Did we read the same article? It’s my understanding that the DEVICE is being TESTED. They questioned individuals and released them. No success story yet.

If the screening is useless at protecting aviation, it would indeed be better to get rid of it and just let people walk on the plane. We’d be no less safe, but we’d save a lot of time and taxpayer money.

I’m not opposed to effective security. I’m very much opposed to ineffective security, especially if it’s costly and intrusive.

The test in Denver caught two false positives. But the authorities define that as a “success,” which means they’re all set to deploy it widely. I guess security officials define “success” differently from anyone else.

Once the device is fielded, airport authorities will have to hire lots of police officers, and set up special areas to detain, interrogate, and (presumably) strip-search all the false positives it will detect. Maybe if they nab enough false positives, they’ll eventually stumble across something genuinely dangerous and be lauded as heroes. Yes, that should make us all feel very safe indeed!

Why does “security” require a complete suspension of all reason?

Surprising the TSA agent, who just works for a living, tells the government nothing it doesn’t already know.

Suppose tomorrow the government put out a survey with just two questions:

1. We want to stop all the screening and just let people walk on the plane. Are you for or against that?

2. If you answered the question FOR, do you have any concerns and if so what means would you prefer we use to make sure you have a safe flight?

I thought of YOU, today, when this article showed up in the USAToday.

Yes, we disagree, but, it’s fun to debate the issue at hand. Isnt that what this board is for? And exchange of VIEWS. (one being mine, an airline employee)

And how does a barricade protect a crowd of passengers patiently waiting at a TSA checkpoint from a suicide bomber with an explosive vest? Of all the very visible flaws and deficiencies in the TSA’s approach to “security,” this is the one I genuinely worry about. (That and the lack of screening for the cargo under passengers’ feet, which by itself is ample proof that the “security theater” is a useless charade.)

Having said that, I’ll agree to disagree with you, if you’ll also agree to that.

The comment was related to your incompetent statement of the TSA. So I gave you examples of how they reduced the possibility of getting dangerous items through security.
=======================================================

Hapgood said: Checkpoints that create long lines are a much easier target than airplanes. I worry about that whenever I’m stuck in line waiting to be screened. I wonder if Kippie has ever thought of that.
======================================================

Actually, they have. In alot of airports, they’ve installed barricades in the front of entrance ways.
Hapgood, the government could spend TRILLIONS of dollars on Security, but they wont. Safety HAS A PRICE TAG. Just like anything else. They’ve reduced the risk by reducing the amount of liquid in your carry on. That cost them NOTHING and in reality, you, a MINIMAL inconvenience. And, you better believe I EXPECT my government to REACT to any and all “method” changes. It’s where I work.
==========================================================

Hapgood: I think it’s entirely appropriate to demand that we get something effective and useful for all the expense and hassle the TSA is causing us.
===================================================

what expense is that?

And what does that have to do with the War on Liquids and Toiletries?

Frank: “Please tell me and Mr Kipler, Head of the TSA, how you’re going to safeguard an entire nation against aviation threats? I’m all ears.”

First, Mr. Kip Hawley is the head of the TSA. Second, the answer to your question is that you can’t safeguard the entire nation against aviation threats. At least not through any measures involving mass screening of passengers to enforce absurd rules that belatedly react to past threats.

That said, intelligence that uncovers plots long before they get to the airport would certainly help. As would screening of cargo, the lack of which the GAO singled out last year as the leading threat to aviation. The only “benefit” of airport screening is that it gives the public the misleading impression that the government is doing something visible and tangible (if not effective) to protect aviation. That may well convince the 22% who still support Bush, but anyone with open eyes and half a brain who submits to TSA screening can see for themselves it’s a costly, frustrating joke (notwithstanding the official admonitions to take it Very Seriously and be Very Afraid).

Frank: “And, THEIR METHODS have changed through the years, guns, bombs and liquids.”

Indeed. But the TSA’s approach of adding hassles to checkpoints in belated reaction to method changes is itself a security vulnerability. Terrorists no longer have to kill themselves or anyone else to inflict significant damage to the United States. They merely need to fake or suggest a “method change” that will provoke the TSA’s bureaucracy to react with another bone-headed rule or restriction that will increase the expense and disruption at airports. I wonder how Kippie would react to a plot to smuggle explosives (or contraband lip gloss) in the nether regions of the plotters.

If that seems farfetched, consider the vulnerability the TSA has already created. Checkpoints that create long lines are a much easier target than airplanes. I worry about that whenever I’m stuck in line waiting to be screened. I wonder if Kippie has ever thought of that. I’d bet against it, since he and Michael Chertoff probably travel by government jet and never have to endure the system they created.

I think it’s entirely appropriate to demand that we get something effective and useful for all the expense and hassle the TSA is causing us. But their only response to such demands is “it’s classified… trust us.” The most effective terrorist tactic is to let the enemy smother itself in continually escalating but pointless “security measures.” And the Bush administration seems to be playing right into that tactic.