Boggie Dog

My problem, and I have been a victim of TSA false ETD testing, is that the TSA ETD swabs detect things that are simply not dangerous. In my mind that makes these devices fatally flawed and of no practical use.

Every moment TSA spends on these tests takes away from doing real security.

Caradoc

The devices are not fatally flawed - the idiots attempting to use them are fatally flawed.

nachtnebel

It's not a question of "some of the workforce". And it's not the obscure "policy debate" that you make it out to be. If your boss requires you to do random gate searches that get into passengers crotch areas, what are YOU going to do? If you are required to rub someone's genital area in the private room after yet another false ETD alarm, what are YOU going to do?

Saying you'll violate people professionally and courteously is pure nonsense. The acts are offensive and cannot be made better by you being 'nice'.

People are on edge at checkpoints not because clerks are or are not jerks. They are on edge because for no reason or for stupid reasons beyond their control you clerks will get your hands onto their body including private parts.

TSORon

The bottle may say on it that it contains a product, but there is no way to be sure that those contents have not been replaced with something dangerous without testing it. Its something ETD systems are particularly good at.

Caradoc

No, it goes without saying that anyone willing to take a paycheck for sticking their hands down people's pants is a jerk.

There's also the distinct probability that the jerk will demand the passenger go back to the broom closet for an intimate groping based on an "alarm" for their hand lotion.

T-the-B

It's not just an attitude of "guilty until proven innocent". There is also a pervasive attitude within TSA of "we can do no wrong" and "how dare anyone question anything we do".

OldGoat

Care to put some meat on your bald-faced assertion that ETD systems are particularly good at identifying "something dangerous"? In the past month, how many swabs were positive, and how many of the positive swabs led to the discovery of "something dangerous"?

I'd be flabbergasted if the ratio is better than 1000 to 1.

But please respond with a ratio, and not another assertion.

T-the-B

I don't want to start a flame war over this but I have to take issue with your statement.

I think it is important for every TSA employee, especially the ones who seem to be professional and level-headed, to understand one very important point: It doesn't matter how polite your are, how sincere your smile, whether you address me as "sir", or anything else. In the final analysis, you will be sticking your hand (at least your fingers) down my pants and you will be rubbing my genitals without my consent. It is impossible to perform such an act "with professionalism and courtesy." Any claims to the contrary are hollow.

I'm sure you are well meaning and I take your statement that you treat passengers with courtesy and respect at face value. I fear that you have lost sight of the discourtesy and lack of respect towards the public that is an inherent component of your job.

Boggie Dog

Ron, the problem is that the TSA ETD machines alarm on harmless normal everyday things. Hand lotion, contact lens solution, my camera bag, to mention a few things. Those are all false positives and make the TSA ETD machines worthless.

This isn't about someone changing contents of a container but the inability to not detect harmless items. Each false positive takes time away from doing the rest of the TSA Security Theater Act.

TSORon

You first.

The devices detect chemicals, usually in the double digit parts per million. Many household chemicals have their usual run of the mill uses, and those same chemicals can be used for something far more destructive. The presence of these chemicals on an individual’s person or property does not indicate nefarious intent, it only indicates a need for a closer inspection (as we have discussed here many many times).

If our ETD detects “nitroamine”, that does not mean that the individual has built a bomb, it only means that the chemical is present on his person or property. Such a chemical has many legitimate purposes around the globe, but can also be used to build an explosive device. A more intense inspection is warranted. The same can be said for many chemicals, including hydrogen peroxide. I have some in my medical kit at my home, many people do, and its presence is not really unexpected in someone’s personal property. But the only way to determine its concentration is in a lab like facility, which cannot be deployed to every commercial airport in the United States. Its concentration is a major factor when considering its ability to be a component in a bomb.

So, in the end, an ETD alarm is rarely a false negative. It’s an indication that further inspection is warranted. Get it now?

Only if you narrow the definition of "false positive" down to its most basic form. Only the obtuse do that, and then only to try and make a point where there is none.

There are many chemicals in nature that you cannot see, does that make them exist any less?

Caradoc

On the contrary.

Every false positive gives them another opportunity to do their meaningless dance and perform their play-acting to the sheep about how they're the only thing keeping planes from being blown out of the sky.

OldGoat

Originally you said:

(my emphasis)

I asked you to provide data to back up the assertion that ETD systems are particularly good at identifying "something dangerous".

You did not provide data, instead, you changed your tune significantly and now say:
I'm glad you recognized your mistake.

Boggie Dog

It is really sad that you can't admit that the TSA ETD machines often alert on items that are not dangerous. By any measure that is a false positive. Even worse is TSA inflicting these terroristic screenings on people who have done absolutely nothing to merit an item by item inspection of their belongings.

And you call me obtuse.

InkUnderNails

Binary test results, such as go/no go gauges, are quite common in industry and serve a useful purpose. They alert the machine operator that an operation is out of tolerance. They do not say how much out of tolerance, or the cause of the intolerance, but they are accepted tools for process inspection.

The problem with binary test results and the TSA is that the failure of the test is cause for suspicion of the person, not cause for determination of the severity and source of the anomaly.

In industry, the failure of a binary process test puts in motion a range of qualifying tests to determine the severity of the problem, the source of the problem and the correction of the problem.

The TSA has no such tools at their disposal. Therefore, the result of the binary test is to assume the most severe causes and eliminate by inspection each of the possibilities. This would be considered a ridiculous methodology in industrial testing as the cost and time for resolution may be disproportionate to the severity of the problem.

Furthermore, applying the elimination by inspection process to humans just trying to get on a plane, becomes a humiliating and often a very uncomfortable process that almost universally ends up showing that no correctable problem exists. The TSA does not care. They have to resolve the binary alarm with the only tools at their disposal, inspection.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.

Boggie Dog

I am familiar with go/no gauges and other such testing devices. While they are useful those testing methods are limited. TSA on the other hand has rolled out a machine that alerts on contact lens cleaner, hand lotion, and other harmless items. This in my mind clearly make these devices useless for the testing they are in place to do.