Don't blame me. I just posted the article (I know Slashdot is one step above the Weekly World News) but I figured that it would get a good discussion out of it.

Plus I disagree with Slushdot posting it, they should just stick with old technology and keeping teenagers up to date with microsoft news.

Screening is just one component of a multi-layered defense which does include intelligence from multiple sources. Using aircraft is still high on the terrorist wish list. To remove the screening for the sake of your convenience (which is exactly what the people on this forum are complaining about) is naive and dangerous. The sleeper cells do not need to contact a terrorist coalition thus making them harder to detect.

Let's come out and say what you really want. You want to walk through without anyone dare look at you, talk to you, stop you. Do you want them to bow or kneel? Since you came on this forum you have adopted the same exact rhetoric as other to the point I have to double check who is posting because it all written the same. Every post on this forum becomes a merry-go-round where it starts on subject, some of the usual suspects derail the subject to their own uses, someone tries to return the thread to the subject but it gets derailed again. Instead of having multiple threads there should be just one since every thread since they all wind up saying the same thing.

There hasn't been a clear passage in airports for decades nor will there ever be.

^

I think some people want a seperate "I am not a terrorist" line at the airport.

How dare you call Bart a liar!! He has done nothing here but give honest and intelligent information which yourself and many others here have done nothing but attempt to pick apart for your own gratification.

Thus your suggestion would be... audio and video monitoring of every square inch of US soil? Or do we need to do it internationally, as well?

And I assume since you think we should be doing this way before the boarding door, that you think things like CAPPS are a good solution, or is that too invasive?

That was my earlier point... this whole "why did I/my father/my child get SSSS'ed, I'm/he's/she's *obviously* not a threat" whining is just tedious.

"woo-hoo! we shut down CAPPS II!"

How dare you expect logic and honesty here!

Bart and the TSA people here are excellent representatives of their agency. I only wish that they can spread their good attitude towards other coworkers. We should be dealing with issues regarding the Agency, not their staff.

I agree but when you have a passenger with a hugh chip on their shoulders that is waiting for the screener to say anything (even good morning) they are ready to jump down the screener's throat I can understand why screeners act the way they do. I don't condone it, but understand it.

Preach on!!! I try to keep my screeners in a positive mode, but as TSAMGR said, you will have a passenger who wants nothing more than to insult a screener for his own personal satisfaction. I've become able to shrug it off and go on, but for others it does become a bit difficult to shake it off and be pleasant to the next passenger in line. It doesn't happen here too often, but when it does it disrupts the entire mood here.

I agree, Mr. Furious. I am very glad that people like Bart and TSAMGR are here and I am grateful that they have the helpful attitudes they do toward the issues FF'ers raise.

What Bart said is something many others have tried to say here: that objections to screening are really about convenience. I would gladly endure more inconvenience if it meant I kept my dignity, liberty, belongings, and clothing intact. Instead I am stripped of the above a bit at a time by this insane urge to physical search anything that moves, but only in one tiny corner of our daily lives. Because I'm a FF, it affects me more than most and so I complain more than most. To say that I am writing letters to Congress, trying to organize protests, complaining regularly in writing to TSA authorities, spending my free time on FT trying to get others fired up for activism on this issue - all for convenience, again(?) - has got to be deliberately dishonest.

I think being asked to remove parts of my clothing in public is shameful. I think having my breasts touched by government agents is sickening. I think people are put in danger of sexual abuse by checkpoint practices. I think the infirm are in danger of physical harm. I think medical privacy is in shambles when people are explaining their devices, drugs, and medical conditions to uniformed government officers. I think searching people's belongings is a crude and ineffectual response to the threat of international terrorism. I think I shouldn't have to discuss or reveal my travel habits within the U.S. to government agents, absent any suspicion of me personally. None of these concerns has even a passing relation with convenience. Liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty, with privacy thrown in for good measure.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's talk about tradeoffs between liberty and security.

Hi ChrisAtlanta,

Could you buy audio and video monitoring for the same price tag? I wouldn't think so, but let's talk. Depends upon the details.

Here are the suggestions I've been talking about, in a press release and 90-page report from Jim Turner, ranking member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.