Originally Posted by
travis bickle
In the context of his "illuminating" message, he seems to want to make the "logical leap" that since one portion of one governmental facility does certain activities, the TSA cannot be far behind...
[I don't understand why you have to be rude about this. Rudeness is not conducive to discussion. Please feel free to post counterarguments that rely on facts or reasoned thinking. I have no interest in responding to any more of your ranting.]
I have posted in another thread my (rhetorical) questions about where TSA is going, and looking to other federal agencies for a precedent seems like a reasonable approach to answering those questions. I looked at the prison system because that agency's security needs seemed to be the most relevant to airport security--moreso than, say, the National Park Service or the Food & Drug Administration's security needs.
The most concerning thing (IMO) about the prison procedures is that TSA's procedures are similar even though there are two key differences in the populations that are being screened:
1. Many federal prison visitors have a pre-existing relationship with a convicted criminal and are arguably sympathetic to the criminal. (The Bureau's procedures state that you cannot be on an inmate's visitor list unless you have a pre-existing relationship with that inmate. Clergy, attorneys, etc. are exempted.) Suspicion is reasonable. In contrast, it is not a given that a flyer has a connection to anyone who wants to see flight security circumvented. I suspect it is very, very unlikely that a flyer has such a connection, but I do not have statistics to support that.
2. The safety and security problem associated with the smuggling of contraband items into prisons is far, far more common than the problem of flyers trying to bring explosive devices on planes, and prison visitors are a documented part of that problem. Some supporting statistics for the former from a very quick on-line search:
If the prison system is the baseline and represents a reasonable level of screening for its circumstances, then TSA's procedures appear to be unreasonable for its circumstances. If TSA already oversteps, what will it do when more people realize that the NoSs are ineffective? I do not know the answer, but I can speculate that it may involve looking to a precedent or a model, in which case the prison procedures continue to be fair game.
[I see nothing wrong with speculating on this matter. Those who are not interested in speculation should ignore this thread.]