• AxExRx
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I mean technically they can detain under citizen’s arrest/shopkeeper’s privilege, and then hand over to the proper authorities, or just deny access like a bouncer preventing underage drinkers from entering a bar, but neither seems like a good system.

  • minorkeys
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    16 hours ago

    The government exists because it does two things: decides the rules, enforces those rules through violence. It only does the former because it can do the latter. If it loses its monopoly on violence, it loses its ability to decide and enforce the rules and will cease to exist. Border security, such as the TSA, is a mechanism of that violence, as is the armed forces and the police. Private interests taking control of the mechanisms of state violence is a road to the death of the state and replacement with undemocratic corporate and private power systems. It reverts humanity from democracy to tyranny, which some argue is the natural state.

  • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    22 hours ago

    NPR was promoting this yesterday!

    On all things considered, they mentioned the long lines and waits, then immediately started praising one Texas airport that was privatized, and didn’t have those waits.

    The TSA is nothing more than security theater anyways, but we gotta find ways to funnel money into those pockets already flush with it I guess.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Once upon a time I would’ve thought privatization would be a surefire winner. Now the full-body scan data would probably go to some AI company, they’ll profile the shit out of people with their “proprietary algorithms” we’re not allowed to audit, and every agent will be a white male suddenly making twice what the old TSA agents were making.

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Also consider private security forces don’t have pesky things like “oversight” and “laws regulating fairness”

      Thata why Flock and Palantir exist now

      • WhatAmLemmy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Blackwater. But let’s be real, the gov only has the illusion of oversight. In practice most war criminals never face legitimate consequences. The American military industrial complex is the largest terrorist org that has existed since WW2.

        If you add in the fact that US intelligence has allowed child sex traffickers to exist for decades under the guise of “national security”, the US gov is the largest criminal enterprise on Earth, period.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Yeah, they didn’t have waits because the private company is paying their workers, so they show up to do the job. TSA isn’t getting paid, so 40+% aren’t showing up.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Airport Security before 9/11 looked essentially the same, but they contracted with private security companies. That led to 9/11, so the government took it over and created TSA, and we have t had any hijackings. Now MAGA wants to go back to the system that allowed 9/11, mostly because TSA workers don’t kiss their asses.

    Like getting rid of the Clean Air & Water Act, because we already have clean air and water.

    • Zak
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      19 hours ago

      The TSA has little to do with the lack of hijacking since 2001. Secured cockpit doors and the widespread belief that hijacking means death are the main reasons it no longer occurs.

      • cmbabul
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Yeah the understanding at the time was that if your plane gets hijacked don’t do shit and eventually things will be fine. Post 9/11 someone trying to take over a plane is getting bum rushed. 9/11 could really only happen the one time

        Edit: I’m sorry if a plane hits a building in the next two weeks

        • MML@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          You might want to edit again to include the word hijacked before plane, some days Boeing’s just don’t feel like flying

        • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          Suicidal hijackers are NOT worried about death, but they are worried about their plot being foiled. Airport security is tighter than it used to be, so they don’t want to risk their operation being stopped before they even get on the plane.

          Better to come up with a different plan, with less risk of discovery. There are plenty of crowded places to bomb or shoot up.

          • Hawke
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            17 hours ago

            There are plenty of crowded places to bomb or shoot up.

            Like say airport security lines?

            • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              14 hours ago

              I’ve seen those lines winding, and thought that if a suicide bomber wanted to make a big impact, all he’d have to do is wait until he’s in the middle of the crowd, and detonate his bomb. He’d kill hundreds of people, and close a major airport, without ever having to pass through security.

              I think they’ve just stopped hijackings, because airports are a pain in the ass, and there are so many other equally horrific options.

          • cmbabul
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Yep, the simplest crime is the most likely. That’s just people

    • tidderuuf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 hours ago

      By your same logic we haven’t had a 9/11 style attack before 9/11 for how many decades? And how many attempts have there been and how many have successfully took weapons on to airliners through TSA since 9/11? The statistics and numbers are very much against the TSA. It’s a useless for show waste of tax dollars when reinforced automated locking doors on aircraft have proven to be a better deterrent at preventing 9/11.

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Perhaps, if we only knew how many hijackings the locked door prevented. It’s not something you can do a survey about. How do you find out how many potential hijackers decided to do something else because the cabin doors were locked? Has ANY terrorist been caught, and said that he was thinking of hijacking a plane, but the locked doors dissuaded him?

        They implemented many new safety protocols after 9/11, and increased intelligence (well, until THIS administration), and it is likely a combination of all of them, rather any single one.

  • foggy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    An alpha businessman would just eliminate it, pussies.