The Bio Defender that cries wolf
Jul 9, 2012 | 2:56 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 408
The Bio Defender that cries wolf
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...2.story?page=4
This was on the front page of Los Angeles Times, yesterday. It is not directly related to TSA but the program is supervised by Dept of Homeland Security. Very educational if one reads it through. What jumped out at me was the following, proving once again that there is security theater in all parts of security.
"In the senior-level discussions, the issue of efficacy really wasn't on the table," recalled Reeves, who has since retired from the Army. "It was get it done, tell the president we did good, tell the nation that they're protected. I thought at the time this was good PR, to calm the nation down. But an effective system? Not a chance."
This was on the front page of Los Angeles Times, yesterday. It is not directly related to TSA but the program is supervised by Dept of Homeland Security. Very educational if one reads it through. What jumped out at me was the following, proving once again that there is security theater in all parts of security.
"In the senior-level discussions, the issue of efficacy really wasn't on the table," recalled Reeves, who has since retired from the Army. "It was get it done, tell the president we did good, tell the nation that they're protected. I thought at the time this was good PR, to calm the nation down. But an effective system? Not a chance."
Jul 9, 2012 | 2:58 pm
#2
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...2.story?page=4
"It was get it done, tell the president we did good, tell the nation that they're protected.… I thought at the time this was good PR, to calm the nation down. But an effective system? Not a chance."
"It was get it done, tell the president we did good, tell the nation that they're protected.… I thought at the time this was good PR, to calm the nation down. But an effective system? Not a chance."
Jul 9, 2012 | 3:07 pm
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 408
Jul 10, 2012 | 5:28 am
#4
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 72,305
Given that the nudeoscopes have at best a 60% detection rate - and TSA management knows this - is anyone surprised? As I have posted before, during the Bush Administration commissioned an internal study that was designed to rank the most serious threats to aviation safety. When the study reached its conclusion, it was never offically published, because the authors had the audacity to admit what we all suspected - that passengers didn't pose the most immediate threat to aviation security - under the wing was - and still is - the biggest vulnerability. Because releasing the study would undercut the TSA security theater, Skeletor and the Kipster suppressed it.
Jul 10, 2012 | 8:59 am
#5
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Given that the nudeoscopes have at best a 60% detection rate - and TSA management knows this - is anyone surprised? As I have posted before, during the Bush Administration commissioned an internal study that was designed to rank the most serious threats to aviation safety. When the study reached its conclusion, it was never offically published, because the authors had the audacity to admit what we all suspected - that passengers didn't pose the most immediate threat to aviation security - under the wing was - and still is - the biggest vulnerability. Because releasing the study would undercut the TSA security theater, Skeletor and the Kipster suppressed it.