As soon as the media started reporting that Opt-Out day was a bust (see 40 + articles here), reports started coming in from blogs stating that TSA had intentionally shut down the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines. This claim is utterly and completely false as AIT operations were normal throughout the holiday travel period. We tried to think of some reasons that people might have come to this conclusion.
· First off, everybody is not necessarily screened by AIT. I think people need to understand that TSA operates out of 450 + airports. Of these 450 + airports, 70 currently have AIT. There are a total of 430 machines in the field right now. (We’re working quickly to deploy more units to the field - above and beyond the 430).
· Even at airports with AIT machines, they are not yet deployed at all checkpoint lanes.
· At times, machines could be shut down for routine maintenance, or maintenance issues.
· If the technology just arrived at the airport, it's possible passengers would see a unit in the checkpoint but not in use. Several things have to happen before we can start using them, they have to be installed, tested and we have to fully train officers on how to use the technology.
TSA Blog Team
123 comments:
Bob, your own agency made statements that AIT would be deployed over Thanksgiving. Then people show up at the airports and there are very few machines in use. Considering the massive distrust the American people already have of your agency, of course we believe you acted deliberately to forestall protests!
The goal of the TSA right now seems less about keeping Americans safe and more about keeping us silenced.
Let me understand.
We are suppose to believe the media when they say the opt out was a bust.
We are suppose to not believe the media when they say the machines were turned off.
LOL!
How many if the 430 machines were operational on the opt-out day, and what percent of people were screened using them? Was it more or less than days before and after? Show us the evidence instead of getting defensive; be proactive and show us your case.
Hi Bob, my wife and I opted out of the AIT machine during the holiday travel period and we did not experience the enhanced pat down. We didn't experience any pat down. After opting out we were directed through the metal detectors and then we gathered our belongings. Is that standard operating procedure for the TSA?
Hmm... when you say "utterly and completely false" in a blog post, it's probably not :-)
And we don't "NEED" to understand anything. It is incumbent upon the TSA to explain it better and explain why it is necessary that we give up our fourth amendment rights in order to fly. "It's for your own security" just really doesn't cut it. Believing that requires trust which the TSA seems to undermine at almost every opportunity
The exasperated tone of Sec. Napolitano, the confrontational rhetoric of Dir. Pistole and your combative tone in this blog post says everything we "NEED" to understand about the TSA.
It is a good thing that the machines were not in full use over the holiday. With the high travel rate, lower use of whole body imaging prevents cancer.
Because the numbers don´t lie: These machines will cause more disease than they will catch terrorists.
1. Here's a blogger who flew out of Dulles for Thanksgiving. http://www.lawfareblog.com/2010/11/a-dispatch-from-dulles/ He says TSA told him all the imaging machines at his gate were shut down because the staff was "out for lunch". Is that normal TSA procedure, to shut down the machines when lunch rolls around?
2. What is the point of just fingering one or two people in a line? I thought everyone was a potential threat? In the most recently publicized example of Donna D'Errico, she reports not being given any option to opt out. There are other reports to that effect as well.
3. Please stop the rubbish about only opt-outs being groped by TSA. The Indian Ambassador didn't opt out -- there were no machines installed at that airport.
Perhaps you can't see further than the front edge of your desk.
OK, Bob, we'll stipulate that TSA didn't take machines off line.
Prove it. Provide access to the maintenance and usage logs for the 430 machines and prove to us how many were actually used during the day in question. Also, video logs of the checkpoints would also provide evidence of the machines being used. Pony it up, Bob.
At ATL, they have two AIT machines, and 22 (or 24?) screening lines. Even if the machines are on and running, as long as you pick one of the other 20-ish lines, you won't be scanned or patted down (disregarding setting off metal detectors).
If a potential terrorist can bypass the AIT machines leaving from a major hub like ATL simply by choosing one of the other lines, then why should ANYONE be subjected to them? If (and this is a big if) 22 terrorists decided to attack a plane leaving from there, and they all arrived at the same time to the screening area, and each one picked a different lane (nevermind the fact that you can pick out the AIT lanes well in advance due to the machine size), only two of them would be scanned/groped. Assuming 22 lanes, 91% of the terrorists would make it past the checkpoint. I feel safer already!
Bradley, if Curtis posted that information we'd know he was lying.
Bob, "utterly and completely" doesn't make it any more false, but it does make you sound aggressive. You're officially in PR now and you need to remember that just because you've said something 100 times, doesn't mean your readers have heard it once. Keep that in mind.
"At times, machines could be shut down for routine maintenance, or maintenance issues."
Ah, of course. An unrelated series of isolated incidents.
Not surprising. It's not like you're going to say "Yes, we defused Opt Out day by not scanning anyone."
TSA spends more time spreading propaganda than catching terrorists.
Bob,
You left off part of your post.
For those of you so quick to call me a liar, realize that I'm stating what TSA's policy is. I'm not doubting than officers didn't turn off the machines that day. Mistakes are made... What I am stating is that it has never been TSA's policy
People, he's playing a word game.
"reports started coming in from blogs stating that TSA had intentionally shut down the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines."
The truth is the UNINTENTIONALLY shut down many of the AIT machines. It was a coincidence, nothing more, and anyone who refuses to believe it is a coincidence that many AIT machines were shut down is a conspiracy theorist.
Did I interpret that correctly, Bob?
Bob, don't micturate on my shoes and tell me it's raining. Pathetic.
Bob,
You stated in another thread that you just post TSA policy.
So are you saying it was not the policy to shut the machines, but it may be possible that officers shut them down anyway
The TSA only catches people who ACCIDENTALLY bring prohibited items through security. And people who accidentally do this are no threat to anyone.
Bob, show us the proof. We already have very very little reason to trust you. At least extend us the respect of substantiating your claims.
"TSA spends more time spreading propaganda than catching terrorists."
No, TSA spends more time spreading fear than catching terrorists.
Blogger Bob is lying. Otherwise he would show us the numbers.
Fact: TSA scannings and pat downs were creating public unrest before Thanksgiving
Fact: The media began to heavily scrutinize the TSA policy
Fact: The opt out day did not cause significant increase in security
Fact: Several travelors/media members noted that many AIT machines were inoperal on opt out day.
There are many possible reasons for security lines not increasing on opt out day.
1) Extra Security in place for the busy travel day
A number TSA could give us but won't
2) Fewer people traveling by air possibly due to TSA screening procedures
This number hopefully will become available in a couple of months
3) AIT machines being turned off and pat downs not being done on that day thus there would be no reason to protest and lines would not be delayed.
Blogger Bob has stated that wasn't TSA's policy on the day and gave excuses why it might appear to travelers that the machines were off, however frequent travelors have already noted that machines that are usually on and running were not that day and now are running again. Seems very suspicious...TSA will not release the daily numbers on passengers going through the AIT or pat downs because they want to try and lie to the public and make them think the majority of people are ok with people seeing them naked and touching their genitals while resistance to their procedures is slowly growing as more and more people become educated about these policies.
Give us the numbers of operating machines for that day and the same day a week earlier, as well as % of people selected to be strip searched by your machines that day and the same day a week earlier.
Bob, You are a liar. And we never set foot on the moon. Where is the TSA hiding Jimmy Hoffa?
CT
Hi Bob,
I'm afraid we've all seen far too many reports from people stating that the machines were switched off. A simple "It isn't true" is not going to cut it.
The only way to put this to bed is to publish the usage logs.... how many machines were running that day, and for how long, and how many enhanced pat downs were performed?
If the reports are to believed security was reduced to a minimum just so the TSA could claim a PR victory. If you want to convince us this isn't the case you'll have to produce hard facts.
cheers,
G.
I would like to distinguish myself from the other "anonymous" commentors by noting that I am in a position to actually *know*.
In my local airport, all AITs were operational, and other than a pair of women who came in with vulgar t-shirts, everything went smoothly and respect was shown by both passengers and officers.
I agree with some of the posters that there are areas where lack of coverage of the AITs leaves vulnerabilities in some airports.
I'm sure they, like me, will welcome the additional coverage as new units are deployed.
Ok, the TSA now owes me (and I daresay a lot of your regular readers) a new computer screen from making me spit coffee laughing at this one. Do you really expect anyone with half a brain to believe this blatant lie?
Sorry, the simple fact that the TSA spin machine has felt it necessary even to put this up is indication enough that public perception is not far off the mark. Do we believe you or our own lyin' eyes?
As more people become aware of these machines, more instances of the machines magically becoming unlabeled, and the TSA not explaining the AIT procedures to passengers. By doing this, they are basically getting a blind consent. "if the passenger doesn't know, we don't have to tell them!". how truly horrible.
This is just causing further bad publicity for the TSA and more growing distrust by the general public.
I am reminded of an incident when I was in High School back in the mid-70s. The district administration was flexing their authoritarian muscle in random and pointless ways [and even now as an adult with little to no patience with teenagers and their priorities, it is still pointless], and the activists in school were planning a walkout to protest it. Ten minutes before the planned walkout, the principle held an impromptu fire drill thus effectively silencing any staged outrage.
Hey Bob! Walter Luberecki doesn't work in the Planning & Protocols section of TSA does he? I mean, he'd be in his 80s by now, but with the pointless posturing you guys are going through it sounds just like him.
Land of the free?
"I'm sure they, like me, will welcome the additional coverage as new units are deployed."
Why would anyone welcome intrusive, ineffective, untested strip-search machines?
