Read again what I wrote, as you obviously didn't understand me.

And btw, its more than "some" who like the AITs. When I have worked on the AIT, I can honestly say more people asked to use them than those who would opt out.

I wouldn't dispute that. A lot of people are impressed by the latest item on display -- probably many of the same people who would have been impressed by the "health" benefits of snake-oil as a cure-all in a time gone by when that could be a market novelty with salespeople and others playing to a gullible audience.

..............FSD-TSM need replaced......... Good luck filling with $40/hr+ talent with that culture of non-accountability in place

And when I was a child, lots of parents chose to use the X-ray machines at the Red Goose shoe stores to ensure their kids' shoes fit well. After all, they were assured that it was perfectly safe.

We now know that the shoe clerks assurances were worthless. Why should I believe the TSA clerks' assurances today? TSA employees, as a general rule, don't even come up to the level of a 1950's shoe clerk in terms of knowledge, training and professionalism.

That's because most people don't want a pair of grubby hands on them. At least with the nudeoscope, there's a shot at not being groped.
Give people a choice between the nudeoscope and the metal detector would be much more revealing as to what they "like".

This is an issue that has always resonated with me and one that I know Bart has discussed several times. You could have the smartest, most qualified people in the world on the line, but without proper leadership setting a reasonable policy, it won't make a bit of difference.

For the line people, I call it the 10/80/10 rule. 10% of the people are above and beyond, 80% are just trying to get through the day like any of us and 10% are miserable SOBs who want to make everyone else miserable. I'm not saying that proper leadership would change those ratios, but it could take everyone up a few notches and make sure that the bottom 10% is moved out.

Mike

........

I just experience the 10/80/10 on a cross-country bus trip. TSA has no monopoly on that rule. The problem is the policy not the people. The bus company management set the parameters and the drivers had no freedom to make conditions tolerable. I saw in the face of one driver how absurd he thought it was what he had to do. He couldn't express his frustration, but it wasn't hard to see.

Especially now that DHS thinks people are going to have bombs surgically implanted in them. :rolleyes:

Question: Is this just profiling repackaged with a new label?

Not just a belief of DHS, but a belief of many FlyerTalk members. Remember, one common argument on this site, made by multiple people as to why the AITs should not be used: they will not detect an implanted IED.

That is a valid question, but I do not think so. From what I have heard and understand, those who qualify for less intrusive screening will be selected on a more tangible criteria, such as criminal history and so on. And some of the reduced screen will simply apply to everyone, even those not in the Trusted Traveler program.

Is there an extra "not" in that last sentence. I'd say especially those not in the Trusted Traveler program

Apologies if you've already posted the answer but what security clearance do you possess? Inquiring minds and all.

interesting catch-22 as infosec requires that he not indicate personal access to classified data or lack thereof just on a whimsy...
I'll answer in a rather opaque way...
some people come in with clearances (many of whom are the "unpatriotic" veterans who joined TSA after their enlistment- I imagine their clearances are allowed to expire)
Some are granted clearances for reasons...
But unfortunately, many seem to think they have clearances, when they do not (a lot of trainers and recruiters distort the initial background check's purpose)