On bangs and whimpers
its part, TSA announced a couple of weeks ago that it would no longer give permission to individual airports to replace the agency personnel with private contractors – something which, until the agency’s announcement, airports could do on a case-by-case basis (sixteen airports, including San Francisco and Kansas City International Airport, have made the switch since 2002).
There are two groups within the pro-privatization camp. The first group, led by Representative Mica, calls for keeping the TSA in the business of airport security, but changing its role. As Mica wrote: “TSA should focus on its mission: setting up the protocol, adapting to the changing threats and gathering intelligence.”
The second group calls for the abolition of TSA – or, at least, getting it out of the business of airport security.
There are flaws in the arguments of each of these two groups. Without addressing these flaws, the case for privatizing airport security is, at this stage, less than compelling.
Problems with the weak version of privatization
The Washington Post recently reported that “At issue [in the debate over privatizing airport security], airport managers and security experts say, is the unwieldy size and bureaucracy of the federal aviation security system. Private firms may be able to do the job more efficiently and with a personal touch, they argue.”
The catch is this: Even those who want to replace TSA screeners with private ones say that the agency will be the body authoring security regulations, determining inspection and screening standards, formulating the training protocols for screeners, deciding what qualifications are required of screeners, writing the tests, examinations, and evaluations screeners are subjected to, and more. As is the case in such regulatory procedure , TSA would also be in a position to revoke the license of contractors who violate the rules the agency has written.
This being the case, it is difficult to see how, for the typical air traveler, there would be any difference of experience at the airport. Perhaps, for some, there is a difference in whether their “junk” is being touched by a private contractor or by a government employee. Most travelers would surely regard it as distinction without a difference.
The fact is this: even under the most sweeping changes contemplated by supporters of the weak version of privatization, how intrusive an inspection is will be determined by TSA, not by the individual screener on the line. If TSA wants junk to be touched, it will