I fly through SJC almost weekly and had been directed through the machines each of my last three flights, but on my Thanksgiving trip (which was not on 11/24), no one appeared to be sent through them. In the two trips since, I have been directed through them both times. It's quite an uncomfortable, humiliating, and infuriating coincidence.
I passed through 3 major airports on Opt-out day (ATL, ORD, SFO), and saw AIT machines in use at all 3 - especially at Chicago (which as anyone that's been there will know, a few of the main screening areas are very visibly from the concourse).
I only went through security in ATL, and although I was personally directed to the X-ray machine, the 2 people in front of me, and the one behind all were sent through AIT. ie, Random, just like has always been stated.
"Why would anyone welcome intrusive, ineffective, untested strip-search machines?"
Simple. The sheep love the shepherd, because he protects them from wolves.
Not really, though. The shepherd eats mutton, too.
Hi Bob,
As a federal employee, I had to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As federal employees, do TSA employees have to take the same oath?
If so, how do they square that fact with the fact that they make their living violating the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What is the Constitutional basis for strip-searching (which is what AIT is) American citizens without probable cause or a warrant? Note: wishing to take a flight is not "probable cause." Thanks.
How about you show me the data.
This blog post isn't scientific enough to support any conclusion that it draws. It's completely empty word-vomit.
The Washington Times reports that the scanners have been found to be completely ineffective in detecting explosives. Washington Times
mike e said:
"The TSA only catches people who ACCIDENTALLY bring prohibited items through security. And people who accidentally do this are no threat to anyone."
what about the people that are caught that admit that they tried to bring a prohobited item on board. im sure anyone who is caught with anything will tell the truth and say that they didnt know that it was in there. its always noted on how the tsa lies to the public and shame on them for doing it, well how about all the times that they public lies to tsa? should they just be forgiven because they were doing the right thing and protecting themselves from the govt? too many dbl standards on here, we need a 3rd party to run it.
Hi Bob,
I really do appreciate you trying to put a human face on the TSA. I realize it's not an easy job and that you probably have to repeat TSA policy. However, the fact of the matter remains if you want to prove the machines are safe, that they catch terrorists, and that opt-out day was a "flop", then you'll need to provide some actual numbers -- numbers which up to this point no one outside the TSA has seen.
What is the failure rate for these machines? How quick is the backscatter shut down when a rasterization failure is detected? What is the success rate of the machines? How much time do they add to the lines? How many people went through each of the scanners on opt-out day? How many go through the scanners on a regular day?
When the TSA isn't even being 100% upfront about where the machines are it makes it impossible for anyone to do a benefit-cost analysis and truly justify this program. Until that happens the public has every right to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims.
Flying through IAD (Black Diamond Lanes) and STL (Terminal A) this week, both screening areas had AITs. However, going through IAD, the AIT was roped off. Went through the metal detector and was on my way. Arrived at STL and on my way pass the screening area, the AIT was in use for other passengers. 3 days later, going back through STL, both AITs were roped off and people were only going through the metal detectors. Glad I didn't have to get a pat down, but perhaps this is why more people aren't upset (because not everyone is being scanned in an AIT...)
A couple of standard posts:
Bob posts the propaganda;
people raise all kinds of interesting questions;
none of them get answered.
This blog is not a back-and-forth exchange, so why allow us to make comments?
Bob, we can't trust you, or anyone else working for the TSA. Get out of our airports.
Jeez people, cut him some slack regarding providing numbers. It takes time to fabricate that much data.
I have reached the point where I would rather fly on an airplane with no security at all than have to put up with the abuses of the TSA. The odds of being a victim to a terrorist attack are around 1 in 70 million, the odds of being abused going through airport security are closing in on 100 per cent.
Rock,
They allow us to make comments because it continues the pretense that they are open, and that this is an honest back and forth.
If they blocked all comments, it would get negative publicity. Please notice the post a few weeks ago where they angrily denied that they were censoring replies.
I have repeatedly asked pointed questions on this blog,nda the TSA Blogmeisters have repeatedly censored my questions.
I have repeatedly pointed out specific facts about this issue, and the TSA Blogmeisters have repeatedly censored my comments.
I have repeatedly posted quotes from numerous people who were abused by the TSA at different locations, and the TSA Blogmeisters have repeatedly censored those quotes.
Hey Blogmeisters, how does it feel to be betraying your fellow citizens by censoring the truth?
I traveled through multiple airports on multiple days during the Thanksgiving weekend. I would like to contend and clarify a few of your points:
· First off, everybody is not necessarily screened by AIT. I think people need to understand that TSA operates out of 450 + airports. Of these 450 + airports, 70 currently have AIT. There are a total of 430 machines in the field right now. (We’re working quickly to deploy more units to the field - above and beyond the 430).
I traveled in airports that do have the machines visible at checkpoints. Moreover, I have seen them working in at least one of the airports in past months.
· Even at airports with AIT machines, they are not yet deployed at all checkpoint lanes.
They were deployed at checkout lanes.
· At times, machines could be shut down for routine maintenance, or maintenance issues.
Is it standard procedure to shut down all AIT machines located at a given checkpoint for maintenance issues at the same time?
· If the technology just arrived at the airport, it's possible passengers would see a unit in the checkpoint but not in use. Several things have to happen before we can start using them, they have to be installed, tested and we have to fully train officers on how to use the technology.
I have seen these machines in the same airports several weeks ago. How long does it take to test these machines at train employees once they are in place?
So why did none of the airport checkout lanes that were at my checkpoints in these airports on these days not screen any passengers through the existing AIT machines? You still haven't actually answered the questions.
all of them were working at LAS i was working that day i know
The TSA opposes the rights of US citizens and our Constitution.
a friend of mine visited her family in Florida and when I ask her if she went trough the scanner or got a pat down, she replied "Neither. Not on the way there nor on the way back". So, TSA, you telling me my best friend is lying about that matter...Your organization is a farce and needs to be put in place.
Rock said
A couple of standard posts:
Bob posts the propaganda;
people raise all kinds of interesting questions;
none of them get answered.
This blog is not a back-and-forth exchange, so why allow us to make comments?
December 10, 2010 3:03 AM
Then it was followed by this post by Boomshadow
Bob, we can't trust you, or anyone else working for the TSA. Get out of our airports.
December 10, 2010 8:19 AM
-----------------------------------
It's ignorance like this that make a back and forth exchange impossible.
"As a federal employee, I had to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As federal employees, do TSA employees have to take the same oath?
If so, how do they square that fact with the fact that they make their living violating the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What is the Constitutional basis for strip-searching (which is what AIT is) American citizens without probable cause or a warrant? Note: wishing to take a flight is not "probable cause." Thanks."
Come on, Bob, please answer this.
Any response? It's pretty simple.
Can you answer, Bob?
Bob?
I understand that responses like this have to be somewhat vague and noncommittal. Releasing concrete data could reduce the effectiveness of the program. But I don't understand how this attitude of presumptive secrecy, however justified it may be, can be compatible with the TSA's claims of public support. How can the public support a program if the TSA has chosen to forbid informed decisions? The polls are irrelevant because the TSA has not released full-quality sample images so we can judge privacy issues. Passenger participation is irrelevant because many passenger don't know they can opt out, and don't know exactly what they're opting out of or what alternative they're opting into.
A poll I'd like to see? Ask just-screened travelers how much they know about the device they walked through. Show them full-quality sample images and ask if they would have accepted it in hindsight.
TSMWest said:
It's ignorance like this that make a back and forth exchange impossible.
-----------------------------------
No it's ignorance like this:
"proper procedures were followed"
that make a back and forth exchange impossible
TSM West said...
It's ignorance like this that make a back and forth exchange impossible.
Then cure us of our ignorance, TSA, and answer our questions!
TSM West, you're confusing ignorance and impolite mistrust.
Based on the data available (which includes mainstream news reports, not just blog anecdotes), it looks to us like the scan rate was intentionally reduced on national opt out day. Given that, and given the government's reaction leading up to NOOD, we're understandably suspicious.
Yes, there could be alternate explanations. In addition to Bob's points (which are not bad ones - I've seen subway turnstile upgrades, and they tend to be a royal pain for the poor staff to handle), there are a few others:
Some people are going to simply refuse to fly if they believe that they're going to have to choose between having naked pictures taken of them and being groped. (And yes, I agree with TSA defenders who say that most TSA agents aren't *trying* to feel you up - it would get boring fairly quickly. But from many descriptions, the pat-downs FEEL like a groping even if that's not what the patter intended.)
Most people schedule their flights a fair bit in advance; there wasn't all that much lead time for NOOD, so many people who might have participated may not have been flying then.
Poor weather may have discouraged impulse flyers who were planning on participating in NOOD (Bob probably has access to stats indicating whether impulse flights go up or down when the weather is bad).
Some privacy advocates have been recommending boycotting flying or avoiding US stopovers, both of which would prevent them from meaningfully participating in NOOD.
So - what actually happened? How did the scanner settings on NOOD compare to the scanner settings for the week before and the week after?
Boomshadow wrote:
Bob, we can't trust you, or anyone else working for the TSA. Get out of our airports.
TSMWest wrote:
It's ignorance like this that make a back and forth exchange impossible.
Considering that the TSA side of the discussion likes to pick the least relevant comments to respond to, you are actually telling the truth when you write about how comments like that impede discussion.
When I point out that there is a major discrepancy between procedure and practice, Blogger Bob prefers to respond to people like Boomshadow instead.
