Your "camcorder", like your digital camera, has nothing to do with film.

Next time I travel with my 16mm, I'll report on the procedure.

I think everyone here is missing my point here...

Local TV stations love to "Protect you"

Just need to spin it correctly.

Most media outlets either get their story ideas from a) press releases (think TSA 3-1-1) or from viewers.

Maybe the health asepct was a bad example, but the liquid ban is not. Just simply ask your local media to look into these issues.

I hate what security has become, and would love to see some PRACTICAL secuirty in it's place.

Since politicans won't do anything get the media into a frenzy. Just to add, the major networks don't own the majority of the afflilates out there either.

LV702 has the right idea. TSA and other guv'ment agencies love to send out "media releases" and call press conferences. These "managed events" are to promote something that puts the guv'ment in a positive light.

Why not use these same tools to get the message out that things are not going so well in the world of transportation security? I remember a saying that goes something like this: "The duty of every citizen is to keep his mouth wide open."

During sweeps weeks, local TV broadcasts love to put on hard-hitting exposes. Local stations salivate over sexy concepts for which they run promos and teases. For that matter, many local newscasts employ a consumer reporter who presents the occasional "You paid for it" story. TSA would be a perfect subject for this type of story.

I put my IMHO about TSA in print to the local paper. It was published in the 'letters to the editors' section, widely read and debated for some time. For what it's worth, the only way to get TSA off us regular folks and sic 'em more toward the true Potential Threats is to bang the editorial wall as hard as you can with your righteous fist and let the paper POST it. (They did mine! Try it. You might be surprised!)

From what I've seen in the media, they are only interested in interviewing people who follow Party doctrine. Ample time is given to those who say "if it keeps us safe, I'm all for it"...very little time is given to those who say "I am not sure if I'm comfortable with them doing that..." and no time (none I've ever seen) is given to someone who might say "given the poor test scores, it appears we've wasted over 5 billion dollars without seeing any benefit and this liquid nonsense is distracting us from doing real security".

That's why people like Mike Boyd voice their opinion through web blogs and don't often get invited to comment on television (or get treated rudely when voicing contrary opinions).

I chalk this up more to the stupidity of many of those in the media and less to a policy, however informal. Many of the media I've seen comment upon aviation security never stop to think about the issues they're discussing.

The only reason why they do these stories anyway is to follow up on a TSA press release. It is easy to fint the "Anything to keep us safe crowd" at the airport. A business traveler is too busy to talk to a reporter at the airport. THey also do the majority of these stories during holiday periods when more of the Ma and Pa kettles are flying.

Didn't CNN cover the guy who was detained for writing "Kip Hawley is an idiot" on his Freedom Baggie?

You may be surprised, bocastephen, to find messages can be placed between the lines... even in the "public" media you denigrate. I'm sure both of Mike Boyd's readers are enthusiastic.

Great! I hope you take your own suggestion and notify your local outlets. @:-)

I'm not one to bump threads, but sweeps is approaching, and the TSA is out of control.

Unless you get one of the "all electronics out of the bag" crew .... then its all video cameras, SLR cameras, GPS........... etc. OP was in April.... now September and we have still more BS.

If liquids are a threat, why are ANY allowed in? What's to stop, Bill, Ted, and Mary Jane from combining their 3.4 ounces into something harmful?

It's a balance between security and allowing people to have some ability to carry-on items. Well now Bill, Ted, and Mary Jane all have to work together to carry out their plan. That makes it more difficult. You can nit pick at every rule, such as why 3.4 ounces, but there have to be parameters around things. The rules strike a balance between security concerns and the ability of a business/leisure traveller to pack enough in a carryon to get through a 4 day trip.

What are the health risks of walking bare-foot through security?

Have you heard of a massive increase in serious diseases when the shoe regulations came in to play? No? Me either.

How attentive could TSA be working all the OT they are working?

Gone to a hospital lately? Do you think the doctor visiting you works 5 8 hour shifts??

Why isn't 100% of the cargo being screened?

Probably cost is my guess. Keeping the cabin secure is more about stopping the plane from turning into a missile. Bad as it sounds, killing the 100 people on board is not nearly as consequential as killing thousands in a building.

How much money could be saved (TSA man hours) if shoes/laptops didn't have to be screened separately.

It really doesn't slow me down any, so I'm not sure. There are valid reasons why they search laptops. Don't forget to balance out those costs. That said, taking my shoes on and off and taking out my laptop is not a rate taking step for me. It takes me less than a minute to put a laptop back in and put my shoes back on. Taking them out and off happens while im in a lineup anyways.

Why do laptops need to be screened separately, but not other devices?

Other electronic devices such as DVD players, game machines, etc, do have to be screened as well.

Why do FAM's stick out like sore thumbs?

The short haired guy flying up front but not having a beer? A FAM? Naw. It's a good point. They fly a lot and want to be comfy too I guess. One would think they could be more discreet though.

This "balance" is tipped way out of proportion. All these re'sources allocated to a miniscule threat. Yeah, very smart spending. :rolleyes

So because you hear of nothing, therefore there are no health issues? Riiiiight.

They could be more attentive if they didn't have to look for every ridiculous thing that can be imagined. Additionally, if they didn't have stupid rules that did nothing for security, lines would be shorter and they wouldn't have to work so much. Same if they invested in technology. But instead, they get things like new uniforms.

Most of them work 12 hour shifts 3 or 4 days a week unless their specialists that get called in. No different than a typical nurse. But this point is irrelevant to the argument anyway.

[quote]Why isn't 100% of the cargo being screened?

Probably cost is my guess. Keeping the cabin secure is more about stopping the plane from turning into a missile. Bad as it sounds, killing the 100 people on board is not nearly as consequential as killing thousands in a building.[quote]

Blow the plane while it's falling out of New York and it will still do massive damage as the wreck hurtles thru the air uncontrolled.

Cost isn't the issue. TSA already has enough money that it wastes on stupid stuff. The issue is that Ma and Pa won't see it. So if they can't see it, they can't feel safer.

So as usual, the bottom line for you is that since it doesn't affect you any, you can't see how it can affect anyone else. Got it.

Yet every other nation in the world can do it with them still in the bag. What does that say about our security personnel and technology?

Understandable, but we're not paying for them to comfortable.

I know of one infectious disease specialist who believes there has been an increase in infection rates among diabetics who are too timid to argue with the TSA about removing their shoes.

I believe you said sometime back that it takes you only 10 seconds longer to get through security than it did prior to the current nonsense. Now it's a minute.