That's probably because the TSA is likely to simply cut off the TSA-approved lock when they can't figure out how to use their master key, then hand the stuff over to the gorilla.

Who, by the way, appears to be wearing a blue shirt so as to not be out of uniform...

Because a book and a chunk of C4 look exactly the same...

That sounds like a serious technical flaw with the scanning gear.

Or because the ideas in a book can be far more dangerous than ANY block of C4

Personally, I couldn't care less if the books look like C4, blocks of cocaine, or solid effing gold on an X-ray. If they feel the need to open the luggage and inspect it, so be it.

The problem is that when the TSA opens the luggage, pulls everything out, and maybe toss some of it back in they damage items, fail to resecure the luggage, fail to re-close the locks they've removed, and occasionally "fail to return items to the luggage," or as a reasonable person would say, "steal stuff."

That's the problem. The TSA represents a larger risk to the average traveler than any potential "terrorist" threat.

I'm not sure why you choose to dialogue with me, then, if you doubt my honesty. Again, I have never doubted yours. I believe you're honest. Honestly mistaken, perhaps, but definitely honest.

But back to the main debate ...

"Enough" is a matter of judgment, not factual honesty. And as to whether or not "enough" facts have been made public ... I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree.

You skipped over my point. Too often, in these sorts of debates, when people complain about AIT, BDOs, etc., the default response of TSA supporters is "9/11 changed everything". As you affirm above, most of those things had nothing to do with 9/11 ... and it's dishonest for anyone to claim otherwise.

People respond to genuine leadership when it's presented to them. It would be incredibly refreshing if TSA were to stand up and say "We can't possibly make airline travel 100% secure, but we're going to choose not to live in fear of incredibly unlikely events, either."

Maybe it wouldn't work. But I'm reminded of Churchill who told people shortly after being selected PM that he had nothing to offer them but "blood, toil, tears, and sweat". Great Britain seemed to do alright after that.

That must be some special magic skill to make a book out of a "chunk of C4" and getting it to explode like a "chunk of C4", especially in the absence of detectable metal and charge.

There is plenty of technology around that can differentiate between a book and a chunk of the material you mention but the TSA is rather more interested in wasting money on obsolete junk technology includine that the TSA is using to to observe passengers naked. Then there is all the other wasted money that is a product of TSA's wasteful processes that are part of its expensive dog and pony show.

Okay, I think y'all have covered WHY you open the suitcase or box to visually inspect the books. After 95+ posts, has anyone claiming to work for the TSA said WHY they don't repack the bag or box properly after you do your check? I swear I've read this thread and I've yet to see an answer to the OP's and Caradoc's questions as to why can't the darn things be put back together properly!

It seems like a simple question: If the bag or box is opened to verify content, then why isn't the bag repacked as it was found to prevent damage and loss of passenger possessions???

I find it highly amusing that the claims here have been that "books look like c4!"

Yet, when a TSO supposedly sees something on a scan that "looks like c4", they DON'T take the normal precautions that are mandated for 'suspicious package' in the terminal, they simply open it up and look through it by hand.

DUH. If it really looked like a bomb, they'd take the normal precautions when there is a suspected bomb, i.e. call the bomb squad and detonate in place.

If anyone ever did actually send a chunk of c4 through checked bags, and the TSO opened up the bag and detonated it, which would kill a bunch of people and cause huge damage at an airport without ever entering the sterile area, TSA would knee-jerk a "we have to act in an abundance of caution" response and then begin calling the bomb squad every time they saw a book in a checked bag.

Although none of the TSOs will ever admit to it, the reasons are clear to me:

1) They're in a hurry to paw through the luggage of hundreds of 'fares' per shift.
2) They simply don't give a rodent's patootie about the property of the 'fares', they're simply there to examine said property for prohibited items.

3) The average TSA employee can't pass one of those "fit the differently-shaped blocks through their matching holes" cognitive tests typically given to toddlers.

You forgot the 3rd reason:
3. They're in a hurry to see if there is anything of yours that they want to take home with them.