If I write one very lengthy substantive comment, and one short snarky comment, Bob always responds to the short one. Every time.
Bob, do I smell pants on fire?
Part 1 of 2:
There was a significant amount of press and blog coverage, including hundreds of pictures of innocent, ordinary citizens being groped like convicted felons simply for showing up at an airport attempting freedom of movement. Thanks to the internet, these pictures showing what really happens will not go away. They will haunt you and the rest of the TSA until you draw your final paycheck.
Documented stories of continued abuse keep coming in. These won't go away, either. Matt Drudge won't go away, either.
There is a new awareness that the backscatter machines produce x-rays which have been shown to cause cancer. The argument that the dose is less than your flight has fallen apart because peer-reviewed science and medical opinion has documented that this radiation, while a low dose, is heavily concentrated on the skin and creates significantly higher risk of skin cancer. Also related is the observation that former TSA and DHS officials were in executive or government board positions of companies selling these devices.
There was a print media story about screeners feeling like the victims at checkpoints and, from their perspective, being verbally abused by passengers calling them "perverts" and other labels. Screeners developing mental illness problems, including depression, was a predictable outcome of all of this intrusiveness. Regretfully, this will eventually lead to suicides when screeners can no longer cope.
Part 2 of 2:
Statistically, it is impossible to judge the success of National Opt-Out Day with any metrics. Outing out of an electronic strip search was only one type of "opt-out." There is no way to measure who many citizens took alternative forms of transportation rather than flying. The airlines will never reveal how many people canceled Thanksgiving tickets, even those who may have forfeited non-refundable fees. The airlines will never reveal how many ticket-holders were granted full refunds with fees waived. The TSA will never reveal measures it took to reduce the threat of massive opt-outs.
The past few months exposed many more Americans, many of whom who fly rarely or not at all, to the atrocities perpetuated by TSA screeners and endorsed by its leadership. Pictures of a screener with his hand in the crotch of a passenger or another screener pulling out the waistband of the pants of an ~80 year-old woman transcend one's flying history.
This organized resistance has only just begun. It will continue in the courts, hopefully in the new Congress, and, when you least expect it, at airports. TSA, you can't win. You have severely angered the American People.
My apologies -- I omitted the first three paragraphs when I broke up my post. These need to go first in order to put my Parts 1 & 2 in context. (I'll call this Part 0)
Part 0 of 2:
I admit that I fully supported, monetarily and in person, National Opt-Out Day. I'm proud of what we accomplished. It's only the first step towards taking back our country. While you gloat, along with having coopted the media, by stating that there were no lines, nobody was opting out, etc, it's necessary for The People to view this act of civil disobedience and protest from the "big picture" perspective.
It's clear that you reacted to minimize the visible effects of a large-scale opt-out. That is a major victory in of itself. You were scared of the American Public. That's a very good thing. Thomas Jefferson once said: "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The the government fears the People, there is freedom." There is ample conclusive evidence documented here, on Flyertalk, in the print & electronic media, and in blogs that checkpoint lines which are long for 364 days of the years were amazingly fast on Nov 23rd. Asserting that you did nothing different simply doesn't pass the giggle test. It doesn't matter if you turned off the machines, significantly lowered percentages for "nude-o-scope" screenings and friskings, or selected those people whom you predicted would not put up any resistance. You may think you succeeded, but, you didn't. We made you do somethings differently because you were downright scared of us.
We forced your senior leadership to engage in a media blitz to try to defend their unilateral actions and intrusive screenings. Comments ran the spectrum from: "It's not that bad." to "It's for your own good." to "If you don't like it, don't fly." Both of them were running scared and, especially Pistole, came across like a corrupt beat cop with a billy club. I predict neither of them will be around by the summer of 2011.
Perhaps the TSA believes it's ok to make claims without evidence to back it up? Where's the statistics how many COULD ACTUALLY opt out? But OH YEAH! That's why we "NEED" body scanners and enhanced pat downs. because the "WORK" to protect us from elderly genitals and four year old children. gotcha.
Here's the problem, Bob:
We don't believe you.
Ayn R Key said
Boomshadow wrote:
Bob, we can't trust you, or anyone else working for the TSA. Get out of our airports.
TSMWest wrote:
It's ignorance like this that make a back and forth exchange impossible.
Considering that the TSA side of the discussion likes to pick the least relevant comments to respond to, you are actually telling the truth when you write about how comments like that impede discussion.
When I point out that there is a major discrepancy between procedure and practice, Blogger Bob prefers to respond to people like Boomshadow instead.
If I write one very lengthy substantive comment, and one short snarky comment, Bob always responds to the short one. Every time.
December 13, 2010 1:16 AM
-----------------------------------
Sometimes I scratch my head wondering why much of the questions aren't answered, especially when they could make things clearer to everyone. I have posted several answers that were never posted that I felt would shed some light on the questions that were being asked. When I don't see them I ask myself if I posted SSI. For the most part I don't see some of my answers as SSI because we do the procedures in front of the passengers and anyone who wants to watch. But I do know that Bob isn't the final decision on what gets posted. Guidelines have to be set up by someone from at least the legal department and they have to be followed.
You posted a very civil response to my last post. I have to be honest, when I submitted it I expected a lot of backlash. I appriciate the way you handled your response and vow that I will try to give the best answers to any question that I'm in a position to answer.
I try not to answer too many that call TSOs perverts and pedophiles because frankly my blood starts boiling when I read them. The same people that calls the TSOs perverts for looking at naked pictures are the same ones that continually say that TSA hasn't posted the real pictures that the AIT actually shows. So I have to ask, why would anyone be that disrespectful by calling people perverts for looking at naked pictures when they admit that have never seen an actual picture that the machine produces. These are the kind of comments that I feel hinders a back and forth dialog. Now RB and everyone else can take all of the shots at me that they want, but unless you have seen real pictures that TSA looks at, and if you have then stop saying that TSA doesn't show the real pictures, all of those comments are only meant to drag down the organization with out facts.
I look forward to a meaningful back and forth dialog.
So - what actually happened? How did the scanner settings on NOOD compare to the scanner settings for the week before and the week after?
December 13, 2010 12:51 AM
I transited DFW and LAS TSA checkpoints over the last couple of weeks.
The Strip Search Machine (just one) at the DFW checkpoint I went through was roped off.
Going through LAS at the D gates checkpoint all Strip Search Machines were not being used. This was on a busy Friday afternoon.
Also noted, my flight from DFW to LAS was less than half full and the flight returning to DFW was only about half full.
I have never seen flights with so many open seats on the route before and I have made any number of trips from DFW to LAS.
I think the public is voting with their wallets and TSA is going to put the airlines into bankruptcy with these excessive and invasive forms of screening that have no relationship to the real risk to air travel.
The Rapiscan machines at O'Hare Terminal 1 were powered on ( Rapidscan logo was displayed on the LCD) but all passengers were being directed through traditional metal detectors.
I was pulled aside for extra screening and all they did was swab my hands and run them through the chemical detector.
I was relieved to not be forced to choose between flying home and being humiliated.
This was on Sunday evening, returning home from Thanksgiving.
TSM West said...
It's ignorance like this that make a back and forth exchange impossible.
---
It's telling that the response from a TSM is not "what can we do to regain that trust?", but instead "well, I guess we have nothing else to talk about! I'm taking my ball and going home!"
TSMWest said:
"I have posted several answers that were never posted "
------------------------------------
That would point to the TSA not wanting any intelligent back and forth.
TSM West said in part.............
"So I have to ask, why would anyone be that disrespectful by calling people perverts for looking at naked pictures when they admit that have never seen an actual picture that the machine produces. These are the kind of comments that I feel hinders a back and forth dialog. Now RB and everyone else can take all of the shots at me that they want, but unless you have seen real pictures that TSA looks at, and if you have then stop saying that TSA doesn't show the real pictures, all of those comments are only meant to drag down the organization with out facts.
I look forward to a meaningful back and forth dialog."
December 13, 2010 9:38 PM
......
Well since you are calling me out West I will respond.
TSA has posted images of the Strip Search Machines claiming that they are exactly what TSA employees see. Then later Bob posts a piece saying he never said the images posted were exactly what TSA employees see. So what are we to believe? Which statement was not truthful?
Earlier on TSA claimed the images were safe for young children to view yet has never posted evidence to support that claim.
I offered to be screened by WBI, review the image and report back here on what I saw. TSA never accepted my offer.
There have been any number of reports from people who have seen the images claiming that the image is extremely revealing and even details sweat on a persons back.
I ask you West, what would you have the public believe? An agency that has been pretty loose with the truth or media sources who say something different than what TSA is putting out?
Many requests for the images have been made, here and in other forums. TSA could easily release images and the only reason I can accept that TSA has not is because they know the backlash resulting from public knowledge of what TSA is really doing.
I suggest that TSA release images of a person being screened (I again volunteer) of both Backscatter and MMW without any targets on the person and prove to the public that the images are simply chalky outlines as has been claimed by TSA.
I'm guessing that TSA will not release these images because they know doing so would prove the disinformation campaign that TSA has been using to sway the public into accepting being Strip Searched just in order to fly on a commercial airplane.
Based on the best information I have today the images are very revealing and in my opinion looking at these images, especially those of children, is exactly as you stated, perverted.
You may not like that term but your bosses are the ones responsible for these claims.
Blame TSA not the public.
