Wow. Paragraphs please. Makes it heard to read.
Originally Posted by
gsoltso
I stopped drinking Koolaid when they took my MountainBerry Punch away. The consistent screening of footwear makes it infinitely more difficult to use it as a transport method for boom on US based (or incoming) flights. That is just a basic fact. Is it perfect? Nope. Can it fail? Of course, there are humans operating the xray and someone may miss something. The main point is, it is exceedingly difficult to use shoes as a transport device on flights to and from the US. To say that it hasn't happened does not mean that it isn't a simple and cost effective way to make an attack.
As others have stated, what changed in August 2006 that made it mandatory? If it's such a threat, why wasn't it mandatory after Reid?
With TSA's record on bomb detection in red team tests, I find it hard to believe that it'd be difficult to sneak a shoe bomb onto a plane if a terrorist really wanted to. If one really wanted to sneak one thru, it'd only take one of those trusted McDonalds workers to put one in their shoes and/or give shoes to someone who's going on a flight.
You can continue to put up the same statement that nothing has happened, and it will not mean anything, there is an easy viable method of attack that the agency is screening for now. As to why they didn't do it before, I have no idea, I do not make policy. It could be that with the increased awareness of the type of attack they thought that with the relatively simple act of requiring all shoes to be screened, it could put a huge dent in the ability of the method to be used. I understand the problems it generates where people have a medical reason for not removing their shoes, and there are alternate clearing procedures for those people.
It only means nothing to those that stick their heads in the sand.
If you think the US is the only terror target in the world, and that Al Qaida is the only terrorist organization in the world that has an axe to grind, that is an exceedingly ignorant view.
If shoes are a the great bomb vector as TSA maintains, then it's not just a threat to the US but a threat to aviation in general. The world sees the shoe threat for what it really is: a remotely (we're talking like BFE Alaska remote) possible vector that the risk isn't worth the resources spent on it.
And with GAO red team tests that show you guys are adept at finding water but miserable at finding bombs, I'm not convinced you guys would recognize a shoebomb even if you saw one. You have way too many things to look for to really focus on any one thing.
Comparing other nations to the US is a non starter, most other nations have a different awareness of terrorism than we do. Most other countries (maybe with the exception of Great Britain, they are pretty hated worldwide too) are not even in the same boat as the US when it comes to opinions. A great deal of the world hates us for whatever reason (some call us barbarians, some say we are an evil nation bent on world domination, some say we are too decadent for the rest of the world, some say our acceptance of other ways of life are just completely out of touch with their theological stance, and any other number of reasons - good or bad). We are the number one target in the world right now, and for that reason we need to be more focused, and more adaptable in the security sector.
No this is a starter, and it shows an incredibly myopic and ignorant view of the world.
First of all, Israel seems to be the number one target in the world and has been for sometime. You can't even go a week without some terrorist incident happening there. The South Koreans have a very real fear of war and terrorism from the North Koreans. Pakistan and India hate each other. China has domestic terrorists. Spain, of all countries, even had an AQ attack on its metro in Madrid. Just because we don't hear about ever incident that happens around the world on the news in the US doesn't mean stuff isn't happening around the world.
Al Qaida has struck more abroad than in the US. Terrorism is a very isolated incident in the US. It happens much more regularly abroad. If we were number 1, more would be happening here. I'm much much more likely to die on the way to the mall today than I am dying from terrorism on my plane trip next week. AQ could target many more soft targets like malls, the TSA line, or any large gathering of people and do just as much if not more damage to the US. What do you think the impact of a bomb would be on a march in DC?
TSA's problem is that it has no focus. With all the BS you guys have to look for, can you honestly tell me that TSA is focused? Scatterbrained and obsessed maybe, but certainly not focused. If you guys were focused, you'd be doing what you do very well. TSA doesn't. And it doesn't help that management is ever expanding your scope. That takes away from any focus that may exist.
There is a great deal of room for improvement (securing the borders more effectively and intelligently, using more HUMINT sources world wide, using ELINT mroe efficiently, communicating between intelligence sources more openly, being proactive as opposed to reactive, and on and on).
I agree. And you (collective you) should remember that THEY are the front line on terror. TSA is a last ditch effort to get anything that THEY may have missed due to the imperfect collection of intel.
Intel may be quite good, it may not be. And then you have it by analysts that may have preconceived notions and biases that may analyze it wrong. It's a good system overall, but it leaves a lot to be desired. I hate to do a TSA here, but trust me on this one. I know there are many here with first hand info as well that would agree on this.
We should be more focused on cargo, but according to HQ, we are on track to be 100% by the mandate.
HQ keeps slipping the date. We should have been 100% a long time ago. It's easy to be on track when the goal posts keep moving.
I agree we should have more interpersonal skills classes to teach TSOs how to talk to passengers. I agree that we should move the better tech to the forefront of our R&D so we can get better stuff to the floor and use it. I actually don't mind screening upon entry to the checkpoint or baggage, it doesn't phase me one way or the other (but then again I am honest and won't place myself in a situation where the agency would have to worry about it).
No disagreement there.
I wouldn't mind having to screen every single person that enters the sterile area with no exceptions (but I think at this point, due to budgetary constraints that is something that would be miserable to implement and the people working there have had a clearance, and in todays government structure clearances are a way of life and an accepted method of clearance - not arguing right or wrong, just information purposes).
It's doable if you allocate the resources to it. However, this is where TSA's mismanagement of resources come in.
If you guys are doing your job correctly, you don't need gate screenings.
TSA didn't need brand new uniforms and tin badges, and even then, they screwed up that purchase by buying bad fabrics that caused rashes.
TSA doesn't need to spend money on strip searches when the benefit is questionable and the privacy and 4th amendment implications exceed any possible benefit.
TSA shouldn't have wasted so much money on bad puffers, but should have had the contractor design them correctly (i.e. in a real world environment) so they worked right, or went with a different vendor that didn't have these issues. I've seen those puffers working in other nations. They do exist.
Just a few examples. I can't believe with all the money we throw at TSA that this is something that's too hard and can't afford.
Security clearances may be a way of life for the government, but they're also a lot more stringent with who gets them, and periodically re-evaluate things. Additionally, we have to report anything that may be seen as a compromise to our integrity and ability to safeguard classified information. The penalty for not doing such is great. Security is very involved and very active. I don't see that with TSA.
I want better communication between HQ and the TSO at the end of that chain. I want a single POC for all information that a passenger needs in order to fly.
Unfortunately, management would need to be wiped out at TSA for any of this to happen.
All these things I want, may or may not come true or be placed into effect. As with all things, I do not know all, I am merely giving my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.
Let me be on the record that I don't think you're a bad guy. I despise the agency you work for, the "security" it provides (I use that loosely), its cost, and the utter disregard for the law and constitution it has. You've been around PV and here long enough to know the points I'm talking about. Gotta be careful with group think though with in federal agencies. It's bad everywhere, but it's particularly bad with in DHS and TSA. It's beneficial to be skeptical of what the agency says. That's what I'm saying with the koolaid.