First and foremost, I want to say “Thank you” for the interesting conversation.

Your point is only valid if one accepts your definition of “mistreated”. Mistreated is a subjective term, especially when applied to how one person acts towards another. The search techniques (frisking) I was taught as a military policeman would be considered mistreatment in a civilian context (maltreatment is even closer), but were fully within policy and procedure in the venue and context of the duties I performed.

If the TSO’s at the airport follow procedure and policy as they are supposed to, no one gets mistreated. Folks like yourself may feel that they have been, but again that’s a subjective call and those rarely have anything to do with reality. The reality is that a specific level of security at the checkpoint is required because of the past threats and the one’s that the intelligence community tell us are on the horizon, and to achieve that level TSA has designed our procedures and policies. Those policies and procedures continue to change because the threat changes, and as many have pointed out we are far more of a reactive agency than a proactive one. Both have their place, and TSA’s is reactive, and we will leave the proactive to other government agencies better able to meet those demands.

I didn’t think you were. Those who do make it pretty obvious.

Typically if one prepares themselves for the checkpoint then they have no problems. Millions of people go through them every day without every encountering issues of significance, and of those who do have problems it is in most cases because they just didn’t think. The rules are pretty obvious, they are posted prior to the checkpoint, they are available online, they are announced on the airport PA systems, then are sometimes even posted at the ticket counters. It only takes a moment or four to read them. Understanding them is for some reason quite different. Liquids for example. Believe it or not water is a liquid, yet even to this day we have people who just cant seem to grasp that they are not allowed to transit the checkpoint with it in containers larger than 3.4 ounces. That rule has been in place for quite some time, yet we collect bottles of water every few minutes. It’s a rule, plain and simple. Just like the rules of the road. Exceed the speed limit and you chance getting a ticket. Why that speed limit exists is totally beside the point, its one of the rules. The rule could be that no men with pink hats with blue flowers on them can transit the checkpoint (as silly as that may be), but it could be a rule that we would have to enforce. “Why” is not up to me. But I’m reasonably confident that there would be a fairly good reason for it.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The technology has been in the works since long before either of those individuals worked for the TSA. In fact the main portions of the AIT systems have been around for more than a decade, nearly 2 decades. Blaming those two public figures is convenient, but far less than honest.

Again, airport screening has been around a very long time. Since the 1970’s. And in that time the technology and procedures have continued to mature. Just as they continue to mature to this very day. Anyone who comes to the airport and thinks that they will not be screened is intentionally fooling themselves.

Openness and honesty are exactly what one gets when dealing with the TSA. The problem is that a certain segment of society think they know more about what TSA should be doing then the TSA does. And they consistently prove their ignorance every time they challenge what they are being told. Of course TSA can’t be totally open about everything, there is another segment of folks out there that would use that information to do us harm. Some information must be closely held, and that fact has been around since long before the TSA was ever envisioned. The concept was not even invented in the United States, but long before the “New World” was even discovered.

Crazy? Some maybe, but for the most part it’s just plain old ignorance (the actual meaning of the word, not the insulting context). Our policies and procedures are strongly vetted by experts in many fields. And the public’s dislike for something must be weighed against the advantage of doing it. People didn’t like us taking the old standard BIC lighters back when TSA began. That policy was reviewed and determined to be of little value. Hence the reason people can now take that BIC on their flight with them. Same with Nail Clippers, and liquids, and many other things. We don’t get everything right, but we are trying. Yet there are certain policies and procedures that just are not going to go away. And some people will always disagree. We cant please everyone, and we know it, and those that are displeased will always find places to vent their dislikes and hatreds, like here for example.

Like it or not, there is not a single large institution anywhere that does not have its secrets. Hospitals are no exception. They never tell you all the gory details of what they are going to do, and sometimes they don’t even tell you why. A doctor that you have met maybe three times (if that) is going to stick a knife into your guts and remove your spleen, has your life in his hands literally, yet you trust him. He does not tell you about the clamps, the cauterizations, the drugs, the blood on the floor, the “oops” that occasionally occur, yet you trust him. Why? Because of an oath he took years ago?

Again you are incorrect. You had your say. You had the opportunity to vote for the administration that is currently in power. If you chose not to vote then that is your own fault, but just in case you voted for this administration then you really have no right to complain about who they hire.

That’s because of a lack of information. You have no idea what they are planning, what they may be willing to do to get another 9/11 type of attack in, or even the culture that has spawned the folks capable of doing things like that. I don’t know much about them either, but I do get some of the information that you don’t.

Theories abound about how to beat the system. They are as plentiful as blades of grass, and usually about as worthy.

So, trust no one? Allow no one near a plane? That’s the only way we are ever going to prevent another commercial aircraft from being used as a weapon.

No, sorry, there has to be a balance between absolute security and absolute anarchy. TSA believes that we have achieved that balance, for the most part. It aint perfect, but then again nothing is.

And if that resistance happens to be plastic explosive? Should we stop because of an undefined or highly variable social more that can be exploited?