TSM West wrote:
Sometimes I scratch my head wondering why much of the questions aren't answered, especially when they could make things clearer to everyone. I have posted several answers that were never posted that I felt would shed some light on the questions that were being asked. ... I appriciate the way you handled your response and vow that I will try to give the best answers to any question that I'm in a position to answer.
I appreciate your attempting to answer questions. Unfortunately my most recent question, where I ask Bob to address the discrepancy between what the policies are and the actual front line activities, is something I think only Bob can answer.
I'm not asking him to violate the privacy act, he doesn't have to say "TSO Ron was disciplined in this way for this violation of the rules." I'd like a clear cut "TSOs who do X can expect Y." I know that there will still be implementation issues as this filters down through the ranks, but a clear cut standard of that sort is exactly what the TSA needs to address the many issues of TSOs making headlines for all sorts of instances of "going above and beyond."
Many on this board already know policy pretty well, or at least as much as is made public. I have personally informed TSOs at LAX that it is not TSA policy that shoes must be placed directly on the belt instead of in a bin.
It is a very minor issue, true, but the point of that minor issue is that it was yet another of the many occasions where there was a disconnect between policy and front line activity. Sometimes they yield, sometimes they shout again about how shoes must be on the belt, and one time they removed my shoes from the bin and put them on the belt for me.
That's a truly minor and petty example, but it is yet another example of what I see as a systemic problem of the
TSA, where the TSOs are not given clear directions on what they cannot do. Yes, they know the parts about what they should do, but do they know the parts about what they should not do and do they know what the consequences are for them doing so? Unfortunately, under the current system, as far as critics of the TSA can tell, there is nothing that they are restricted from doing and there is no punishment for going beyond policy, unless the violation is so very egregious that there is no way to ignore it.
I don't care about the naked part of this debate, specifically I don't care if someone sees me naked. Its not like none of us have ever seen a naked person before.
I do care about the radiation dose of this debate and I do care about the *requirement* of being required to strip (actually or effectively) for the 'privilege' of flying.
About 98% of the time and in about 95% of this great land we call the United States, if I were to strip naked for something in 'public' I would be arrested and added to some list of criminals. But if I do it in the airport its OK, expected even?
And then:
RB said "...I suggest that TSA release images of a person being screened (I again volunteer) of both Backscatter and MMW without any targets on the person and prove to the public that the images are simply chalky outlines as has been claimed by TSA."
I will volunteer myself for the MMW image and offer full use of the image and anything/everything it reveals to anyone and everyone interested. You can even use my real name on/with/for the image if it makes a difference for the offer.
[[I have to ask, why would anyone be that disrespectful by calling people perverts for looking at naked pictures ...]]
This is the relevant portion of your [I've gotta believe rhetorical] question. I mean, do you really expect people to have any answer besides the one you won't like?
Here's that answer: because it bad enough that people are put into the position of having to be peeped against their INFORMED consent, but to be **compelled** to do so by their government is frankly disgusting.
[[These are the kind of comments that I feel hinders a back and forth dialog.]]
And again: now you know how the rest of us feel when we attempt to tell you that we are offended, appalled, disgusted, outraged, "blood-boiled", mortified, humiliated, demeaned, and every other negative adjective we've ever used when we are treated like criminals by our own government until we prove we are NOT criminals. And in [now] such grotesque ways.
In fact, because of the consistently corrupt "interpretation" of the 4thAM which has found the invisible-ink exclusion of "Administrative Search", common citizens who are not "officially" suspected of criminal activity are treated WORSE than criminal suspects. The government is required to get a warrant to search a criminal suspect; common citizens just trying to get through their day are subject to bossy, nosy, intrusive government shake-downs and arrogant explanations as to why we must submit or face civil penalty.
You are effectively telling air passengers: "We have the authority to treat you worse than criminals, and if you object too strenuously we can penalize you for it."
Do you seriously believe that your agency's attitude - which predates everyone's response to it, by the way - is the way to START a polite and respectful dialog?
[[RB and everyone else can take all of the shots at me that they want...]]
I'm curious to see how many legitimate responses - such as mine - will actually be allowed on your duck-n-cover website ...
[[RB and everyone else can take all of the shots at me that they want, but unless you have seen real pictures that TSA looks at...]]
Another vacuous rationalization. "Unless you're in our shoes you don't have any valid input."
Two can play that same game. ...so I will:
Unless you're a passenger who does not willingly and without INFORMED consent submit to your new searches, and objects to the grotesquely intrusive, offensive, humiliating and demeaning lengths to which you treat us - without actually saying the words - as if we were terrorists, you have no business saying whether or not our descriptions of the agents who compel our participation are helpful or productive descriptions.
[[I look forward to a meaningful back and forth dialog.]]
No, I really doubt that.
A "meaningful back/forth dialog" requires that the sides participating accept the basic position of the other side.
I don't think you'll find more than a handful of desperate luddites who do not accept the need for air security. Such luddites rarely comment on the internet. The internet is just another one of their many enemies. The rest of us understand the need for air security; just not for whatever-it-is that you're doing.
It's now your turn: acknowledge the common citizens' quest, plea and demand for dignified treatment by their own government, and for their rights AS WRITTEN [and not the endlessly dilluted monstrosities that have erupted like pus-filled zits on the Constitution over the last century]. Do we deserve to be treated as the free citizens in the free society we were promised to be treated like?
Here's your chance, West. Don't let me down.
[And it's your chance, Bob, to demonstrate your agency's commitment to free speech and honest dialog, as well. To date, you've only posted two of my seven comments - none of which, by the way, violates your free-speech-denying rules.]
This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with conditioning....hmmm can anyone guess what we're being conditioned for?
Dr. Pavlov's methods didn't stop with dogs....Anyone hear a bell ringing?
Homeland of the Free...
If the images were not graphic and revealing, then the -- separate room far away from the passenger + image supposably shown to the reviewer a blurred face + agent who selected passenger for AIT doesn't see the image -- wouldn't all be needed would it? Plus, even in the news media airport AIT interviews, the computer screens have varied by quite a bit, even to compare to the official pictures here on this site they are different.
Common sense just says something is off. Even the image pictures posted by the AIT machines don't match the pictures on the website, why is that? Because people wouldn't go thru the machines + would ask too many q's at the airport?
I may have initially written a comment that suggested TSM West's response was arrogant (in response to another posters comment was ignorant). But that post was censored. This one may be too, but I'm just responding to his comment on no backlash....
I do think TSM West has good intentions with respect to his job + staff team. But based on the AIT images on this website alone, they are really too graphic. And the news media constantly has different images (ie., airport interviews and showing of computer screens), so its not really fair to say that we the public haven't been shown the images when its presented to us that we have, and they are for the most part inconsistent. Plus, we are told that "privacy algorithms" are in place, and who knows when or how often those change.
TSMWest said:
"But I do know that Bob isn't the final decision on what gets posted"
...
"I look forward to a meaningful back and forth dialog."
West - riddle me this: how can you have meaningful back and forth dialog when someone else gets to decide what will or will not be posted? Until everyone here is allowed to speak freely, both TSA and the public, there will be no "meaningful dialogue" Just more of the same that's been here all along - legitimate questions left unanswered, frustration due to such and devolution into name calling on both sides. If you really desire a dialogue, then there are other places to have it - FlyerTalk is one of those places - that does not censor (although the name calling is still there).
I don't think the images matter - considering the machines have been shown not to be effective. It is also interesting to note that all of the news ports that i have seen in the past 2 weeks about scanners being deployed all mention that they are the millimeter wave scanners. Wonder if they are pulling back on the x-ray ones?
There are other alternatives out there, but the TSA is choosing not to use them. Whether it be IR scanner or dogs, or more BDO's.
Why do they continue to push them? My guess is because they have already spent the money and are weary of more negative PR surrounding these 150k paperweights. Come on TSA lets move on and spend the money on more effective security measures.
On a side note i would also like to comment about the lack of TSO training. I wear hearing aids. Both of which cost me $2500 each, and set off the metal detectors despite people saying otherwise. Every time i hit a checkpoint it is the same thing. I take them off and show them to the TSO before i go through the metal detector. Some take them and hand them back to me after i go through. Some tell me i need to put them in the X-Ray machine, which i will not do because of the cost of the instruments. Then others will sigh and yell something, holding up the hearing aids. I then get pulled over and they make me wait till they are swabbed. Different airports, different screening, different procedures. Not good.
There is a huge disconnect between TSA policy and what is going on in the field. Which is the position that Bob is in. He can tell us TSA policy all day long, but we are telling you Bob that is not how things are working in the field.
The TSA needs to set up an "ambassador" program where one person is on duty whos job it is to have direct contact with the TSA in the event of a screening issue. This would do away with i would say 99% of the screening issues. One person, with a telephone, treating a passenger with respect to properly resolve a situation. Instead of yelling TSO's and TSO supervisors threatening people with arrest and stuffing people in a see through box for 1hr. Lady with baby formula, person with cooler of applesauce, man with urine bag. All could have been resolved with a simple phone call to TSA HQ. Small changes like this will go a long way.
For those of you who believe their comments have been censored there is always this avenue to complain:
DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov
Keep screen shots of your comments, like I will do with this one, until you see them posted.
