|
*****
|
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 11761832)
Of course there's no irony. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 11761645)
We used to use the term "continuous screening" indicating that you just pick out the very next person. No matter how you try to explain it, however, someone will accuse you of being biased or unfair.
Yes, someone will always find a reason to accuse you of bias. The problem is: sometimes, they're right. I'm not saying that you, or Dean, are intentionally biased; I have no reason to suspect any bias on your part. But most people have subconscious biases that come into play when it comes time to make an "arbitrary" choice. Some of these are really weird. For example, if you ask a large group of people to pick a number at "random" between 1 and 20, the number 17 shows up as consistently more popular than any other (when 17 should be just as common as any of the other numbers). The only alternative is to create a system in which the choices are made according to an obvious, publicly observable, arbitrary selector. In your example, "continuous screening" works because anyone watching you at the checkpoint can see that you're always taking the next person in line. I recall some time ago seeing a news item about a gizmo being tried at some checkpoints that would randomly select passengers; the passenger would approach the gizmo, press a button, and one of two lights would go off. There, while the algorithm to pick the selectees isn't obvious, it's certainly clear to the passenger that the decision isn't being made by the TSO but by the gizmo. This is one place where "security theater" is actually useful. It's not enough that your procedures are executed without bias; it has to be the case that the procedures appear to be without bias. ("Security theater" gets a bad rap because sometimes there's an emphasis on making things look secure without them actually being secure. But as long as things are secure, why not design them in a way so that observers can verify that?) |
Originally Posted by LTN Phobia
(Post 11753567)
Just in a similar line to what the previous post says, I had a somewhat interesting experience at NRT with an extremely polite security screener (as they almost always are at NRT, I have to admit).
It was a bag search cause by their inability to identify on their X-ray equipment a pair of tweezers in my hand luggage as a pair of tweezers. The unusual thing was that the reaction in my head - I was not bothered about being delayed, and I was not bothered about having my bag rummaged through, all because the screener was so polite and apologetic about holding me up while they just wanted to identify what thy couldn't identify on the X-ray was. I wasn't much help because I never thought that the issue was my pair of tweezers so I was utterly baffled (I have travelled a lot with those pair of tweezers so I assumed the could tell what it was), but something really struck me. When a similar delay happened in Australia and the security officer was arrogant and irritating, I found it annoying although I showed no reaction as they were only doing there job, whereas at NRT, I almost felt bad about having this 'unidentifiable object' because she had a 'I am here to serve the passengers' attitude. What a difference it makes when you are spoken to politely, and when the officers' general demeanour is that of a good attitude! |
*****
|
Thus, the OP's primary observation, possibly a bit overstated, yet a very accurate reflection of the entire inmate/guard scenario of comparable pax/TSA screening processes. It is a dance even more akin to a gang takeover replete with unspoken (if not unwritten) rules, and the home turf belongs to the TSA, who can supposedly demand and receive ANYTHING from its hapless victims.
Watched similar encounters various times patrolling junior highers as a hall-duty monitor. "Don't look at me!" was a minor assertion of strutting rights by the bull banger who felt dominant at any particular point in time, despite the fact he was standing on supposedly public ground. Mostly pro forma, would be a guess, like the rule requiring certain arresting LEOs to use handcuffs rather than personal judgment, even on grandmas who obviously pose no threat. Blindly following such "one size fits all" rules requiring such stupidity reveals those who work within the system for who they are. Stupid. Couldn't be taught to sing even if they had innate integrity OR intelligence. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:23 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.