Not so fast. First of all, you generally have two types of posts from passengers in this forum: those who disagree with the very concept of screening and view any security measure as an affront to individual liberty and civil rights and those who accept the reality of airport security but are genuinely interested in finding out why something happened to them at a particular checkpoint. The nature of this website is to address passenger issues and concerns; very few posts address the good things that happen to people; they mostly tend to address the negative experiences. In other words, I don't see very many posts from passengers who make complimentary comments about their screening experiences. You can deduce from this that either people tend to ignore the positive because, after all, there's really nothing to add when something occurs as it's supposed to happen; or you can deduce that there's nothing positive to say. I think the real answer is more towards the middle and leaning towards the human tendency to complain rather than compliment. And that's okay until you come along and try to jump to a broad conclusion with the statement you just made.

I understand that the system is not fixed and there are many problems that still need to be addressed. Standardization certainly ranks right up there, and, for what it's worth, it frustrates me, too. It would certainly make my life easier if you knew exactly what to expect when you came through my checkpoint as I'm sure it would make yours easier to know that you can expect the exact same thing when you go through another airport security checkpoint.

I disagree with your comment that screening varies widely. I will agree that it is inconsistent to the point that some checkpoints will ask you to remove a pair of shoes and another will allow you to enter with the exact same pair of shoes worn. This is a legitimate area of concern where TSA has to do a better job of working off of the same sheet of music. However, contrary to your claim, I would venture to say that TSA checkpoints generally follow the same guidelines across the board. I will agree with you up to a certain point that procedures need to be similar, but I think it is naive and unrealistic to expect them to be the exact same. If you insist on this, then I have no choice but to assume you've never worked in security. There has to be some latitude for certain situations; however, the principle should still remain consistent.

My participation in this forum is to help clarify discrepancies as well as inform passengers of what they can do to prevent abuses. If you want to call me apologetic, go right ahead. You lose a lot of points in my book with that type of narrow-minded thinking and we can agree to not respond to each other's posts from this point on. You can continue to type your anti-TSA rhetoric to your heart's content and I will limit my discussion to those who are genuinely interested in civil discourse.

I fully agree with you on this one point for many reasons. In the baggage pods, it will certainly help catch those who are stealing from passengers and offer strong evidence for decisive action. I fully support this. At the passenger checkpoints, it will also help in a variety of ways for both passengers and screeners, but I'm looking at this more from a security perspective than anything else. I think airports should spend the money required for this type of technology. However, the fiscal constraints you're referring to are exacerbated by public demands for the walk-thru ETD-type portals or "puffers" to alleviate you of the inconvenience of having to remove your shoes. I think the money would be spent more wisely and with greater returns in the video and audio surveillance systems you suggested than with the puffers. There's only x-amount of dollars in the budget and I certainly am no advocate of increasing taxes; we each pay enough already, no need to keep feeding that monster until we see some return in our investment.

I've been around the block too many times to buy into that "world class security" PR BS. It looks good on mission statements and makes for great posters to motivate and inspire employees and customers alike. But it takes true leadership to make any organization successful, and TSA, just like any other organization, has its fair share of turkeys and very few eagles. You can always find something wrong if you look for it; that's the easy part and what a great majority of people tend to do. Very few people welcome challenges head-on or choose the difficult decision over the popular one.