Originally Posted by
nachtnebel
The argument these clowns put forth is that dogs have a short attention span, and are good for a half hour at a time.
Some of us might think this could be scaled by adding more dogs and handlers. The TSA would rather spend resources on visual strip searches and hand searching our groins, butts, and breasts.
They fall back on the argument that they have to process 2 million pax a day, and this is how they must do it, the only way they can do it. So, the problem is framed as, "how do we process 2 million inanimate things (passengers) a day" rather than, how can we best screen large numbers of passengers in ways that (1) do not violate Constitutional guarantees, and (2) do not humiliate and embarrass these human beings.
They have framed the problem incorrectly, and therefore they have an incorrect solution.
Seems a fair assertion that a dog has a limited attention span of about 20-30mins of constant working. They also need time out to be rewarded. It is also true that they are trained by commodity and whilst some are multi-scented they would be of little use for electronic / electrical component parts or offensive weapons such as knives. I suppose there are a large number of chemicals that could be used in a device and it stands to reason that the dog is not going to be able to cover all the potential threats by scent. Can't see it working on an industrial scale as a primary system. Seems to me that they would be of more use as a focused resource used in a targeted way and supplementing the primary regime, as imperfect as it may be.