Re: Mission creep at TSA

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Lin, Herb" <HLin () nas edu>
Date: November 10, 2009 9:29:30 AM EST
To: <dave () farber net>, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: Mission creep at TSA

I don’t disagree with anything that you say below.  *I* think mission creep is a bad idea.  But when I try to argue 
that it’s a bad idea to policy people who think it’s a good idea (though they never call it that), the only argument I 
find effective is that it will reduce the effectiveness of carrying out their primary mission.  I’d love to have a 
different argument, because my argument rarely works.
 
herb
 
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:19 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re: Mission creep at TSA
 
Sorry Herb, but assuming they are doing their primary job well, expanding their 
mission with the people they have will most likely affect their primary mission. Also I worry that giving other 
missions to people who seem to have search power without legal control will sacrifice our freedom 
 
Dave
 
Begin forwarded message:
 
From: "Lin, Herb" <HLin () nas edu>
Date: November 10, 2009 9:06:22 AM EST
To: "Brian Sniffen" <bts () evenmere org>, "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: Mission creep at TSA


I agree that the program is an example of mission creep, and that it’s undesirable (we warn against mission creep in 
our report too).  But I suspect that you’d find most policy makers supportive of such an expansion of mission, on the 
rationale that “as long as the program is there, we might as well get maximum value out of it.”  The only real argument 
against it is that such expansion will reduce its effectiveness in carrying out its primary mission, but that argument 
is very hard to make when there’s already zero people caught for threatening aircraft security. 
 
If you had an idea about a better way to make that argument, I’d love to hear it.
 
From: Brian Sniffen [mailto:bts () evenmere org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:00 AM
To: Lin, Herb; David Farber
Subject: Mission creep at TSA
 
The mission creep described is not the new tools, but the ends to which they are put:
 
>    Last year, officers nationwide required 98,805 passengers to undergo 
>    additional screenings.  Police questioned 9,854 of them and arrested 813. 
>
>
> The article goes on to cite multiple incidents of people arrested for various 
> crimes but NOT ONE was mentioned that had anything to do with aircraft security. 
>
> I have to wonder how long before TSA is also detaining deadbeat dads and three-strikes 
> parking ticket offenders.... 



Under the TSA mandate, this is not a 1:100 ratio of successful captures to bothered passengers, but 0.  But under 
they're new and easier job of general law enforcement, they can claim these arrests as successes. 
 
Archives 

 



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com