Actually, NO. I have seen liquid non binary explosives at work and it is not a fallacy. TSA is not sacrificing anything for money, there is a practical approach to everything and this is it, although it is a contradiction. We do have haz mat containers on the floor for those items that fall into that OBVIOUS category. The simple way to think about it is:
It is a liquid, dont know what it is, cant sample it in any manner, it is over 3.4 oz therefore it is not allowed. There is nothing hard about that process and it is deemed as proper by the attorneys at hq.

Wow, that is a convoluted statement. "It's not about the money, it is just the practical approach" LOL!

So a terrorist would have to tell you that the liquid in his container is dangerous for the TSA to care.


So you say it is too dangerous to bring on a plane (to protect hundreds of passengers on the plane), you also say it is safe enough to dispose of in a normal garbage bin (which does not protect hundreds of passengers at the checkpoint).

Security theater.... It is more about what the attorneys say is proper than actual threats.

So your lawyers are making scientific judgments?

I should have known......

Lol, ok, if you believe it is. Screening is not just removing shoes, opening bags, or walking through the metal detectors. Screening is a process comprised of many different things, not one or two. We don�t look in people�s ears either, does that imply that they are not screened?

Another interesting belief. And one that is often repeated here. Unfortunately those who repeat it refuse to put forth the effort to figure out why we do it. It is far easier to just ride along with the rest of the crowd.

You have unrealistic expectations. Please explain your motives for such.

What's the reason, beyond "Because ID matters, is why"?

How do we know that some co-conspirator did not hand off something to you that was not properly screened?

Screening is not perfect. Nothing can make it perfect, no matter if it TSA doing it or some civilian agency. Even the military cannot make screening perfect. No one and nothing can make it perfect. Period. Eliminating screening is an even worse proposition. Suggesting that doing so is irresponsible, and ignorant (not that I am saying that this is what you are suggesting).

One of the basic duties of our federal government is to do its best to protect its citizens. TSA is one way of doing that. The US Army is another. As is the EPA, Health and Human Services, and the CDC. And people scream just as loudly about each and every one of those agencies as you and the others here do about the TSA. I have seen it stated many times that HHS is the most hated agency there is, even more so than the IRS, and they all think that they had the data to back up their claims. Sound familiar? Change the �HHS� to �TSA� and you can find that same sentence many times in this forum.

THAT is the reason that I take every such claim here as little more than venting.

This is coming from someone who works for an agency which allows certain people to access the secure area without being screened.

Pardon me while I stick a few fingers down my throat.

Are you of the opinion that the TSA put it there?

Incorrect. They are screened, as is everyone who enters the sterile area. No exceptions. The difference is that some of the screening you are not aware of, cannot "see". Assuming that because you do not see it, that it does not exist or happen, is an incorrect assumption.

Which points exactly back to the second failure I highlighted above. The only way that I could have obtained an improperly screened item from a co-conspirator is if that person somehow got that item into the sterile area. Hence, a security failure.

Fine. Passenger screening is imperfect, and always will be. The question then becomes: how best do we deploy finite resources in screening?

The teams that screen passengers at the gate are, simply on a statistical basis, going to be spending the vast majority of their time screening passengers and their possession which have already been screened ... in the hope that they might find something that was either missed the first time, or was improperly handed off by someone who didn't have to go through a physical screening. Thus, the opportunity to "find" something that shouldn't be there is going to be quite small. Sure, they'll find stuff that shouldn't be there, and security will be enhanced as a result.

An alternative proposal would be to take those same teams, and deploy them at the checkpoint. This could allow for enhanced security in a number of ways: allowing all screeners to look more carefully for prohibited items, performing physical screening of personnel who are currently not required to undergo such screening, and so on. This, too, will enhance security by finding stuff that isn't currently being found.

So, here are two alternative uses for TSA screening personnel: roving gate inspection teams, or enhanced checkpoint screening teams. Which use of resources is better? And how would we know which is better? I don't have the background to answer the question. But no-one with the background will give me a straight answer to the question. Would you answer it for me, please?

You are the one who said it plugged the hole.

Now you are saying that plugging the hole is an unrealistic expectation.

So even though we see the person entering the secure area without taking off their boots, you are saying we aren't seeing their boots being screened...

LOL!

Please explain your motivations. You have unrealistic expectations and know it, why?

You are assuming that all screening must be done in front of you. Please explain why.

Why did you say it plugged a security hole when it doesn't? Please explain your motivations



So you are saying the boots are screened before the person reaches the checkpoint?

Or maybe you are being misleading again. Please explain your motivations

LOL!

Kind of like the airline employee in PHL that bypassed security with a handgun, and gave it to someone he knew airside that got on an aircraft?

Google "TSA hated" , about 6,230,000 results, a lot of gripes about your employer.

Google "HHS hated" , about 1,990,000 results, a lot seem to be Facebook and high school related.

Your search missed quite a bit.

Look here: alt.support.child-protective-services

My questions are reasonable, please stop deflecting and answer them.

Wow, USENET. Are you thinking of upgrading to Windows 95?