tour operators, and even lifeguards. In other words, many jobs are on the line, many businesses are on the line here.
The Transportation Security Agency (TSA), which falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), plays a meaningful role in today’s transportation security. Unfortunately that meaningful role is most pronounced at airports, where lines and trending longer, and travelers are unhappy about it. The TSA, regardless of efficacy, is limited in hiring and operations, to what Congress permits it. In short, nothing happens quickly.
There have been a variety of options put out to try to alleviate the growing airport security lines, that inevitably impact the summer travel season. There have forward looking thoughts, such as the Port Authority of New York / New Jersey’s threat to TSA to replace them. Airlines have even been willing to put money up, such as American Airlines’ announcement that they will hire a company to manage checkpoint lines, so “TSA can focus on screening passengers.” There have also been non-productive options, such as those offered by two US Senators, requesting that airlines wave baggage fees. Of course the challenge to the latter proposal, is that TSA still must screen all baggage, its just a question of whether it is in front of passengers or not, I don’t believe it reduces the workload. In fact, just yesterday, TSA removed their Head of Security, Kelly Hoggan.
A Better Way
TSA has done an admirable job, given what it has been faced with, in the years following September 11, 2001. The agency and its screeners have continued to persevere with other threats, but the fact is, it is time to pass the torch. Before 9/11, private security was more than sufficient. Under the current rules–sans No Fly Lists–passengers can take through security pocket knives who’s blade is less than 2.36,” (Update: I misread this, rather, The agency had proposed to lift the ban on pocket knives but has since backed away, the change was not implemented). Private security can no doubt enforce such a rule. In fact, Private security can no doubt enforce many–if not all–of the rules put in place since September 11, 2001.
I propose, that TSA should transition from providing checkpoint security, to overseeing checkpoint security. The agency should continue to provide guidance on what can and cannot be taken through airport security checkpoints–and on airplanes. The agency should also continue to have influence on the x-ray, millimeter wave, and other scanning and screening technology, to ensure the costs are competitive, and the result is reliable. However, now is the time for TSA to step back from providing the “boots on the ground” checkpoint screening. As a compromise, the agency could–and should–have limited supervisor-level staff onsite at airports to provide the final judgement on questionable items.
Conclusion
It is important to remember the role that TSA has played over the past 15 years. It is also important to acknowledge that we must regularly consider the structures and processes we have in place, and take action when necessary. Action is necessary at this juncture. This is not a result of the positive work that TSA has done over the last 15 years, and where airport security needs to go over the next few years. To facilitate this, TSA should step back, and be elevated to an oversight role, rather than a “boots on the ground” role. This will allow TSA to focus on the true threats, and convey information downward as appropriate.
As a result of TSA stepping back, airports will be able to contract with private security, and if there is a problem from a long wait, or other issue, airports will be empowered to take action themselves, rather than pleading to a nation-wide service provider, as the TSA has become. This will provide a way for the TSA, airports, and airlines, to come together, to ensure that the upcoming Summer Travel Season is successful for all.
First let me say TSA has clearly failed (95% failure rate). Privatization may or may not be the correct solution, I’m not sure.
“Before 9/11, private security was more than sufficient”…private security, like our government, failed to prevent 9/11. “More than sufficient” is a bit of an overstatement.
Lastly, a couple questions. Would the private contractors be financially liable for the end result of a terrorist attack? If so, would this cost (i.e. the cost of the insurance they would surely buy) not be passed on to consumers? And would the cost of this insurance not be astronomical?
@Ben – Thanks for your comment. How has TSA Security Checkpoint Screening improved security over pre-9/11 security? The same things that were used in the attacks (as I recall) are permitted by TSA today.
As far as your other questions: I’m no expert in liability or tort law, but there is this paper page 6 on the matter –
“The Homeland Security Act of 200239 contains tort reform measures one of which is the SAFETY Act (the Act). 40 Under the legislation, ASPs operating in the United States may obtain liability protection from the government given that it is certified as “qualified antiterrorism technologies”. 41 Qualified anti-terrorism technologies have been very broadly defined to include any qualifying product, service or technology in prevention of terrorism, 42 thus, it encompasses the security services provided by ASPs.” ASP = Aviation Security Providers.
