I simply don't buy the argument that the definite possibility someone could try another (and much more sophisticated) shoe bomb justifies the shoe carnival--or, if you prefer a less pejorative term, the extra and very specific attention paid to shoes.

One could easily construct an argument of equivalence, finding other threats that are ignored, many of them much more probable than another shoe bomb. Why, then, aren't we working to prevent them with the same gusto we are the shoe bomb? Could it be that the shoe carnival is reactionary in every way? I can come up with many scenarios now much more likely than a shoe bombing, yet we do nothing to prevent them:

For some--like a bad guy in a barge off a coastal airport with a shoulder-fired SAM--cost is the issue. Yeah, we could install chaff and flares in every plane to the tune of many billions the industry and taxpayers can't support, or we could run much tighter interdiction of every ship approaching our coast. Neither is feasible, so on the whole, even though it's bantered about, we largely ignore the risk, relying on human intelligence and sheer luck to prevent such attacks (the chain of events resulting in succesful interdiction in some gov't-produced scenarios I've seen reads like winning the lottery three times in a row)

For others, like bombs concealed in clothing, we've tried very untenable solutions (remember the bra pat-downs?) Maybe the "bomb in a body cavity" or "bomb in a cast" or "bomb wrapped in thin layers around the torso" possibilities aren't very probable in the big scheme, but we seem to be devoting NO attention to them.

So why are they that different than the shoe carnival? Why not have strip searches for everyone? Because the public is willing to put up with the hassles of the shoe carnival and feels it effective, however untrue we know that latter fact to be. They'd never put up with the overt methods of interdicting more creative bombers, and many of the less visible means are considered invasions of privacy or racial profiling and thus equally unpalatable to the public.

To be fair, I haven't offered a compromise; I've said, "Do away with the shoe carnival," rather than offering a way to protect against the vague possibility of a shoe bomb (for which a sole, no pun intended, past incident does not serve as ample justification). I agree the TSA is in a tough spot here trying to find a way to defend against what they feel is a danger and doing so in a way the public as a whole largely finds acceptable. I'm just not sure this particular danger is "worth it."

At the risk of sounding cynical, don't hold your breath waiting for the Registered Traveler program to be implemented at most airports. As someone else noted in this thread, agency and job security is the most important thing for TSA, as it is for most if not all governmental organizations. Registered Traveler, like EPT, reduces the need for screeners and so will be resisted, just like TSA has been resisting the arming of pilots. TSA needs to protect its turf and budget, so any program or measure that decreases the number of warm bodies in TSA is a threat to its bureaucratic existence.

Nah doubt it.

Very well said.

Didn't come over as cynical, but well-versed about government bureaucracy.

As far as complaints go, there is no difference between those airports and ones using TSA Screeners.

Are you saying that all TSA managers throw out complaint forms?

I do not believe a single person flies out of Fargo without either removing shoes or being secondaried, irrespective of shoe size. A news crew should go and video it.

London Heathrow despatches thousands of folks to the US each day without requiring them to take coins out of pockets, laptops out of bags or shoes off. Richard Reid is a Brit :D

Phil

He was a brit and the french had 'em
 

Not only was he a Brit, but let us not forget that the French authorities thought he was suspicious enough to hold him/question him for almost 24 hours before letting him board the flight to the U.S. C'est la vie!

Hoya

One little thing they don't tell you about (at least as far as I can tell) is that they share that data with over 20 countries.

So if you want a good chunk of the world knowing everything about you, this program is for you (not directed at you personally).

There are other parts of the federal government that aren't happy about this system and discourage its employees from participating.

No, I was not asked to remove my shoes during secondary the past three trips through SFO (2/17, 3/4 and 3/5) and they didn't bother to swab the shoes either, which I thought was strange. I did not alarm the WTMD any of those times, so it wasn't like they were trying to clear an alarm in the secondary. What exactly was the point, other than harrassment?

Deleted

Of course, TSA and DHS will say that that is evidence of why we need the shoe carnival--had Heathrow had it, they might claim, Reid would have been caught and not even have had the chance to light his shoes. :rolleyes:

Deleted

FWIW, I can tell you first hand that MSY Terminal C does not have and will not accept a comment form. I know, because I ask for one every week.

Yes, I have written to the TSA HQ and have not received a response.

Bart, WHAT THE HELL are you talking about?

Where did I say TSA does this? My superior hand in every complaint form to the FSD. Nothing gets destroyed.


:confused:

This former EXP on AA and companion pass holder on WN handles the entire TSA deal by flying when it is the only way to transport the body. For the eight or so trips I'll do this year, my shoes will come off at secondary screening. I get to the airport with lots of time to spare, so the TSA game is played at my own pace. My one wish is for my blood pressure to be checked while watching this farce.