Thread: The Price of Security

And that idiot Napolitano has the brass to come out and insult us today and say "The system worked.", NO! You freakin' dope, if the system had worked then the idiot wouldn't have ever made it near that far.

Don't you feel good and safe with that women in charge? NOT! A person who insists that it is not a crime to enter this country 'ILLEGALLY'.

As Risso pointed out, there are already measures there, we just need to see that they are made to work... if thats possible. I don't want my family or friends to suffer the indignity of becoming masturbation objects to some POS TSA officer just because some other idiots can't do their job right.

Anybody whose known anybody who worked at a burger place knows that they do all kinds of things to the food. Just think what those useless TSA a**holes would do with a scanner that lets them see people naked. I know the claim is that the scanners are censored, but I see no reason to trust their word or intent in this matter... or any other, really...

But what it boils down to is that there will always be dangers associated with liberties, people who will take advantage of liberties to the detriment of others. Its part of that "price of freedom" you always hear about.. but mainly when the go'vt wants to raise taxes, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

And that idiot Napolitano has the brass to come out and insult us today and say "The system worked.", NO! You freakin' dope, if the system had worked then the idiot wouldn't have ever made it near that far.

Don't you feel good and safe with that women in charge? NOT! A person who insists that it is not a crime to enter this country 'ILLEGALLY'.

You're giving her a lot of credit when you call her "idiot", I believe she's way more than that.

Any ways, regardless what kind of security measurements TSA takes, they'll always be "A DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT"

Terrorist organizations have their "engineers" working on ways to break the system and plenty of "suicides" to try them. Besides, while Homeland Security concentrates on air traffic safety, they're leaving themselves wide open for other threats.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

So what do we want? Increased security at the price of TSA and airport officials being able to virtually unclothe us?

I don't want them able to virtually unclothe me unless I am a terrorist. But I do want them able to stop terrorists. Why can't I have it both ways?

I think northpaw's point 3 about professionalism does a lot to identify and fix these issues. TexasBob touched on it by saying that these drones do things "by the book" and have little room for discretion.

Before I go on, there are obvious changes needed at the management, decision-making level of the TSA and to the rulebook that governs it. But for the purposes of my post I am going to single out the grunts.

TSA Officer Job Description (from an employment opportunity online):

Discover and stop emerging transportation security threats,
utilizing state of the art technology

Educate and provide friendly customer service to travelers

Screen passengers and gather intelligence

Coordinate security involving aviation, rail, and other surface
and maritime transportation

Oversee most transportation-related responsibilities of the
federal government during a national emergency

SALARY RANGE: 24,000 - 47,139.00 USD /year

Other jobs include: Manager, Expert, Supervisor, all with the same responsibilities plus supervisory roles over the Officers, and with marginal pay increases.


Now -- I hope people do not take offense to this, but basically an entry level TSA Officer (passport checks, person checks, identifying risks, behaviors, illicit materials, etc.) makes $11.50. I saw one job description for ALL TSA positions that got up to 65k per year, but that was the highest position I could find (a manager of all TSA personnel at one location).

To be eligible, all you need is a GED or better, to be able to lift 70 lbs, and be able to speak English, have good observational skills (subjective observation by whoever is processing applicants), and a few other values thrown into all job descriptions (integrity, customer service, etc).


Would you provide any discretion to carry out said job description to someone who met these qualifications? Ladies and Gentlemen, these are your TSA security officials.


So, to Texas Bob's point, I'd say, crank up the responsibility of the TSA Officers, increase the minimum requirements of the job description, pay the position holder more, and provide a level of autonomy that a person of this new caliber is more likely to deserve over a fitting applicant to the job description above. "By the book" does not amount to a hill of beans when processing travelers in the volume we have, and with the complexity and variety of the situations that can occur.

It takes a special kind of nincompoop to allow someone through airport security without a passport. That nincompoop makes just over minimum wage (in New Jersey, for example), and may not have even completed his high school curriculum. Am I the only one that sees the glaringly obvious here?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I don't want them able to virtually unclothe me unless I am a terrorist. But I do want them able to stop terrorists. Why can't I have it both ways?

The point is that if all the regulations were followed this latest incident would not have happened anyway. So with full body scans we will get idiots running full body scanners! "Oh are they plugged in!!!". "I think so!".

On another note, just think of the data rich database we could have.....all anonymous of course!!!! Average pen*s sizes both in length and diameter...by race, occupation, or whatever one can dream up. Oh! the same goes for breast sizes and implants. A God send I tell you, a God send!

