<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by supervision_tsa:
The ones who complain the most about secondary screening or, for that fact, any type of screening would be the first to complain that TSA was not doing their job, in the event of a terrorist attack. If you want to be safe, you must give up some conveniences. Terrorists are now using children to accomplish their goals so please stop complaining about that extra minute or two that you spend on screening. If you'll notice, it's the airline ticket counters that hold you up and not the screening process. Register your complaints with the airlines.</font>
OK, if you see this issue in such a black-and-white fashion, then I'll simply tell you that I don't want to be safe. It's not worth the inconveniences and extra time that the TSA requires to receive the pitiful level of "safety" that the TSA claims to provide.
If the TSA had been in business prior to 9/11, I can almost guarantee you that things would not have happened much (if any) differently. The hijackers would have likely gotten their box cutters and other pointy objects onto the plane anyway, as TSA security and screening is far from foolproof. And even if they hadn't, there would have been some other backup plan in place to enable them to take control of the aircraft.
Since the TSA has been in business, there have been numerous breaches of security that have been discovered; some have been widely covered by the media, and I'm sure that some have not. Take the recent planting of box cutters on aircraft by a few young Americans as just one example.
Since the TSA has been in business, people have had items stolen from their now unlocked luggage. This would have been far less likely to have happened had the TSA not initiated their ridiculous "leave your baggage unlocked" policy. There's no reason that passengers can't keep their bags locked and be called to a private room behind the security checkpoint to be present if their bag(s) require a manual inspection. That would also reduce the number of chances that TSA agents have to steal stuff too (there are a few bad apples in your organization who do this, I am sure).
The TSA's version of security is, unfortunately, equivalent to putting a sign saying "Please don't burglarize this house" in your front yard and not using deadbolt locks on the doors to your home. The current methods in some airports are just short of hilarious and useless (I've gone through some detectors with my shoes on, and the shoes I wear should set them off). And the methods in other airports are just short of being strip-searched, with agents that try to confiscate allowed items from you, saying that they're prohibited.
If this is what security is, then I'll opt for no security as that option is faster, more convenient, and just slightly riskier than the current situation.
It is unfortunate that uniform results cannot be produced at all airports using uniform procedures at all airports. And it is also unfortunate that the majority of the American public has been tricked into believing that they must be inconvienced and have their privacy violated by a government organization to receive merely the appearance of security.