In summary – I think Private Security would be protected, and would not result in astronomical liability costs.
I can see why WAPO didn’t run your piece. You don’t offer a single argument as to why privatizing airport security would be an improvement. As intolerable as the current situation is, it can get a lot worst with private security firms running the show. For starters, you would be replacing employees who are paid a living wage and decent benefits with employees paid slightly above the minimum wage with little to no benefits. Employee turnover would very likely be much higher. And you think TSA employee morale is bad now? Just wait until the poorly paid rent-a-guards are in place. I flew nearly 2 million miles prior to 9-11, and the overall quality and professionalism of most private security managers and employees I encountered was far below what I’ve experienced with most TSA employees.
Your argument that the TSA would be better playing an “oversight” role is spurious. Security firms with government contracts spend millions on lobbyists and campaign contributions to fight regulation and oversight. They also have a disproportionate share of revenue going to top execs and owners, nearly all of whom are large political contributors (nearly all GOP.)
The TSA could and should do better, and the recent demotions and firings are way overdue. But the real problem is that the system of airport security in the US is broken. We need a total review and then restructuring of theory and practice. That can’t happen without congressional support, which won’t happen as long as we have a reactionary Republican House that is more intent on implementing an ideological mission of destroying government agencies than in improving them.
So your argument is private security firms are worse because of potential for low pay, turnover and ability to influence lawmakers. Ironic because TSA still doesn’t pay exceptionally well, turnover in some cases would be a good thing (vice keeping bad people in positions), politicians will always be influenced by big business, regardless of which side of the aisle. The same good be said for detection and screening providers, etc. the fact remains, TSA has had nearly a decade and a half, and they cannot provide the agile response necessary. Yes, in some cases they are hamstrung by congress (who divert funds, pass laws impacting TSA, etc). But congress’ challenges are beyond the scope of this post.
If you’re going to write a column calling for the privatization of an entire federal responsibility–particularly one that involves national security–then its incumbent upon you to present arguments as to how and why that change would produce improvements. You have not done that. Nor can you glibly ignore the pre-9/11 experience with privatized airport security.
Instead, you simply state that because airport security is a mess this summer, we need to privatize–as if privatization is a magic wand that solves all problems–ignoring the many pitfalls of handing a national security concern over to for-profit companies. Are you aware of what happened in the middle east when we privatized many security functions that used to be handled by the military? Costs doubled and in some cases even tripled, and accountability declined. There are similar examples domestically.
“Yes, in some cases they are hamstrung by congress (who divert funds, pass laws impacting TSA, etc). But congress’ challenges are beyond the scope of this post.”
If you are going to propose radical fixes to the broken US airport security system, how can you ignore the main culprit behind the failure to conduct a top-to-bottom review and revision of that broken system: the do-nothing Congress–led by GOP anti-government ideologues?
One more thing. It is important to be transparent about the political bias and economic self-interest of your sources. Gary Leff–the self proclaimed “thought leader in travel”–whom you source is a rabid libertarian housed at one of the more conservative university’s in the US. He also makes a lot of money hustling credit cards and contracting with the private travel industry. Just sayin…..
You are right, it is important to realize that not all sources are the same, however if you noticed, I didn’t reference Gary’s work as a source, rather that we have similar feelings about the TSA, much like there are multiple ways you can reach the same endpoint. No doubt you noticed that I attempted to spread my references out to offer a balanced approach.
Hi there!
Had a doctor’s appointment yesterday. No indication at all that I’m ‘rabid’.
I do think that people ought to be able to pursue their own projects and live their own lives unimpeded to the extent they aren’t harming others. So I believe in both personal liberty (for instance hosted an early event with Andrew Sullivan on Same Sex Marriage in the 90s) and economic liberty (that consenting adults ought to be able to transact voluntarily). Although I’m not sure what label you put on me when I disagree with liability shields, I am strongly in favor of regulation through the tort system.
As far as where I work, the university isn’t generally considered to be conservative and I’m certainly not conservative. In my experience conservatives tend to favor the security state.
The law school and department of economics – both of which are nationally ranked for their academics – house scholars with pro-market reputations (not super uncommon for a department of economics actually). I’m not sure what in the world that has to do with TSA?
