Originally Posted by TierFlyer
Ok, if you can determine how to screen without violating privacy (take off your shoes, submit to a wanding, show ID) then go ahead. You seem to me to be unwilling to consider this a continuum where on one end it's the 60's and we march on the plane with our Camels lit and on the other we spend some time with the nice man from ElAl in a secure room while they run a security check on your life.
No shoes checks, no ID checks, no random harassment. WTMD + Puffer/ETD for people only. X-ray/ETD/puffer for baggage only. No other checks unless there is an alarm that cannot be resolved.
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
I have no idea what you do for a living, but "faster/cheaper/better" is a very common phrase in my industry (high tech) and others I've worked in (manufacturing, bio-ag, import/export, transportation/logistics, and retail) so I assumed it was lingua franca. I apologize if I overestimated.
My point was not that faster/cheaper/better or security/privacy were mutually exclusive, but to point out in a colloquial fashion that there are trade offs in complex systems.
I've worked in that Faster/Better/Cheaper/Choose Any 2 industry. In R&D.
There is always the potential for trade-offs, but there doesn't have to be. And I don't believe in trading privacy for effective, non-intrusive screening. There are many solutions to this problem. Some are extremely well-thought out, others are extremely poorly chosen, made as if some drunken political hack chucked some darts at a wall.
Originally Posted by TierFlyer
But if railing against any changes to the system (which, of course has changed dramatically in the last 20 years of my flight experience) and calling people names and impuning their intelligence, dedication, and foresight works for you, then more power to ya.
These are BAD changes. Sure, there will always be change. However, being against stupid changes does not make one resistive to change per se. When a so-called leader makes BAD changes and refuses to consider sensible alternatives, I will question their intelligence and their character and their questionable parentage. Comrade Hawley is dedicated only to putting on a show of inSecurity and protecting his job. He has done nothing to make anyone any safer and has destroyed far too many civil liberties.
To answer your other post while I am on the subject, no it is not un-American to be incompetent.
However, when one destroys people's civil liberties, trades the illusion of safety for liberties, and does so for no good reason other than to feather his own nest, that man is not just un-American, he's a traitor who has sold out his country's principles and freedoms to make a buck. The United States has a history of executing its traitors. Deporting Comrade Hawley or just firing him, stripping him of his pension, and sending him head-first down the steps of Capitol Hill would be rather merciful in comparison.