TSA By The Numbers: Failed By Its Own Data?
Dec 28, 2010 | 4:45 pm
#16
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Bada boom! (cue canned laughter here)
When were the nudeoscopes introduced? Were they all introduced at roughly the same time or is their number increasing throughout 2010? In the case of the latter shouldn't we see an increase of "artfully concealed prohibited items" if they are supposed to work as claimed?
When were the nudeoscopes introduced? Were they all introduced at roughly the same time or is their number increasing throughout 2010? In the case of the latter shouldn't we see an increase of "artfully concealed prohibited items" if they are supposed to work as claimed?
Regardless of how us simpletons look at this, TSA will claim the lack of any data showing effectiveness proves the deterrence power of their super-duper system. IMHO, comparing the major busts at airports with the NOS (zero) and the major busts at airports without the NOS (zero) leads to only one logical conclusion...
Wait for it...
...
Wait some more...
THERE IS NO STATISTICAL DATA TO DEMONSTRATE THE NOS IS EFFECTIVE!!!
It's pretty easy to disparage data when you have none of your own. Given the burden of proof is on the government, it would be really swell if TSA/DHS would even try to prove their claims. Donchathink?
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Dec 29, 2010 at 10:37 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Dec 28, 2010 | 7:00 pm
#17
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney (for now), GVA (only in my memories)
Programs: QF Lifetime Silver (big whoop)
Posts: 9,347
Being a self-identified scientist and all, I decided to gather up the numbers quoted for this past year from this thread and plot out what 2010 was like for the TSA. It's...interesting:
I used to teach a "how to lie with statistics" segment; looks like most of my students went to work at TSA. 
If you want to extend the data, there was an earlier thread covering 2008 and 2009, although the 'concealed items' metric doesn't appear until 3/3/2008 (post 47).
I predict it continues to look like noise even with nearly three years of data.