---
Three great posts, Freedom Fighter - even if they were out of order. :-)
screeners have always been rude beyond belief. @ this point i will drive or take the train. this has all gone too far
The Government / TSA is creating nude images of children including showing children's genitalia in graphic detail. The TSA is lying to us about the resolution of the images that are being created and viewed. The government is producing and viewing child pornography every single day, and it does not matter if the faces are blurred or if the images are not INTENTIONALLY saved (All windows based PCs automatically save every image on the hard drive)
How and why is the TSA exempt from child pornography laws?
Why is there virtually NO mention or discussion of this issue on the news?
Ross Williams answered
[[I have to ask, why would anyone be that disrespectful by calling people perverts for looking at naked pictures ...]]
If you are going to quote me, at least put the whole quote in so that it doesn't benefit your cause
This is the whole statement
So I have to ask, why would anyone be that disrespectful by calling people perverts for looking at naked pictures when they admit that have never seen an actual picture that the machine produces.
------------------------------
Then he went on to say
And again: now you know how the rest of us feel when we attempt to tell you that we are offended, appalled, disgusted, outraged, "blood-boiled", mortified, humiliated, demeaned, and every other negative adjective we've ever used when we are treated like criminals by our own government until we prove we are NOT criminals. And in [now] such grotesque ways.
In fact, because of the consistently corrupt "interpretation" of the 4thAM which has found the invisible-ink exclusion of "Administrative Search", common citizens who are not "officially" suspected of criminal activity are treated WORSE than criminal suspects. The government is required to get a warrant to search a criminal suspect; common citizens just trying to get through their day are subject to bossy, nosy, intrusive government shake-downs and arrogant explanations as to why we must submit or face civil penalty.
You are effectively telling air passengers: "We have the authority to treat you worse than criminals, and if you object too strenuously we can penalize you for it."
I do in fact understand your frustrations. No one is trying to treat any one like a criminal. The TSOs have a job to do and it's not an easy job. There is no template for what a terrorist looks like. Are they supposed to just take your word for it that you aren't one.
The 4th Amendment issue keeps coming up. Everyone knows when they leave their house to go to the airport that they will have to go through some kind of screening in order to get to their gate and board their airplane. For those that say they have a contract with the airlines, you do but in order for the airlines to be held accountable to honor that contract they expect you to go through the screeniong process. If they told you no screening was required, this could be a different conversation.
Our country does not profile. In order to not give an impression of profiling, the decision was made for everyone to undergo the same screening requirements. These decisions were made by your elected officials. The TSOs only enforce what they tell them to do.
As far as yelling, sometimes when its busy and the xray operators are calling excessive bag checks, TSOs will loudly try to tell everyone at the same time to remove liquids as an example. Instead of doing it one on one. I don't agree with it and usually instruct my Supervisors to correct that issue when I see it.
Now as far as "you must submit or face civil penalties". That comes from the Law. And as so often reminded, TSOs aren't LEOs. Reports are generated based on incidents and investigated by the Regulatory side of TSA, who can impose civil penalties.
TSMWest said... "The 4th Amendment issue keeps coming up. Everyone knows when they leave their house to go to the airport that they will have to go through some kind of screening in order to get to their gate and board their airplane. For those that say they have a contract with the airlines, you do but in order for the airlines to be held accountable to honor that contract they expect you to go through the screeniong process. If they told you no screening was required, this could be a different conversation."
~~~~
A straw-man argument at best. The Airlines are obligated to screen me before boarding the airplane. The do not, however, obligate me to interact with the TSA in anyway. The FAA sets the rules for airlines, airplanes, pretty much everything to do with, for, and around the airport. And they do not obligate me to interact with the TSA. In fact, I am surprised the FAA doesn't put up more of a fight in the turf-battle of who has control of the airports.
The TSA has put themselves between me and the airlines. I get my ticket first, *then* go through TSA, then continue on with my flying. You, the TSA, are a middle man between me and my travels and serve as an obstacle to my completing the contract of business that my ticket creates between me and the airlines.
Or, from a different angle, it is/was not the airlines that went to the Government and said "Please do security for us, we are not capable ourselves." Homeland Security intervened in the process and said "We will take care of security because you are not capable."
Spin. Propaganda. Pick an adjective and pick any description you like.... anyway you slice it you, the TSA, are in the middle of the process by your own design and placing your own demands on a system that you were not asked to be a part of.
In the very simplest of explanations, and yes I am oversimplifying the example, you are Government Interference to a level so far above and beyond anything that could be explained away by simply waving your hand and saying "Commerce Clause" that your whole operation needs to be shut down right now, today, before anymore harm is done to our economy, our liberties, and our way of life. You, the TSA, are the absolute antithesis of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
you people are funny! Flying isnt a right at all. Its a privilage. If you do not like the measures set forth for security, take greyhound. You might even get to sit next to a bum who hasnt showered in weeks.
As for the guy who said is it normal to shut down the AIT lane for lunch...well...when you go on break at your job, is your work put on hold? I'd assume so, unless you have some slackee to do it for you.
Open your minds kids, terrorists have been averted from the airlines BECAUSE of the extensive security measures. They now do other actions. Check the news I'd say.
The elected officials did not tell the TSA to violate the 4th amend. by rolling out strip search machines and aggressive pat downs. The procedure are supposed to be "minimally intrusive", which right now they definitely are not. Our elected officials are scrambling to make things right, and the TSA is fumbling to stand up for itself, meanwhile forgetting its supposed to protect the public and not hurt them during the safety process.
As has been stated, it needs to be BALANCED, not 'give all for safety.'
Anon said
The Government / TSA is creating nude images of children including showing children's genitalia in graphic detail. The TSA is lying to us about the resolution of the images that are being created and viewed. The government is producing and viewing child pornography every single day, and it does not matter if the faces are blurred or if the images are not INTENTIONALLY saved (All windows based PCs automatically save every image on the hard drive)
How and why is the TSA exempt from child pornography laws?
Why is there virtually NO mention or discussion of this issue on the news?
December 17, 2010 7:36 AM
-----------------------------------
Probably because it's not true.
Seriously, don't you think the media would be all over that?
Oh I forgot, there's a conspiracy with the media also.
Anonymous said...
you people are funny! Flying isnt a right at all. Its a privilage. If you do not like the measures set forth for security, take greyhound
..........................
So if as you believe that flying is not a right then why would be traveling by bus be any more of a right?
Traveling is clearly a right. The method of travel does not matter at all.
TSM West, you say "everyone has to go through some sort of screening." However, the Constitution says that has to be reasonable. Do you honestly think it's reasonable to ask law-abiding Americans to put up their hands and have a nude picture taken of them, all for the privilege of flying, with the only recourse being a search in which a government agent feels their genitals? Seriously, is this reasonable? Would you accept this level of government intrusion in any other aspect of your life? Terrorists attack malls and churches and sporting events and hotels; maybe people should be strip-searched there too. After all, it's a privilege to shop, not a right.
I have elderly parents. I would love to take one last long trip with them. However, if it happens, it will not be by air. I will not collude in forcing an elderly couple to put up their hands and have a naked picture taken of them, or in having them groped by government agents. I'm ashamed there are people in this country who make a living doing such things.
I was there at SLC on "opt out" day. All of us had to go through what you call the AIT screener. There were no protesters. We were going to grandma's for Thanksgiving, in TX. Everything but the turkey had jello or marshmallows or sugar in it, so at least the plane ride was healthy as they didn't serve anything! So I was naked scanned, then felt up in public, then my palms were screened for bomb residue. My husband sailed right through and luckily picked up my purse and laptop on the other end. Before she felt my chest, the woman asked if I wanted to go to a private room. I knew that would take time and didn't want to miss our flight so I allowed her to do it in public partially because of time but also to let others in line know what was being done to me. I'm a normal, US citizen, age 52 who loves my country and can't figure out why I'm singled out every time for additional security. I'd be part of your former "frequent flyer" program but as you no longer recognize the agencies who vet people to actually get through TSA quickly, it's no use. That's just one trip. I dread others, and think I get so flustered by laundry and packing and dropping off the dog with all her stuff and driving to the airport I'm stressed. Now since TSA pulls me over every time for extra scrutiny I'm even more stressed about flying! My husband goes right through even toting TX BBQ and my purse is scanned multiple times and my breasts are touched because I committed the sin of wearing an underwire bra. EVERY TIME. They were at least nice in SLC.
[[No one is trying to treat any one like a criminal.]]
Yet you're succeeding very well, regardless. What's it called when you succeed at something you ARE NOT trying to accomplish, and are NOT succeeding at what you ARE trying to accomplish? Technically, the term is "perverse results" - which is quite ironic, considering. But other terms that adequately describe it are "tyranny", "governmental ineptitude". "tyranny", "mindless bureaucracy", "tyranny", etc
It doesn't matter what you "TRY" to do; it only matters what you DO do. And if what you DO do is wrong...? Then you are immoral, besides.
"Try? There is no try. There is only do, or not do."
- Yoda
[[There is no template for what a terrorist looks like.]]
I imagine you put that in for the comedic effect, right? "Loosen up the audience with a joke"? Izzat it?
[[Our country does not profile.]]
More humor. Look, if you want to throw jokes around, we can have a rip-roarin' good time. I've got a good joke about a kid looking for a lost nickel, here:
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/2010/02/seeing-light.html
But if you want to have a serious conversation, then it'd be best to knock off with the comedy. Comedy that is intended for serious consideration is, at best, a lie.
And that statement of yours - if taken on its face - is a WHOPPER.
The fact of the matter is, West, our country profiles all the time. LEOs have active profiles for all manner of crime, and every law enforcement outfit of any size [including FBI, all states' police, and most of the larger cities' police departments] has professional profilers on staff - usually highly trained psychologists.
