Do you ever see TSA/security checkpoints coming to major Amtrak statio

[FriskyFL]

Security Theatre creates the illusion of safety, nothing more.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Amtrak Forum mobile app

 

[anonymous]

If they do begin requiring airport-like securty, Amtrak will lose all my businness just as the airlines did in 2010 when the bodyscanners and "enhanced pat downs" became prominent.

 

[neroden]

The purpose of the "security" at airports, to the extent that there is a real purpose, is to prevent people from hijacking planes and taking them where they're not supposed to be.

You can't really take trains where they're not supposed to be. They stay on the tracks. With PTC, you can't even move them forward if they don't have operating authority from the dispatcher. If anything needs security, it's the dispatchers' offices where they control the switches. (And for the record, I would actually support tight security on the dispatchers' offices -- a coordinated takeover of a dispatching office could cause all kinds of trouble.)

Any "security checkpoint" in the stations simply *creates* an attractive target for bombings.

Now, is it possible that out-of-control, fascistic "security theater" operators will decide to start harassing train passengers in order to show off how thuggish they are? Sure, it's possible. We should make every effort to prevent it.

 

[amamba]

I don't understand the point in having people go through a TSA checkpoint in Chicago when it's easy enough for someone with nefarious intent to board down the line in Galesburg or some other, smaller station. Additionally, the rail lines are not secure, so someone can easily plant explosives along the rails, under a bridge, etc. Really, the entire thing would be fairly pointless.

Security is a side issue. The goal of a bureaucracy is to grow its budget and power, and in that regard DHS is on a tear. The blue shirt donut eaters are roaming out of the airport terminals and spreading their brand far and wide. They are riding public transportation in several "test/training" projects and it's a safe bet that Amtrak will eventually be blessed with their presence.

That's pretty much what I said, with about 99% less tin-foil-hat-ness.

+1 on this. I'm on my phone or this would be the perfect opportunity for a .gif.

 

[Ryan]

The purpose of the "security" at airports, to the extent that there is a real purpose, is to prevent people from hijacking planes and taking them where they're not supposed to be.

I would argue that armored cockpit doors and the realization by passengers that "sit there and let the hijackers do their thing" is no longer a valid strategy for survival accomplish that without the need for security checkpoints.

The only thing that the checkpoint defends against is suicide bombers, which could have some applicability to train travel as well.

That said, the current airport style checkpoints are massive, massive overkill for the actual purpose they serve.

 

[neroden]

The only thing that the checkpoint defends against is suicide bombers, which could have some applicability to train travel as well.

The problem which many, many, many security experts have pointed out is that a security line is the *perfect* target for a suicide bomber. So security checkpoints are actually really bad if you're worried about suicide bombers.

 

[Ryan]

Oh yeah, I agree completely.

I tried (and seemingly failed) to make that point with my last sentence. There are a great many better ways to skin that cat.

 

[BCL]

The only thing that the checkpoint defends against is suicide bombers, which could have some applicability to train travel as well.

The problem which many, many, many security experts have pointed out is that a security line is the *perfect* target for a suicide bomber. So security checkpoints are actually really bad if you're worried about suicide bombers.

Setting off a bomb at the security line probably doesn't achieve the same objective. Getting a bomb past security makes for a different message - that you shouldn't feel secure just because there are people checking.

 

[fillyjonk]

. With PTC, you can't even move them forward if they don't have operating authority from the dispatcher.

The purpose of the "security" at airports, to the extent that there is a real purpose, is to prevent people from hijacking planes and taking them where they're not supposed to be.

You can't really take trains where they're not supposed to be. They stay on the tracks. With PTC, you can't even move them forward if they don't have operating authority from the dispatcher. If anything needs security, it's the dispatchers' offices where they control the switches. (And for the record, I would actually support tight security on the dispatchers' offices -- a coordinated takeover of a dispatching office could cause all kinds of trouble.)

Any "security checkpoint" in the stations simply *creates* an attractive target for bombings.

Now, is it possible that out-of-control, fascistic "security theater" operators will decide to start harassing train passengers in order to show off how thuggish they are? Sure, it's possible. We should make every effort to prevent it.

Heh. I can see it now:

Would-be terrorist: "Great leader, we are TRYING to hijack this train, but the host railroad is not letting us go anywhere!"

Great Leader: "$&%#. Foiled again by the bureacracy of Union Pacific! Let's just go home...."

(Yes, in my mind, terrorists sound a bit like Boris and Natasha from the old Rocky and Bullwinkle show)

All joking aside, if someone bent on doing harm to a train wanted to, there'd be ample opportunities away from stations. I always say a little prayer when we cross the Eades Bridge on the Texas Eagle, that it holds together for at least one more run....

 

[CZzzz]

I don't understand the point in having people go through a TSA checkpoint in Chicago when it's easy enough for someone with nefarious intent to board down the line in Galesburg or some other, smaller station. Additionally, the rail lines are not secure, so someone can easily plant explosives along the rails, under a bridge, etc. Really, the entire thing would be fairly pointless.