Whatever it takes to stop terrorism I will give up any number of the guarantees given to me by the US Constitution. N-O-T !!! Well for the first time the other day I heard this administration refer to terrorist at "Terrorist" it may be in the coming days that we will hear about the "war on terrorists" but that would probably be "over the top" as it were.

Later,
Richard

Have everybody fly naked, it's the only solution. Oh, and when you raise your hand to use the toilet while in flight, a flight attendant will escort you into the toilet and watch you do whatever it was that occasioned your raising your hand. That way any nasties that were crammed up into those personal places are now public imformation.

Oh, and do no profiling. It's mean and makes us look bad. Keep lists, but don't use them.

This all may be a temporary problem. Once the climate police realize just how much carbon dioxide an airliner spews into the atmosphere, it will shortly be bicycles and rowboats for all.

Ain't progress grand?

I have to say, the security stateside is talked about relatively often by any one I know that has been through it. It must be one up from a traffic warden (or what ever you call them, the guys that hand out parking tickets).

Oddly enough my 'carry on' bag is one I've had for years and use on a daily basis, I know I have found things in my bag either whilst in the states or once I've returned home that make me wonder why I know so many people who've had nail clippers confiscated.

In answer to the first question, the price of security is freedom.

Originally Posted by Pete_S

As Risso pointed out, there are already measures there, we just need to see that they are made to work... if thats possible. I don't want my family or friends to suffer the indignity of becoming masturbation objects to some POS TSA officer just because some other idiots can't do their job right.

Anybody whose known anybody who worked at a burger place knows that they do all kinds of things to the food. Just think what those useless TSA a**holes would do with a scanner that lets them see people naked. I know the claim is that the scanners are censored, but I see no reason to trust their word or intent in this matter... or any other, really...

But what it boils down to is that there will always be dangers associated with liberties, people who will take advantage of liberties to the detriment of others. Its part of that "price of freedom" you always hear about.. but mainly when the go'vt wants to raise taxes, I'm afraid.

There was a famous case of NSA wiretapping a US Army colonel in Iraq having phone sex w/ his wife. The *ss who was conducting said wiretap yelled "hey guys, listen to this!" & proceeded to pipe said event into the room for the pleasure of all present. I guess the next logical step is these high school dropouts doing the same thing w/ bodyscans. Only the "hey guys, look at this" could be your wife/girlfriend or underage daughter... That make anyone's flesh crawl beside mine?

Okay, everything that follows is just my humble opinion and not meant to disrespect opposing view points in any way. The sole intent of my response is to spark more thought - and perhaps a bit of friendly debate. That said, IMHO...

Better 'body' scans, strip searches, etc. will NOT prevent further terrorist attacks on airplanes. At best, it can only slow them down a little for a short while. On the other hand, with little doubt, it WILL serve to violate individual freedoms further... AND open the door for government to gain even more invasive control over its citizens in the name, and false claim, of better security and more safety.

Why?

Because, with ANY type of system, you eventually reach a point where the added gains you get from further improvements are too small to warrant the additional price you pay for them.

And I believe that to be the case with today's airport security. Sure we can do better scans in the name of safety at the further expense of personal privacy and freedoms.

But will it truly make air travel that much safer?

As someone else said, even if, for example, new, more invasive scanners work and there's no human error to prevent 100% detection with them, terrorist will just look for another way around them. Instead of spending their blood money on explosives they can no longer get on a plane, what's to say they won't just spend it on some sort of anti-tank rocket to launch at a plane instead?

I truly, truly hope no other families have to suffer the loss of loved ones to terrorism or war ever again. But, the true fact of life is that the world isn't and never will be a 100% safe place. Use a stairwell and there will always be a slim chance you might slip, fall down it, and break your neck. Drive a car and there will always be some chance an irresponsible cell phone user or drunken idiot can crash into you with fatal results. Fly and there will always be a chance the plane can suffer a mechanical failure or, sadly, a fanatical nut job with malicious intent - and better scanners will never eliminate that threat, they'll only change the form it might take...

As for me, I hope to never find myself (or any other person) in such a situation... But, if I did, I'd much rather a nut-job on board that I'd at least have some chance of disarming versus a nut job on the ground sending a missile my way while I'm sitting there reading the SkyMiles magazine without a clue of what's coming my way or any chance of stopping it.