It is a common misconception, based on gross ignorance, that "profiling" is, by necessity, a form of racial stereotyping for convenient and superficial ends. In reality, race plays a minor role in profiling if it plays at all, and - when it IS used - it is usually because of the geographical area in which crimes are being committed.
An effective profile for an air passenger intent on air sabotage would include certain background characteristics, certain affiliations, certain means of travel, certain behaviors, and quite likely a certain
religion. It would NOT include a certain race [or pseudo-race, for those who don't know what they're talking about - such as those who are knee-jerk against "profiling"].
[[In order to not give an impression of profiling, the decision was made for everyone to undergo the same screening requirements. These decisions were made by your elected officials.]]
Incorrect again, West.
Congress [the elected officials in question] gave TSA the **authority** to create "security"; the hows and whys and wherefores of that security were and are created by the regulatory agency [i.e., TSA under DHS] itself, and not by Congress. You know that and I know that.
It was **Panetta** who declared that everyone would go through the same procedure. It was his edict, made [in part] because of his prior experience with faux-"profiling" during WWII. Panetta was not - at that time - an elected official. He was a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat without an honest ability to make that decision because of his previous childhood emotional trauma.
...so now everyone else gets to suffer that same emotional trauma, because he did in 1942. Beautiful, ainnit?
[[The 4th Amendment issue keeps coming up.]]
With good reason: you're violating it.
[[Everyone knows when they leave their house to go to the airport that they will have to go through some kind of screening in order to get to their gate and board their airplane.]]
And those who've actually read the Constitution knows it's wrong, too. What's your point? That "wrong" suddenly becomes "right" by dint of being put into effect? IOW: the old "rule of law" argument?
Here's the thing, West: "rule of law" is the first excuse used by the tyrant to justify his tyranny. Hitler used that excuse, Stalin used it, Mussolini used it, Hussein used it, Ahmadinejad uses it, Li'l Kim uses it, Chavez and Castro both use it ... Getting the picture?
In case you skipped this class in school, we in the US are supposed to exist under a different philosophy of governmental authority: "Rule of Liberty". It's not often stated that way, no, but that is still what it is: the Law's first purpose is to protect our rights from encroachment by the government first and foremost. So, to answer your other question:
[[Are they supposed to just take your word for it that you aren't [a terrorist?]]]
The answer, West, is "Yes". I think you know that and I think you know WHY, as well: because if the government truly suspected I WAS a terrorist, then - apart from taking my security clearance - they'd have more than enough ammunition to justify one of those pesky "probable cause warrants" that the Constitution requires. But the government does NOT suspect so, and so in order to continue maintaining the fear-factor that keeps the fretful sheep in nervous twitch-mode, you have to make vague and insulting claims that "everyone is as likely to be a terrorist as anyone else". ...which is a lie for the purpose of furthering an agency's non-Constitutional power.
And you have to broadly, universally dismiss everyone's Constitutional rights by making anyone who protests your treatment sound as if they are, instead, supporting Terrorism, to wit: "Are they supposed to just take your word for it that you aren't [a terrorist?]"
[[For those that say they have a contract with the airlines, you do but in order for the airlines to be held accountable to honor that contract they expect you to go through the screeniong process.]]
Exactly who do you think you're talking to, here? I'm not a bumpkin that you can bamboozle with sleight-of-hand loyyerese. The only reason the airlines' contracts specify the governmental pawing is BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THAT LANGUAGE IN THE TICKET CONTRACT.
You cannot blame the airlines for imposing governmental requirements when the government required them to do it. Is the ballpark to blame for not selling beer to anyone under 21? Did MLB come up with that one, too? How desperate are you to wash your hands of complicity, here?
--------------
I have to apologize, West; I think I overestimated your integrity. I made the assumption that you'd already be aware that one of the basic rules of "meaningful back and forth dialog" precludes gross dishonesty.
I thought you'd have understood that. Apparently you don't.
If you want that meaningful back and forth dialog, please stop lying. You are, in actual effect here, an agent of the government. I don't think I need to remind you what happens when Americans believe their government is lying to them. Bush got no end of grief; Clinton got impeached; Bush the Elder got diselected over "Read my lips...". The list goes on.
Please, dude; stop while you're merely behind.
Do Americans deserve to be treated like the free citizens in the free society they were promised to be? or don't they?
Bob,
Could you please cite the exact law that is behind the TSA screening procedures?
Guys - It doesn't matter. The scanners do not work. The TSA relied on manufacturer tests, not independent study. It is a show. It is another example of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted through the efforts of corporate lobbyists.
The latest from the US Army public Health Command, the guys the TSA said inspects their equipment, is that they were only asked to inspect machines at THREE airports. And only once! Yikes.
TSM West - All you guys have to do is have one person with a telephone. Someone has a problem and you say "Sir/Ma'am whats the problem? Can you please step over here so i can make a phone call to HQ and get a clarification?" That would solve 99% of the incidents. Instead of.. "Shut up" "Don't interfere" "get in the box" "do you want to be arrested?" "do you want to be fined 11k?"
Anon said
TSM West, you say "everyone has to go through some sort of screening." However, the Constitution says that has to be reasonable. Do you honestly think it's reasonable to ask law-abiding Americans to put up their hands and have a nude picture taken of them, all for the privilege of flying, with the only recourse being a search in which a government agent feels their genitals? Seriously, is this reasonable? Would you accept this level of government intrusion in any other aspect of your life? Terrorists attack malls and churches and sporting events and hotels; maybe people should be strip-searched there too. After all, it's a privilege to shop, not a right.
I have elderly parents. I would love to take one last long trip with them. However, if it happens, it will not be by air. I will not collude in forcing an elderly couple to put up their hands and have a naked picture taken of them, or in having them groped by government agents. I'm ashamed there are people in this country who make a living doing such things.
December 19, 2010 11:59 PM
-----------------------------------
I absolutely do not think it's reasonable to take naked pictures of people or in your words have government agents feel peoples genitals. If that were happening those people would be going to jail. But thats not whats happening. Again I'm going to ask for you or anyone else that keeps saying that the images that TSO's see are naked pictures to produce even one of those pictures. The media has seen the images that the machines produce. Do you hear any of them crying for criminal indictments.
TSA Stands for TRANSPORTATION Security Administration, emphasizing on the word Transportation, so the malls, churches and any other areas you talk about are handles by other agencies.
I wish I still had my parents to be able to take trips with. Don't let your own blind misguided feelings toward the Government keep you from spending time with them. You will regret it.
SSS said
A straw-man argument at best. The Airlines are obligated to screen me before boarding the airplane. The do not, however, obligate me to interact with the TSA in anyway. The FAA sets the rules for airlines, airplanes, pretty much everything to do with, for, and around the airport. And they do not obligate me to interact with the TSA. In fact, I am surprised the FAA doesn't put up more of a fight in the turf-battle of who has control of the airports.
The TSA has put themselves between me and the airlines. I get my ticket first, *then* go through TSA, then continue on with my flying. You, the TSA, are a middle man between me and my travels and serve as an obstacle to my completing the contract of business that my ticket creates between me and the airlines.
Or, from a different angle, it is/was not the airlines that went to the Government and said "Please do security for us, we are not capable ourselves." Homeland Security intervened in the process and said "We will take care of security because you are not capable."
Spin. Propaganda. Pick an adjective and pick any description you like.... anyway you slice it you, the TSA, are in the middle of the process by your own design and placing your own demands on a system that you were not asked to be a part of.
In the very simplest of explanations, and yes I am oversimplifying the example, you are Government Interference to a level so far above and beyond anything that could be explained away by simply waving your hand and saying "Commerce Clause" that your whole operation needs to be shut down right now, today, before anymore harm is done to our economy, our liberties, and our way of life. You, the TSA, are the absolute antithesis of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
December 18, 2010 6:24 PM
-----------------------------------
Theres no straw man argument here. Pre 9/11 airports had screening by private security comapnies regulated by the FAA. Screening has been a part of the flying experience for at least 40 years give or take a few years that I know of. Over the years more and more restrictions were placed on what people could take on airplanes and the companies mitigated the threats based on the technology they had. Now we have a different era and different threats. Same Government different agency responsible for the oversight. As the threats evolve the screening processes change to meet those threats. All of those tests that the people gladly cite that TSA misses items are tests designed to find our volnerabilities in the procedures. Once we find them we look for the ways to make our detections better. New technology and new procedures are ways to fill the gaps older procedures created.
The TSA is not the middle man and did not design this process of screening people befor getting on airplanes. This process was here long before them. So you can spin it anyway you want.
In a very simple explanation for you because it seems that thats the way you need it, I will say again, when you leave your home before coming to the airport to get on an airplane you know that you will need to undergo a screening process. At any time before submitting yourself for that process you can change your mind. If you do then no screening needs to be done. If you dont then you gave your consent to be screened.It's as simple as that.
Whether you feel the processes are reasonable or not is not the question,thats for the courts to decide, the question is did you know you would have to undergo the screening process when you got to the airport. I believe the answer would be yes, unless you lived in a cave all of your life with no outside communication.
4-inch serrated knife in a seat pocket. Good thing we have all of this security theater to make us feel safe. The TSA lies blatently and is amazingly ineffective.
TSO West said:
"If you dont then you gave your consent to be screened.It's as simple as that."
