DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

A report in the Chronicle’s Travel section last December proclaimed, “Airline passengers can lock their bags again, thanks to a private sector collaboration on design and production of new, specialized locks.”

Are the locks more secure than old, unspecialized locks? No.

Are they less expensive than old, unspecialized locks? No.

So what’s so “special” about them? In fact the new locks are flawed by design: they accept a master key, so they can be easily opened by any baggage screener in any airport in the country.

It seems ironic to me that the baggage screeners were given keys to these locks, when they’re the people that luggage locks were protecting us from.

Here’s a report of a baggage screener from Philadelphia charged with stealing from luggage. Here’s a report of screeners in Miami and New York stealing from luggage.

Most baggage screeners are honest, of course. And there are other people, besides the screeners, who have access to checked bags after the bags go down the conveyer belt into the bowels of the airport. I’m spreading the blame, because there’s plenty of it… more than enough for everyone. The Transport Security Administration, the division of the Homeland Security department that oversees baggage screening, admits it hasn’t completed background checks on all its screeners yet. We can at least be thankful they’ve fired the 85 screeners who turned out to be felons.

Instead of fancy TSA-approved padlocks, I use and recommend cable ties. Cable ties can easily be cut off by any TSA screener or determined thief — but at least I’ll know when it happens.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with TSA padlocks is that each unit sold generates a royalty to the private company founded by the guy in charge of the TSA. Isn’t that convenient? By day, the head of the TSA decreed that the only TSA-approved locks would be legal. By night, the same guy founded the company that licenses the locks. They call this “private enterprise working in cooperation to solve a problem for the government,” when in fact no such problem existed — they invented the problem, by requiring “universal” locks, and now they’re selling the solution.