Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
I'm suggesting an escalating range of options including WBI if threats cannot be resolved.
That idea has merit. However, the current thought process in DC (not just HQ mind you) seems to be moving towards the use of AIT (because it gives better ability to detect smaller things that may be missed by a metal detector), and there are some new tech advances they are working on in the ETD area (I have no specific info I can dig up online yet - but there are some promising xray advances as well that combine new stuff with the older imaging processes that are pretty cool). The problem we (collectively the public and TSA) have is we are at the mercy or the technology right now. There is no silver bullet tech that solves all of the security issues and the passenger relations issues. I personally like the ability to clear that AIT gives the agency, and with work beginning on the ATR software programs, I think that a lot of the issue about privacy can be resolved by a simple software upgrade. I understand there are other concerns about the AIT, but the most popular challenge right now is the privacy issue, and I am the kind of guy that would rather give the passenger some comfort if it is at all possible. I think the ATR could be a big boon for TSA if we can get it approved.
Originally Posted by
birdstrike
No need for that. Nine years on and the TSA has not been worth one single dime of the funding spent on them. It is one thing to look forward and ask "what if", it is another thing to look backward and ask what was accomplished. TSA has spent a huge amount of the public's dollars and accomplished zip. Spiff has been right since day one. TSA is workfare.
Puffers were removed through political infighting. There is no "checkpoint friendly" technology for screening. The boarding area is not the appropriate place to look for threats. TSA is useless as a security measure and should have never been funded. You have to rely on Jedi mind tricks to justify your existence. Come on man.
I'm more likely to die of prostate cancer than be benefited in any way by the existence of the TSA. Frankly, I'd rather die of prostate cancer than have to deal with the TSA on my next trip.
Political infighting or not, the puffers had maintenance issues, consistency problems and the problems seemed to be getting worse instead of better. My Jedi powers far exceed yours, so be careful how you tread in that arena.
Originally Posted by
PhoenixRev
Sorry, bird, but you are beating your head against the wall.
No one from the TSA will ever admit that the organization they serve is a put up job. (After all, what exactly did Argenbright fail to do on 9/11?) In fact, they will go out of their way to plant the occasional seed of "we are the last line of safety before your flight leaves the gate."
How many times have our resident TSOs dropped into a thread and said, "The TSA is here to prevent another 9/11"? Then, one of us counters with the facts that nothing the TSA is doing today would have prevented 9/11 (for reasons very well known). They then retreat on the issue and wait for another opportunity to drop that blatant lie into the conversation to justify their existence as an agency.
It's completely disingenuous and completely based on motives of self-interest: they want to keep their jobs and the shiny tin badge that goes with it.
TSA is not the last line of defense for much of anything except the checkpoint. We are a part of the security process (the largest, most visible part of the process). There are several other stopgaps and layers that are in play after you leave the TSA checkpoint. Anyone that loses sight of that is not very aware of the real world. There are several things that are in place now, that COULD (operative word here is could), have made a difference. We will never know, because we can't rewind time and redo the whole thing over with the new layers and processes in place - and anyone that claims otherwise is simply giving an opinion (much like I do in many threads here!). I think (and JK HUggins and I had some of this discussion the other day), that having the attitude of preventing ANY attack is a good thing as long as the person is doing their job the way it is supposed to be done. JK pointed out that some people use it for "mock heroism" and I agree in some cases. I think that most of the TSOs have the thought in the back of their mind that letting something through can mean that people may die, and if some of that thought process is tied to 9/11, then so be it. I personally don't want to let someone through because it could mean that someone else could get hurt, in the perfect case, it could mean a LOT of people could get hurt (or worse). I was lucky enough not to lose anyone on 9/11, but i had a friend that was in the Pentagon when it happened (he was pretty scared, but unharmed except for a bit of smoke inhalation). I understand the natural connection some folks that work here feel towards 9/11 - many lost family or friends. Some folks joined here simply to prevent another incident like it, some joined because they felt a call to try and protect the US in some fashion (many of the former military members feel that way), and some joined because it is a steady job. Whatever reason these folks joined, as long as they are doing the job the way it is supposed to be done, I really don't care what their motivation is.