Please cite your basis for this claim. I have never consented to be searched and I fly 10-15 times/yr.
And, yes, I'm talking about the legal basis. Case law would be good.
I think the TSA will soon be taken apart via judicial means. Put me on a jury and I'm going to be very sympathetic to the defendent (if accused by the TSA) or the plaintiff (if suing the TSA). I will be very sceptical of any TSA testimony or evidence given the propensity to be untruthful.
TSO West said:
"Whether you feel the processes are reasonable or not is not the question,thats for the courts to decide, the question is did you know you would have to undergo the screening process when you got to the airport. I believe the answer would be yes, unless you lived in a cave all of your life with no outside communication."
In which case, you likely got your TSO job when an old pizza box blew into your cave. One year security experience? Guarding the cave entrance.
For godsake, West, stop rationalizing.
[[If that were happening those people would be going to jail. But thats not whats happening.]]
The government is the only outfit that can legally do a lot of otherwise illegal things.
Like running Ponzi schemes. SocSec? if a large industry ran its pension program like the government runs SocSec, they'd be in jail for financial fraud. Instead, we have the SSA redefining what a ponzi is to specifically exclude government programs and reclassify them as "insurance" and "trust funds" [which operate completely unlike every other insurance program or trust fund ever created]. And see? It's MAGIC!!
Your own procedures call for running hands up the inside of the leg until "resistance" is felt. That "resistance" can be one of two things, West:
1] contraband, or
2] genitals.
Your own PR describes the backscatter technology as a method of seeing what is under clothing yet not inside the body, and with a high degree of clarity. That interface boundary is called - medically - "skin", or what's next to it.
So let's see if you can add 2 and 2 and get a positive integer here:
your machines ... can see the skin of the people put into them ... and transmits the images to a secured area ... where an agent sees that image ...
Yet somehow, in your distorted sense of reality, when your agent sees a traveller's skin, it is not a naked image.
Are you listening to yourself?
I'd ask what color the sky is in your world, but I'm certain the answer is going to be "Increased Threat Level Orange".
[[I'm going to ask for you or anyone else that keeps saying that the images that TSO's see are naked pictures to produce even one of those pictures.]]
Google for "TSA AGENT FIRED" and one of the incidents you will find coming up in the result list is the episode during one of the backscatter training sessions where a male agent was scanned and then had several comments made about his ... "junkless" drawers. [Are you going to blanch at that, Bob?] The agent took offense at the descriptions and ribbing and assaulted one of his jokers.
He was fired afterward.
So, West, you tell me: Are they naked images or not? And if you still wish to maintain that they are not, then what's in the water TSA drinks that makes them so violent?
TSMWest said:
"Again I'm going to ask for you or anyone else that keeps saying that the images that TSO's see are naked pictures to produce even one of those pictures."
We've been begging the TSA to release images of the same size and resolution that the screeners see for years and all TSA does is point to the tired old stock images that we know are from an older model machine and software platform. So, no West, we can't produce those pictures because they are classified. We can only surmise that if the TSA isn't releasing them, then they must be more graphic that the stock photos. This is further reinforced by the fact that the media, when it shows video of the display, blurs the image out.
"The TSA is not the middle man and did not design this process of screening people befor getting on airplanes. This process was here long before them. So you can spin it anyway you want."
Yes, you certainly can spin this anyway you wish. As someone who has flown for a long time, I can assue you that until the TSA, I never had to take off my shoes, package liquids in 3 ounce bottles, take off my belt, get irradiated, get felt up or any of new procedures that have cropped up in the last 10 years. If the TSA isn't responsible for developing those procedures, would you mind letting us know who did?
[[As the threats evolve the screening processes change to meet those threats.]]
The threats are not really evolving, West. That's imprecise language used to talk to the hoi polloi as if they were dimbulbs.
How much stimulus money has TSA spent on Chertoff's Magic Porno-Scanner? Including underwriting the development, testing, training, installation, maintenance and tuning associated hardware and software, and the program overhead involved in all of that. Each machine is a few hundred thousand dollars; press reports gleefully report that this cost is simply for the machine itself. At this point I'm going to accept their report as more/less accurate. [And since I work in DoD contracting myself, I'm fully aware that there are many, many, many cost points that go unreported].
I'd be very surprised if TSA will be spending less than $500B- B- B- Billion when all is said and done in their techno-response to some hooligan with $20 worth of Junior Chemistry Set in his BVDs.
Prior to that it was another bonehead with $20 worth of Junior Chemistry Set in the soles of his shoes. In between there was a yahoo caught mixing that Junior Chemistry Set in his European apartment. Each one of these events - unsophisticated by even high school geek standards - has caused the US government to jump out its own [navel] with a disproportionately expensive "mitigation" to that inept "threat".
Has anyone at TSA or its parent Department ever studied history? Know how large empires fall? how powerful kingdoms and nations crumble? It's rarely by conquest. It's almost always by failure to project itself. Note: I said "proJect", not "proTect". When a nation stops projecting, then it - by definition - does what in sports is called "running out the clock". It pulls its borders up around its ears and attempts to endure by proTecting what it has.
Do the math on this strategy. Each time a yahoo spends $20 on a Junior Chemistry Set and an afternoon mixing up a batch of stinkbombs, he makes the US spend $100B, $250B, $500B on "screening process changes" that consist entirely of new technology. How many times do you think the "evolving" hooligans can afford to spend $20 to outwit yet another one-dimensional techno-apparatus? and how many times do you think we can afford to come up with a new multi-billion-dollar techno-gizmo?
The Chinese call this "death by a thousand cuts". The pan-islamists have been describing their plans as exactly that since at least the mid-90s.
[[Once we find them we look for the ways to make our detections better.]]
Incorrect, West.
You look for ways to continue the inherently inept process of false security, because admitting that the "security" paradigm started in the 60s in response to Che-wannabes commandeering planes to Cuba was entirely for show would be too much of a loss of face.
Competent security looks AT PEOPLE, West, not FOR THINGS. TSA is, by it's own admission and in declarative dismissal of competence as "profiling", looking for things. As such, you are doomed to fail; And the methods by which you are looking for those things means, also, that you are going to bankrupt the nation you "proTect" in the process.
The enemy you claim to fight has, for all practical purposes, already won.
Thanks.
[[If you dont then you gave your consent to be screened.It's as simple as that.]]
I have never given my consent to be screened.
Ever.
What you meant to say was that [until the courts actually review your version] our consent was given FOR US, by the government who is searching us without a warrant, and commonly pilfering our belongings pursuant to same.
Yours is yet another of the "implied consent" abominations - one of those pus-filled zits on the Constitution I mentioned before - that is predicated on the mistaken belief that the 9thAM and 10thAM don't really exist, the first 8 are covered in invisible ink readable only by Supreme Court Justices, and that the government Of, By and For The People is, instead, a government OF bureaucrats, BY loyyers, and FOR unfettered administration of rules.
As if it needs to be said, big guy, I have the same question for you:
Do Americans deserve to be treated like the free citizens in the free society they were promised to be? or don't they?
West,
Why do you feel the need to make denigrating comments so often?
Again and again you re-enforce the negative view that I and others have of you and the TSA.
It lowers my opinion of you.
It lowers my opinion of your organization.
TSMWest said...
Pre 9/11 airports had screening by private security comapnies regulated by the FAA.
~~~~~
I remember that well, I used to work for one of those screening agencies.
The FAA told the airlines what they had to do, gave them the F.A.R.s and related rules and conditions, then let the airports and airlines figure out the best way to do what they had to do.
Now, post September 11, the T.S.A. has intervened in the system and placed their own set of demands on the process.
The Airports and Airlines were told "we're doing security now." The TSA treats the FAA, another branch of the Federal Government, worse then the flying public by running slipshod over established, time tested policies and procedures that had the best interest, and balance, of both the public AND the airlines.
TSA has *not* demonstrated the same balance in what is right and what is necessary.
The tragedy that was September 11, 2001, was truly a horrible day in America. And what makes it a continuing tragedy is how many organizations like the TSA use 9-11 as some sort of excuse for anything and everything. The TSA keeps shouting 9-11 at everyone who challenges their abuses of the Fourth Amendment like that somehow makes what is being done OK.
And to say that I consent to what is happening by virtue of knowing that it is happening before I enter the situation does not make what is happening any less wrong. I know the kids are smoking the wacky-weed in the boys bathroom so can I be arrested just because I had to pee and that was the only bathroom available. I know what they do in there so by entering I am consenting to what they're doing simply because I know they do it in that particular location? Silly example to be sure, but conceptually the same as your argument.
West:
government agents feel peoples genitals. If that were happening those people would be going to jail. But thats not whats happening.
Current patdown procedures have the screener moving their hand up the inside of the passengers leg until they meet 'resistance'. Unless the passenger is psychic, the only way to 'meet resistance' is to touch something. Something at the top of the inner thigh. Hmm, what might that be? Genitals, perhaps?? therefore, current patdown procedures have the screeners touching the passengers genitals.
Again I'm going to ask for you or anyone else that keeps saying that the images that TSO's see are naked pictures to produce even one of those pictures.
Um, you have them on your website:
http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/backscatter_large.jpg
http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/mmw_large.jpg
You can't deny that the persons body is visible- you can see the man's 'package' and his 'cheeks' clearly. (Funny, you didn't release a pic of a woman's scan. Too fap-worthy, I quess.) Blogger Bob has admitted that the images that have been released (ie: the above links) pale in comparison to the actual resolution that screeners see. And that's not even mentioning the 'zoom' abilities they have.