Security is a side issue. The goal of a bureaucracy is to grow its budget and power, and in that regard DHS is on a tear. The blue shirt donut eaters are roaming out of the airport terminals and spreading their brand far and wide. They are riding public transportation in several "test/training" projects and it's a safe bet that Amtrak will eventually be blessed with their presence.

That's pretty much what I said, with about 99% less tin-foil-hat-ness.

+1 on this. I'm on my phone or this would be the perfect opportunity for a .gif.

Tin?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/us/tsa-expands-duties-beyond-airport-security.html?pagewanted=all

http://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/video-tsa-agents-to-eyeball-bus-passengers-during-security-exercise-outside-airport/

Gotta love the stare-down training for these pudgy rent-a-cops. Toughen 'em up for that showdown with the hipsters that post here on Amtrak Unlimited.

 

[dlagrua]

This whole TSA fiasco is not about security. Its about CONTROL of the citizenry or preparing the people to lick the governments boots. We saw this in Germany in the 1930's and it got very ugly. Apparently people want a government like that here as well, other wise the airports would have been boycotted years ago. The sheep just continue to submit.

 

[Ryan]

The only thing that the checkpoint defends against is suicide bombers, which could have some applicability to train travel as well.

The problem which many, many, many security experts have pointed out is that a security line is the *perfect* target for a suicide bomber. So security checkpoints are actually really bad if you're worried about suicide bombers.

Setting off a bomb at the security line probably doesn't achieve the same objective. Getting a bomb past security makes for a different message - that you shouldn't feel secure just because there are people checking.

True.

But the message "You're not safe anywhere you congregate" is a pretty powerful message as well.

 

[Ryan]

This whole TSA fiasco is not about security. Its about CONTROL of the citizenry or preparing the people to lick the governments boots. We saw this in Germany in the 1930's and it got very ugly. Apparently people want a government like that here as well, other wise the airports would have been boycotted years ago. The sheep just continue to submit.

I object strenuously to the comparisons to 1930 Germany and the characterization of people that still fly as "sheep continuing to submit".
To the first part, it's a matter of scale, and comparing the security checkpoints to the mass murder of millions of people is wildly out of proportion.

To the second, some people fly out of necessity, and that necessity comes from a lot of different places. My sister lives in Hawaii - seeing her without flying is essentially impossible. Others have to travel for work. It's possible to live within the system and work for change without just being a sheep, and it's rather offensive to be painted with that broad of a brush.

 

[SarahZ]

^^^^ That.

(I wish we had a "like" button.)

 

[JoeBas]

But the message "You're not safe anywhere you congregate" is a pretty powerful message as well.

But do you REALLY feel safer because some slack-jawed yokel gave you a massage?

I don't feel any different inside a "Secure" airport area than I do outside of it, TBH.

 

[MattW]

This whole TSA fiasco is not about security. Its about CONTROL of the citizenry or preparing the people to lick the governments boots. We saw this in Germany in the 1930's and it got very ugly. Apparently people want a government like that here as well, other wise the airports would have been boycotted years ago. The sheep just continue to submit.

I object strenuously to the comparisons to 1930 Germany and the characterization of people that still fly as "sheep continuing to submit".
To the first part, it's a matter of scale, and comparing the security checkpoints to the mass murder of millions of people is wildly out of proportion.

To the second, some people fly out of necessity, and that necessity comes from a lot of different places. My sister lives in Hawaii - seeing her without flying is essentially impossible. Others have to travel for work. It's possible to live within the system and work for change without just being a sheep, and it's rather offensive to be painted with that broad of a brush.

I object strenuously to automatically shunning comparisons to 1930 Germany simply because. History isn't something that should be picked and chosen from; the entirety of history, it's good and bad parts, deserve to be analyzed lest we repeat the same mistakes. Hitler didn't wake up one morning and murder 6 million people that day. It took time to build up to that. He had to enact policies that enabled the control of the population necessary to do that. Some of those same methods seem to be being used by the U.S. government. Hopefully it won't be for the same purpose, and I don't think it is either, but it doesn't matter. Hitler wasn't responsible for just the Holocaust, there were a lot of other things he did, many of which were aimed at, or greatly assisted, the Holocaust such as the infamous obsession with national ID, "papers please," and internal checkpoints, ways to limit the population's movement without government supervision as well as sending the secret police after people saying things against the government. While we haven't heard about any middle-of-the-night raids against people saying things by the FBI or Secret Service, the fact that the NSA is watching more communications than they need to be is a disturbing first step toward that kind of crackdown. But just because a first step has been taken, doesn't mean that the second step will be taken, but it also doesn't mean it won't be.

Well why can't we use other authoritarian states like the Soviet Union or Communist China or North Korea? We can and do, but by and large, most of those countries are left-wing countries. Hitler's Germany and the United States are both right-wing countries (to be clear, I'm not calling the U.S. a right-wing extremist nation, just that it's on the right). Yes, the United States left is still pretty far to the right when put on the global scale. There have been very few countries that had true Fascism, Italy and Germany are the two everyone remembers, plus Spain, though I can't say I know much about Spanish conditions under Fascism or even much about Italian Fascism. But because of the fewer right-wing authoritarian states, with Hitler's Germany being the one that is most known, there just aren't that many places to pull historical comparisons from.

