Originally Posted by
Bart
Herein lies the problem. From a purely pragmatic view, believe it or not, I do agree with you that the numbers don't support the effort. However, same was true on 9/10/2001. All it takes is one little aw-sh*t to wipe out a whole bunch of so-far-so-good efforts.
And at some level we do have a meeting of minds with respect to low probability events warranting some level of attention. I (seriously) believe we should be devoting more resources to detecting Earth orbit crossing objects.
Originally Posted by
Bart
However, I'm curious what you would replace TSA & the FAMs with (assuming you advocate disbanding these agencies). Or is it your contention that no screening is necessary simply because the statistics don't support that any terrorist threat is imminent? In other words, let's collectively roll the dice and take our chances.
Screening had its place pre-9/11 and I believe it still does today. Screening should be done to keep large edged weapons and firearms out of the cabin to the extent that it is possible with current procedures.
Even if you discount "terrorism", there are still plenty of crazies to go around.
To be honest, what fries my goat is not the TSA or FAM programs per se, but the wasted time and effort generated by some of the policies. My primary objection to the TSA as an agency is economic, not just because I disagree with individual policies.
Let's start with the FAM program. I think it should be scaled back to pre-9/11 staffing levels with the marshals deployed to counter specific threats, not flown constantly around the country in the hopes that a threat will find them.
a) There are too few marshals to make it likely they will encounter a random threat.
b) Flying them around constantly
must result in mission fatigue.
c) Fresh, rested marshals deployed for a specific purpose would give me a warm fuzzy feeling I don't have today.
As far as the TSA goes, I think the private sector can do things more efficiently than a government agency. See Team SFO, though others may disagree.
1) Either end the liquid ban or prove definitively and publicly that it has a basis in fact.
2) Stop requiring shoe and outerwear removal unless the passenger alarms.
3) Stop banning lighters and pocket knives. Upstream intelligence and hardened cockpit doors make a repeat of 9/11 more expensive than other, similar, tactics a terrorist might take.
It's like the old story about avoiding a bear attack - you only have to run faster than your slowest companion. It is not just the probability factor.
Once you eliminate flying commercial aircraft into buildings as a threat you are left with the simple (bad word) destruction of aircraft. Anyone capable of organizing a 9/11 can probably do that without bringing anything special into the cabin.
4) Stop SPOT. If I find a young woman gazing deeply into my eyes I don't want to have to question her intentions. I don't want any men gazing deeply into my eyes.
5) Implementing 1 through 3 will drive a stake through the heart of the Registered Traveler program, as it should. In its final form RT would allow me to not remove shoes or outerwear when being screened - and all I have to prove is that I have nothing suspicious in my background.
So, in a nutshell, that is my proposal.
Edit to say, wow. I was typing this during a conference call and neglected to see that everyone had beaten me to a reply. That will teach me to work after hours
