Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - The Bio Defender that cries wolf

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-biowatch-20120708,0,5093512.story?page=4

This was on the front page of Los Angeles Times, yesterday. It is not directly related to TSA but the program is supervised by Dept of Homeland Security. Very educational if one reads it through. What jumped out at me was the following, proving once again that there is security theater in all parts of security.


"In the senior-level discussions, the issue of efficacy really wasn't on the table," recalled Reeves, who has since retired from the Army. "It was get it done, tell the president we did good, tell the nation that they're protected.… I thought at the time this was good PR, to calm the nation down. But an effective system? Not a chance."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-biowatch-20120708,0,5093512.story?page=4
"It was get it done, tell the president we did good, tell the nation that they're protected.… I thought at the time this was good PR, to calm the nation down. But an effective system? Not a chance."

Wait... is that comment about the biodetectors, or the TSA in general? I note it could apply easily to either or both, or even all of DHS.

Wait... is that comment about the biodetectors, or the TSA in general? I note it could apply easily to either or both, or even all of DHS.

The quoted comment is about BIO-WATCH, a program overseen by DHS.

But it could be applied to anything DHS related.;)

Wait... is that comment about the biodetectors, or the TSA in general? I note it could apply easily to either or both, or even all of DHS.

Given that the nudeoscopes have at best a 60% detection rate - and TSA management knows this - is anyone surprised? As I have posted before, during the Bush Administration commissioned an internal study that was designed to rank the most serious threats to aviation safety. When the study reached its conclusion, it was never offically published, because the authors had the audacity to admit what we all suspected - that passengers didn't pose the most immediate threat to aviation security - under the wing was - and still is - the biggest vulnerability. Because releasing the study would undercut the TSA security theater, Skeletor and the Kipster suppressed it.

Given that the nudeoscopes have at best a 60% detection rate - and TSA management knows this - is anyone surprised? As I have posted before, during the Bush Administration commissioned an internal study that was designed to rank the most serious threats to aviation safety. When the study reached its conclusion, it was never offically published, because the authors had the audacity to admit what we all suspected - that passengers didn't pose the most immediate threat to aviation security - under the wing was - and still is - the biggest vulnerability. Because releasing the study would undercut the TSA security theater, Skeletor and the Kipster suppressed it.

Given the many cases of TSA clerks assisting in drug smuggling schemes with multi-kilos per shipment involved, which could easily have been explosives, and the ease by which they accomplished this, it would be fair to note that TSA clerks pose a far greater threat than do passengers.