Especially since in my own writing I argue that the TSA ought to work like the FAA. The FAA regulates safety, it doesn’t fly the planes. Separate out the oversight function from actually doing the work and you get better safety and better accountability.
Finally I don’t know what the non-sequitur about earning money off of credit cards has to do with the TSA?
It’s also 100% false that I make “a lot of money…contracting with the private travel industry.” I haven’t made any money at all consulting with any airline or hotel and have had no contract with either.
Indeed I’m a pretty fierce critic of the travel industry’s role collaborating with the government in bringing us the security we have.
So careful with the slander, k? It doesn’t even MAKE SENSE as an argument in response to the issues here.
Best,
Gary
I disagree with your assertion that Airport Security is anymore a national security issue than security at Major railway stations or bus stations. That security is provided by local forces like NYPD, not federal security (except in limited periods of high risk, in which case the National Guard has been called in, but I think it was still under the Auspices of the Govenor of the state, not DoD).
You seem to be very focused on the GOP’s woes and missteps, ironic when it was a GOP president and congress that created the TSA.
i would also point you to my response to Jamie as far as the USG’s role (in my view), and why it is less efficient as a Service Provider. Thus why I propose they transition out of being a service provider in this case.
Thanks for your comments by the way. I appreciate the discussion.
“I disagree with your assertion that Airport Security is anymore a national security issue than security at Major railway stations or bus stations. That security is provided by local forces…”
You know, I really wish we could go back to the time before Al Qaeda was able to launch coordinated attacks on the same day against the United States out of three separate US airports located in three different states (4 if you include Portland, ME.). But we can’t. And if in the future, God forbid, the bad guys are able to launch a similar coordinated attack at US railway or bus stations, then it will only be a matter of days before security at those facilities become a national security issue as well.
So, not only do you want to privatize airport security, but you also want to return back to local governments 100% of the responsibility for contracting the implementation of that privatization scheme? In today’s globalized world, that’s truly a mind-blowing proposal. The day it happens is the day I’ll donate my FF miles to Cato and those whom I truly despise!
The one kind thing I can say about Libertarians is that if nothing else, y’all are consistent.
That’s the first time I’ve been accused of being a Libertarian… I think if you look at history, the government stepped in more during the height of airplane hijackings, then stepped back for a few decades. of course that was different, but to use your analogy, the federal government should be in charge of all security and police forces, because terrorists have committed coordinated attacks (e.g. In Paris). Where do you draw the line?
Glad to have the issue being discussed, but I also don’t see why private security is necessarily better than govt security. I’d rather see it improved as a govt entity. Needs a big overhaul, though.
(Though I have to say, knock on wood, I’ve never encountered these egregiously long lines myself. Also, I feel like they used to call people to the front of the line if they were on a flight about to leave. But maybe that was when I lived in Green Bay and/or Des Moines, rather small airports where that is practical)
Jamie, perhaps I have more faith in private industry, but my belief is that private industry has more to lose if they fail. Case in point, when Google found China was behind Cyber Security attacks of gmail, other google services and companies, they pulled out (ref: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/), why? Among other reasons, the prospect of undermining its US services could have endangered the future of the company.
In other cases where the USG attempts to be a service provider, we see similar issues, the Veterans Administration is another example. My view: the USG should set policy, provide oversight and provide for national security. I don’t see airport security, however as any more national security than NYPD. That’s why my proposal includes TSA as oversight with limited boots on the ground, think FBI or DEA in support of NYPD.
As far as folks getting pulled to the front of the line to avoid missed flights, I still see it, but it requires the individual to be more assertive.
THIS IS WRONG — “Under the current rules…passengers can take through security pocket knives who’s blade is less than 2.36”.
@No – I cited my source, and recollect it from the announcement a few years ago. Please share a source to support your assertion that it is wrong. I’m happy to amend if you can prove it with a legitimate source.
Read your source again, the plan to allow knives and bats was cancelled before it was implemented.
No is correct. Here’s the TSA list. Look under “sharp objects”:
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/prohibited-items
I re-read and did some further research and have since updated the post. Mistakes happen, I’m happy to fix things when I do make them, thanks both for pointing that out.
Pingback: Episode 33 – Talking TSA – Saverocity Observation Deck
Pingback: Saverocity Observation Deck - Talking TSA - Tagging Miles