|
Originally Posted by sobetraveler
(Post 16258292)
are erect nipples in a cold airport and/or a large male organ now probable cause for "pat-down/feel-up" searches, because they "might" be explosive devices?
|
If TA employees are going to be the ones working the dogs I'm betting they will screw the pooch!:D
TSA has fouled up everything else it has touched. |
Did anyone else see the thread title and go to a really bad place?
Mike |
Originally Posted by mozgytog
(Post 16257918)
Dogs that are trained to sniff for explosives do not find drugs or large amounts of money.
|
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 16261743)
Indeed correct. That is what I meant when I stated they are trained by commodity i.e. the commodity being either drugs, or FX, or currency etc. Multi-scent is something different e.g. in the case of drugs having the ability to detect different classes of drugs which have a different scent. The scent of the constituents of Cocaine being different to that of Cannabis for e.g.
|
Originally Posted by DeafBlonde
(Post 16258102)
They would not find hand lotion, hair conditioner, fertilizer, and other such substances that falsly alarm the ETD, would they?
|
Originally Posted by average_passenger
(Post 16196067)
Can someone please explain to me why we can't use dogs to sniff for explosives at the airports? Aren't they used to detect missing people, drugs, suspects, and other things? Even if dogs and training cost a lot, doesn't it cost a ton of money to buy the new scanner machines and hire the people (above minimum wage) to run them? If I were in charge, I would just have everyone walk through the metal detector, get wanded if necessary (with no touching), and have an explosive dog walk around each passenger and around the terminals. :)
I'm pretty sure that this would be a less offensive to most people. |
Originally Posted by MDtR-Chicago
(Post 16196254)
Rep. Chaffetz posted on his facebook wall this weekend that he favors bringing in dogs.
So that's something. It's still not clear to me why the "oversight" committee is having such a hard time actually overseeing the TSA. Can't seem to change a darned thing about it. How many hearings do we need? |
Another powerful advantage of dogs is their mere presence at a checkpoint would have a profound deterrent effect. A suicide bomber could swallow a bunch of condoms full of explosives and a small detonator and approach a strip search scanner with absolute confidence his terror mission would be successful. However a terrorist approaching a checkpoint carrying explosives and encountering a dog would have to feel serious doubt about the likelihood of successfully avoiding detection, irregardless of the dogs actual skill level. I suspect he would be many many times less likely to even try that checkpoint in the first place.
IMO the last two bombing attempt failed specifically due to a similar deterrent effect from WTMD's. Both the shoe bomber and the panty bomber failed in their terror missions due to not having a proper detonator for their bombs. The only plausible reason they did not have a proper detonator is, it would contain metallic components and they were not confident it would pass through a WTMD undetected. So they didn't bring a proper detonator and their bombs BOTH failed because of that simple fact. Dogs would present a similar and even more profound deterrent effect. OTOH Strip search scanners and groping don't have the same deterrent effect because they are easily defeated with almost 100% certainty by using tactics to carry things internally. |
I happen to know someone who trained dogs to sniff out drugs, explosives and other contraband/illegal items for the federal government and military. She tells me that dogs are very effective at this type of detection. She also said that they are similar to people in that they get fatigued, are moody or can get distracted. A good handler knows when the dog simply isn't up for the task.
Using explosive detection machines as the routine detection technology is not a waste of money. Using explosive detection dogs to follow up on a package that alarmed the ETD (after ruling out other possibilities) is smart; however, it all depends on what's a reasonable time limit if the dog isn't immediately available. To say that there should be a dog at the checkpoint constantly may sound reasonable, but once again, dogs tend to get bored, distracted, moody, tired and restless. |
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16266249)
To say that there should be a dog at the checkpoint constantly may sound reasonable, but once again, dogs tend to get bored, distracted, moody, tired and restless.
|
Olfaction is my business and before the TSA existed, the FAA hired me to teach gerbils to odor detect explosives (in checked in luggage) - after the Lockerbe Pan Am catastrophe. Took their money willingly but knew that all the bad guys have to do is seal the expolsives in airtight containers (or shrink wrap) and odor detection is worthless.
If the TSA is actually pursuing the odor detecting dog thing, then they really are less intelligent than the Bad Guys. As mentioned above, it seems the TSA is always one step behind the terrorists. |
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16266249)
Using explosive detection machines as the routine detection technology is not a waste of money. Using explosive detection dogs to follow up on a package that alarmed the ETD (after ruling out other possibilities) is smart; however, it all depends on what's a reasonable time limit if the dog isn't immediately available. To say that there should be a dog at the checkpoint constantly may sound reasonable, but once again, dogs tend to get bored, distracted, moody, tired and restless.
|
Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey
(Post 16273799)
At least the dog doesn't want to...feel up crotches all day.
|
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16266249)
I happen to know someone who trained dogs to sniff out drugs, explosives and other contraband/illegal items for the federal government and military. She tells me that dogs are very effective at this type of detection. She also said that they are similar to people in that they get fatigued, are moody or can get distracted. A good handler knows when the dog simply isn't up for the task.
Using explosive detection machines as the routine detection technology is not a waste of money. Using explosive detection dogs to follow up on a package that alarmed the ETD (after ruling out other possibilities) is smart; however, it all depends on what's a reasonable time limit if the dog isn't immediately available. To say that there should be a dog at the checkpoint constantly may sound reasonable, but once again, dogs tend to get bored, distracted, moody, tired and restless. ETP, ETD, WTMD, HHMD, perhaps sniffer dogs and only after all of that is not good enough then a pat down. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:11 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.