[ad_1]
NThe ews broke over the weekend that a Delta Air Lines passenger carried a loaded gun from the United States to Tokyo. Critics of President Trump blame this for the lack of TSA staff working during the partial dismissal of the government. Whether this is true or not, I do not know. But I know the work of the TSA is almost impossible if the government is partially closed or open. Their work performance is often deficient due to the extraordinary size and importance of the task, and the government should abolish the TSA and private security companies should start working on airport security.
The idea of the TSA, which was created as a response to the Sept. 11 attacks and which is largely funded by taxpayer dollars, as well as additional fees on airline tickets and airlines, was good. But the task itself is overwhelmingly large and was executed from the start with the ability of an ax. What the TSA lacked in collecting security intelligence, accurate sorting, and profiling (my favorite) compensated in absolute numbers, in inattentive rhythm, and in a unique approach to security.
In a bit of August calling to regional airports To stop using the TSA, opinion writer Jonathan Cristol has rightly observed: "The TSA security screening is a security theater. The besieged agency has a terrible track record – with failure rates ranging from 80 to 95 percent, according to ABC News. To be perfectly clear, TSA agents, their equipment and their processes are unable to detect forbidden items in hand luggage in almost all cases. They are, however, extraordinarily adept at locating the toothpaste. "Kristol makes a sly remark.
TSA apologists may note that employees are underpaid, overworked, and hardly trained to identify the difference between someone who might pose a security threat and a person who has forgotten to buy a three-ounce bottle of hair spray. This is true and for this I do not blame the employees but the management (the Department of Homeland Security) who continued this security hoax as a remedy for the open wound of September 11 long after it became obvious that the TSA is inefficient and unnecessary. .
Several airports have hiring private companies provide airport security, but in accordance with Bloomberg Report, "Any airport wishing to change must undergo a security and cost analysis by the TSA to demonstrate that hiring private companies will neither harm the agency's budget nor compromise security," and it takes about 12 months for the transition. This makes many airports hesitate to use private security.
However, those who switched to the private sector say they have seen more efficiency. Bloomberg reported that Brian Sprenger, director of Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport in Montana, who uses private security, said: "It's a difficult balance because it's balancing customer service versus ensuring security and protection. Now we have a little more to say in making sure the customer service side is a bit higher in the process. "
Of course, now, 18 years after 9/11, you can not just ban the TSA at once, with no serious consequences. It would have to be done carefully, incrementally, some airports at a time. It would be a great task, but it would be worth trying – making better use of taxes, the size of the force, and most importantly, keeping people safe while traveling.
Private airport security may be what Amazon is for other online retailers: cheaper, faster, safer, and more rewarding. If the Department of Homeland Security takes better and faster security seriously, they must condense the transition time and work with more private contractors to ensure a more efficient path.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Beltway's Confidential Beltway Blog. She is a journalist who worked previously on Republican politics in Minnesota.
[ad_2]
Source link