Either youall or yo'baggage must be purdy dern suspicious looking.

In the lifetime of the TSA, on all my air travels including semi-frequent domestic jaunts and a handful of TATLs, I've don't remember a TSAer even glancing at a book I was carrying (and I don't leave home without 1,2,3 or more, a voracious reader). In the trio of checked bag searches of which I've been aware, none of the books seemed to have been shifted or removed, and although the TSA don't seem well-trained packers, I know of nought which has been purloined from my impedimenta.

While I don't "like" (and have little respect for, especially knowing that 2 of my once -but that too long - employees are part of their ill-trained and often worse acting troop) the TSA, I cannot help but sense a disturbing level of paranoia among some here.

While I feel that the TSA's efforts are largely ineffective in combating the "enemy" which it was built to fight, and a threat to civil liberties through both actions and ineptitude, I really don't grasp the growing perception that TSAers are warped sexual deviants or possess a level of criminality any different from that of the general public (or maybe even FTers).

I did once have a Hungarian security ossifer(post USSR satellite status) pay close attention to a book I was carrying, a paperback history of Texas. He wanted it for his kid. Nothing could have pleased me more than to slip this propaganda piece into the hands of an unsuspecting but gullible European kidlet. Frugal, I buy from "Remainder" houses and used book stores, with the intent of always bestowing "read" books upon either locations or individuals where/by whom they might be appreciated.

Several times while flying through ATL and PHX, the TSA checkpoint screeners went through my camera bag, removing front and rear lens caps and poking their grubby fingers at the glass. To what end I do not know - but I do know that I had to clean all of my lenses as a result.

And that was with a carry-on, right in front of me, with me arguing with them over the sheer stupidity of what they were doing.

I can only imagine what havoc goes on downstairs out of the public eye.

I guess that's one difference - I feel the TSA's efforts are wholly ineffective, and that the only employees they have at the moment are the ones who enjoy groping people's genitals and sniffing their underwear, or otherwise exercising their bogus "authority" in an attempt at revenge over being bullied in grade school and never being allowed to be the hall monitor.

Were they wearing gloves when they did this? Not wearing gloves would be a violation of current TSA policy, and if they wore gloves, then the smearing on your lenses would be minimal. Unless they were wearing dirty gloves, which is so often the case.

I think that's what TMOliver was trying to say - that perception that ALL or even MOST of the current crop of front-line TSOs are "the ones who enjoy groping people's genitals and sniffing their underwear, or otherwise exercising their bogus "authority" in an attempt at revenge over being bullied in grade school and never being allowed to be the hall monitor" is a gross exaggeration. And such gross exaggerations usually turn into hyperbole, which doesn't help our case when we argue based on facts and law.

As critical as I am of TSA policies, and much as I despise the agency, it's draconian nature, and its frightening mission creep, I must confess that I agree with TMOliver.

I think that the majority of front line TSOs are not sexual deviants, or bullies, or otherwise deffective human beings. They go along with these policies because, like the vast majority of the American public, they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the fear-mongers and the AFS crowd, and they actually believe that what they're doing, while unpleasant, is really necessary to keep us safe from the Bad Guys. They don't like what they have to do, but they've been conned into thinking that it's necessary, and that it's legal.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't believe that there actually ARE sexual deviants, bullies, and other defectives working as front-line TSOs. But the problems TSOs I have encountered seem to mostly be impatient, apathetic orifices who treat the traveling public like cattle because, like so many Americans, they hate their jobs, can't stand the public, and just want to get through the work day as quickly as possible so they can go home and pop a cold one. So they get surly, they gt impatient, and they really don't care when their attitudes rub us the wrong way.

In other words, both the good ones and the bad ones are, for the most part, perfectly ordinary Americans. Just a little dense.

They were wearing gloves, but dirty ones. One of them left smears of what smelled like some kind of skin lotion on the lenses. Methanol took it off pretty easily, but it was every lens, front and rear elements.


I think that if they aren't, they'd be working real, productive jobs somewhere else.