Originally Posted by
gatelouse
I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates your participation. Thanks for keeping the posts coming.
My pleasure, but I have the feeling that many of our fellow FTers would disagree.
Originally Posted by
gatelouse
That said, I must disagree with the premise of your question. Security shouldn't be a be-all, end-all goal that outweighs all other factors. Security should be balanced against other equally compelling factors: financial cost and civil liberties come to mind. A holistic approach to security analyzes all of these factors and sets limits on TSA's authorities with the big picture in mind.
I would tend to agree with the basics of your statement, and I believe that the TSA adheres to such a principal. The problem comes when one tries to set a standard. If you read some of the comments in posts below yours you will see what I mean. Everyone seems to have their own ideas on how things should be done, and it’s very rare that any two are alike. But a standard must be set, a line where we will not go past, and someone must set that standard. Many are not going to agree with where that line is placed, some vehemently so, but there are folks who have the responsibility to set that standard and to do so while taking into account all of the wide and various factors that affect it. It’s easy to second guess them, and many here do, but they do so without the background, intel, experience, or responsibility that those who actually have to set that standard have.
Originally Posted by
gatelouse
It appears that the majority on this board feel that TSA is currently skewed too far toward absolute security, or the perception thereof. Many here are willing to accept less security in exchange for greater personal rights, convenience, and thrift...especially those who understand that airport screening is only a small part of the larger, counter-terrorism picture.
In short, I'm all in favor of ideas that increase convenience and personal dignity with minimal increases to risk.
Many of the folks here are willing to place their fellow citizens at significant risk in exchange for their own personal versions of rights, convenience and personal dignity. But they don’t bear any responsibility for that decision, they don’t have the background or experience to make the decision, and they really don’t give a dam that they don't have any of it.
We vote for our leaders. Hopefully we vote for the one’s who’s views equal our own or at the very least seem reasonable to us. By voting for them we trust them to make appropriate decisions about a vast number of things that directly affect our lives. And these are the folks who bear the responsibility for the decisions concerning how government interacts with its citizens and how government serves its citizens. These are the folks that set policy, including TSA policy, for all levels of government. We trust them to make rational and appropriate decisions, yet it always seems that one group or another disagrees with their decisions. OK, if so then it’s the responsibility of that group to have someone else elected to those offices who will change policy to something more to their liking. That’s
our responsibility, to hold our leaders accountable for their decisions on our behalf. Yet more than 75% of our fellow citizens refuse to do so by not voting. Just who’s fault is that?