So, YES, they are 'naked pictures'.
TSM West writes: Again I'm going to ask for you or anyone else that keeps saying that the images that TSO's see are naked pictures to produce even one of those pictures. The media has seen the images that the machines produce. Do you hear any of them crying for criminal indictments.
Actually, I think it's very telling that virtually every time the televised media shows AIT images, they blur out the images in the subject's genital regions. Why would the media feel the need to do so, if the images weren't far too explicit for public consumption?
"Again I'm going to ask for you or anyone else that keeps saying that the images that TSO's see are naked pictures to produce even one of those pictures. "
Look here:
http://dams.rca.ac.uk/res/sites/Show2006/Images06/John_Wild_1.jpg
or here:
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/Body_Scan_Pic.pdf
"Again I'm going to ask for you or anyone else that keeps saying that the images that TSO's see are naked pictures to produce even one of those pictures."
West, cut this nonsense out. The TSA hides behind a wall of secrecy.
YOU provide the proof. Prove the images are not naked pictures of people.
SHOW US WHAT YOU SEE!
Bob has said we are not allowed to see a copy what you see.
"did you know you would have to undergo <...screening>. I believe the answer would be yes, unless you lived in a cave all of your life with no outside communication."
West, putting aside the provocative, unnecessary and insulting ending to your question.
Yes, I know there is screening BUT...
What does it entail? What are the limits to what you can do to me? My wife? My children?
When I go to the airport I can not give informed consent to the searches the TSA conducts.
The TSA will not tell me what, if ANY, limits there are on what they can do to my family, myself and others.
RWILYMZ said
If you want that meaningful back and forth dialog, please stop lying. You are, in actual effect here, an agent of the government. I don't think I need to remind you what happens when Americans believe their government is lying to them. Bush got no end of grief; Clinton got impeached; Bush the Elder got diselected over "Read my lips...". The list goes on.
Please, dude; stop while you're merely behind.
Do Americans deserve to be treated like the free citizens in the free society they were promised to be? or don't they?
December 20, 2010 5:12 PM
-----------------------------------
First of all how can you consider someone lying when they are giving an opinion. It's obvious that you are the one that doesn't understand back and forth.
Ross Williams said
Yet somehow, in your distorted sense of reality, when your agent sees a traveller's skin, it is not a naked image.
Are you listening to yourself?
-----------------------------------
Show me one piece of literature that says the machine images shows skin.
Ross Williams said
Google for "TSA AGENT FIRED" and one of the incidents you will find coming up in the result list is the episode during one of the backscatter training sessions where a male agent was scanned and then had several comments made about his ... "junkless" drawers. [Are you going to blanch at that, Bob?] The agent took offense at the descriptions and ribbing and assaulted one of his jokers.
-----------------------------------
This wasn't a case of what was seen, it was a case of day in and day out harrassment. Had the TSO handled the harrassment when it first started it would not have gone as far as it did. He simply got fed up with the unprofessionalism of his supervisor. You can read into it all you want. His complaint was about the harrassment he recieved after he used the machine. Not once did he ever say that the comments were true.
Ross again siad
Competent security looks AT PEOPLE, West, not FOR THINGS.
-----------------------------------
You stay in contracting and I'll stay with security.
Anon said
West,
Why do you feel the need to make denigrating comments so often?
Again and again you re-enforce the negative view that I and others have of you and the TSA.
It lowers my opinion of you.
It lowers my opinion of your organization.
December 22, 2010 12:52 PM
-----------------------------------
Well you know anon i really don't care what your opinion of me is. All I care about is that I do the job that I'm paid to do and that I do it well. I care about the millions of people out there that do appriciate everything that TSA does. Most of the people on here will never change there minds about TSA. They post on only to show how disrespectful they are to honest working people only because they disagree with them. No one has ever asked yoy to agree with us. But we never asked you to show the contempt that you continually show. If you disagree with TSA do what so many say they are going to do contact your congress critters.
As far as my comments go, they are my opinions just like you have your twisted ones.
Anon saidYou can't deny that the persons body is visible- you can see the man's 'package' and his 'cheeks' clearly. (Funny, you didn't release a pic of a woman's scan. Too fap-worthy, I quess.) Blogger Bob has admitted that the images that have been released (ie: the above links) pale in comparison to the actual resolution that screeners see. And that's not even mentioning the 'zoom' abilities they have.
So, YES, they are 'naked pictures'.
December 22, 2010 6:57 PM
-----------------------------------
Try spending, I think it's 3.95, on a playbook. This way you can see real naked pictures. You've been cooped up too long
"TSM West
Well you know anon i really don't care what your opinion of me is. All I care about is that I do the job that I'm paid to do and that I do it well. I care about the millions of people out there that do appriciate everything that TSA does. Most of the people on here will never change there minds about TSA. They post on only to show how disrespectful they are to honest working people only because they disagree with them. No one has ever asked yoy to agree with us. But we never asked you to show the contempt that you continually show. If you disagree with TSA do what so many say they are going to do contact your congress critters.
As far as my comments go, they are my opinions just like you have your twisted ones.
Excerpts: "...No one has asked you to agree with us....."
No, we are asking you to stop ABUSING US AND OUR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!
"...they are my opinions just like you have your twisted ones."
MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS FROM TSA BLOGGERS.
THE PUBLIC HAS OUR COMMENTS REPEATEDLY CENSORED FOR NEARLY ANY REASON, BUT TSA BLOGGERS CAN INSULT US AND PRINT PERSONAL ATTACKS WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY.
WHEN WILL YOU ADMIT THAT WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS WRONG?
West said: Try spending, I think it's 3.95, on a playbook. This way you can see real naked pictures.
What's a playbook? Is it like a kindle?
Is it what you use to look at naked pictures with West?
Do you spend a lot of time looking at naked pictures West?
AIT has got to go! It is a grievous violation of human rights and human dignity, and it does almost nothing to increase our safety and security. A terrorist organization that merely reads published reports about the technology's capabilities can easily defeat it. There is, therefore, no reason for the TSA to persist in these egregious violations of our constitutional rights.
OK West, you don't care that the rude and insulting tone often used in your posts presents a bad image of you and the TSA.
Sounds like you will keep it up. Wow, looks like you are keeping it up. You go guy!
And I'll bet you will now keep on passionatly complaining about how people have a bad attitude about your organization.
You attacked me and insulted me instead of addressing a simple question:
Why do you take that tone?
Why do you chose to make a rude and insulting tone the image of you and the TSA that you present to the public? Why do you feed a negative cycle or rudeness, animosity and hate?
But maybe you did answer that question. Maybe you just don't care.
TSM West said...
Try spending, I think it's 3.95, on a playbook. This way you can see real naked pictures. You've been cooped up too long
December 24, 2010 6:38 PM
TSA Professionalism at it's best, folks.
I get back from a Christmas trip [I drove] only to find West is NOT DEFENSIVE AT ALL over the criticism of his Agency he has taken personally.
West dissembles:
Show me one piece of literature that says the machine images shows skin.
Don't have to. I can point you to any of the images available on the internet from the AIT technolgy. Such as the ones that the Customs folks [or whomever it was] saved off against their own rules which inspired you at TSA who are NOT DEFENSIVE AT ALL to deny the similar ability to save the naked images.
I find it ironic ["ironic" is a nice way of saying that y'all are lying] when TSA admits that they scan people to see what is under their clothes to ensure that non-metallic contraband isn't hidden, but when people catch on to what that actually means - i.e., that they have naked bodies under their clothes - people like West, who are NOT DEFENSIVE AT ALL, try to convince everyone that no, indeed, there are no naked bodies under peoples' clothes.
We're, like, completely pixelated in real life. Aren't we, West?
Are you listening to yourself yet?
West further dissembles:
This wasn't a case of what was seen... You can read into it all you want.
I'll read what the press reports say about it, thankyouverymuch.
TSA Agent, in a training seesion for the Nude-o-Scope, gets an earful from the other trainees about the size [or lack thereof] of his package seen in the images, and he goes postal. Arrested for assault, fired from the Agency.
...but West, who is NOT DEFENSIVE AT ALL, continues to maintain that such things cannot be discerned in the porno-scanners. ...which is why the images available from the technology are never, ever blurred!
Are you listening to yourself yet, West?
West continues to dissemble:
You stay in contracting and I'll stay with security.
You'd need to start with security in order to stay with it. Every time some hooligan spends $20 on a Junior Chemistry Set to make a stinkbomb look different from the last stinkbomb TSA saw, it inspires the "honest working" TSA to spend another $500Billion of our money in a one-dimensional "security" apparatus which can be defeated by the next yahoo with twenty bucks to spend on a second Junior Chemistry Set.
The US, which doesn't have money troubles at all, can easily afford to spend wads of $500B each time a dork with an axe to grind spends $20. Can't we? Of course we can. The math on this exchange rate is doable. We have more wads of $500B than the nefarious jerks have sawbucks ... don't we?
However, the math on the alternative is not viable. Just because 99.999% of the potential for air sabotage are pan-islamists with a distinctive travel pattern, a distinctive set of affiliations, and a distinctive psychological demeanor - ALL of which are easily distinguishable by those trained in intel and/or psychology - doesn't mean that those characteristics actually, y'know, mean anything.
Right West? We are clueless about how to take action on such information. It's a great big mystery!
Liar.
Post a Comment