 

[Ryan]

I object strenuously to automatically shunning comparisons to 1930 Germany simply because.

I didn't shun it "simply because", I shunned it because it's a comparison not based in reality.

But do you REALLY feel safer because some slack-jawed yokel gave you a massage?

I don't feel any different inside a "Secure" airport area than I do outside of it, TBH.

Nope.

 

[MattW]

Why isn't it based in reality? I'm afraid we may be getting quite a bit offtopic and deep into history, but I would still like to know why the measures Hitler employed in controlling his citizenry isn't comparable to measures we're starting to see here today. If you would like, we can continue this via PM instead of taking up forum space. I'm hardly a history expert myself so if there is something about that time period I am deficient in, I would dearly like to know.

 

[PRR 60]

Why isn't it based in reality? I'm afraid we may be getting quite a bit offtopic and deep into history, but I would still like to know why the measures Hitler employed in controlling his citizenry isn't comparable to measures we're starting to see here today. If you would like, we can continue this via PM instead of taking up forum space. I'm hardly a history expert myself so if there is something about that time period I am deficient in, I would dearly like to know.

Maybe rounding up millions of them and killing them?

 

[Ryan]

That might have something to do with it.

If there are steps that were taken in Germany in the 1930's that have a direct parallel, I'm all ears.

In the absence of those, the analogy is bunk.

 

[neroden]

There have been very few countries that had true Fascism, Italy and Germany are the two everyone remembers, plus Spain, though I can't say I know much about Spanish conditions under Fascism or even much about Italian Fascism.

I've researched both to a certain extent. The thing about Mussolini was his combination of fascism (which he invented) with gross incompetence. (Franco and Hitler were in many ways both more competent.) As a result I do like to compare the current situation with Mussolini, since I keep seeing parallels. (Anyone see recent parallels to Mussolini's long, brutal, only half-successful invasion of Ethiopia, and his use of chemical weapons against civilians there? Well, I do.)

 

[neroden]

If there are steps that were taken in Germany in the 1930's that have a direct parallel, I'm all ears.

The aggregation of power in the executive branch by the Enabling Acts is *very* similar to the powers (unconstitutionally) granted to the executive branch by the USAPATRIOT Act and subsequent legislation. Both were passed after "acts of terrorism" (in the 1930s case, the Reichstag fire).

That freaked me out a lot, especially coming after a stolen election where 5 men in Washington appointed their buddy as President. Mussolini was appointed to run Italy by the conservative King after the left-wingers won the most votes in Italy.

History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme. :-( I can find close parallels in the present day to the pre-Civil-War period in the US too.

 

[NW cannonball]

But the message "You're not safe anywhere you congregate" is a pretty powerful message as well.

But do you REALLY feel safer because some slack-jawed yokel gave you a massage?

I don't feel any different inside a "Secure" airport area than I do outside of it, TBH.

Me neither.

BUT - back when my kids were flying as "unaccompanied minors" - and got diverted and had to change planes at an airport they weren't scheduled to - didn't faze them one bit --

but I felt less worried knowing that all the excess "security" was there - not account of terrorists - account of worrying that kids might be exploited by other passengers (or non-passengers). All the surveillance (real or not) made me feel safer on their account.

Airports ARE safer than, say, a bar in a slum. A bit safer than mega-malls.

 

[NW cannonball]

Trying to get back on-topic --

Never seen any law enforcement at all at MSP - not a major station - just a medium one. Not even a decade ago when I heard on the scanner the Conductor asking for local law for child-beating. The cops didn't show up, the Amtrak and CP and the local cops argued about who failed.

OTOH - the Border Patrol frequently walks the Empire Builder somewhere in Montana - asks everyone their citizenship - say "American" -- they walk on by.

MSP - TSP - never seen one.

 

[JoeBas]

Why isn't it based in reality? I'm afraid we may be getting quite a bit offtopic and deep into history, but I would still like to know why the measures Hitler employed in controlling his citizenry isn't comparable to measures we're starting to see here today. If you would like, we can continue this via PM instead of taking up forum space. I'm hardly a history expert myself so if there is something about that time period I am deficient in, I would dearly like to know.

Maybe rounding up millions of them and killing them?

Hitler didn't do that in the 30's.

BUT - back when my kids were flying as "unaccompanied minors" - and got diverted and had to change planes at an airport they weren't scheduled to - didn't faze them one bit --

but I felt less worried knowing that all the excess "security" was there - not account of terrorists - account of worrying that kids might be exploited by other passengers (or non-passengers). All the surveillance (real or not) made me feel safer on their account.

Airports ARE safer than, say, a bar in a slum. A bit safer than mega-malls.

Really? 'Cause I'd think "Stranger Danger" would be higher at an airport, with people leaving in 20 minutes for halfway around the world much less chance of being caught.

Stay frightened, my friends!