Baltimore Sun's Michael Dresser TSA Apologist - Again

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Lisa Simeone, Aug 13, 2011.

  1. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    Certainly appears so. I'm trying not to get personal with any Transportation Security Officer, as my goal is not simply to fight TSA, but to play whatever small part I can to defeat them. I view their greatest weakness as the quite human lack of resolve to, for instance, force grandmothers to partially disrobe, strip disabled children of crutches, etc.
     
  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    +1

    Not just you, but that won't solve the worst cases if every "anomaly" (e.g. diapers & sanitary napkins) is still patted down. It certainly would help to localize the abuse, but that won't fix the problem.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  3. Redacted

    Redacted Original Member

    I'm thinking to the TSA "genitals" are an anomaly.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  4. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    you think? why is TSA headquarters so stupid on something this obvious?

    So if your sanitary pad alarms, that "whole groin zone" is rubbed over. Or your bra strap alarms a whole boob zone is rubbed over.
    Great. F***ing great. You guys are simply amazing.

    If the general pax was starting to hate you guys over the scope and grope, they are really gonna LOOOOOVE you when you increase the frequency of the gropes. In a perverse way, this train wreck is going to be fun to watch.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  5. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    We've just crossed over into ... the Boob Zone.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  6. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    "should be obvious"? Okey dokey. If you say so. How many prisoners have you ever searched? How many different ways can you conceal a weapon?

    Clearly we disagree. You believe that an unresolved alarm can be cleared simply by looking at it. I believe that you need to pat that area down to make sure you know what's underneath.

    Fair enough.
     
  7. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    how are passengers at an airport like prisoners? your analogy speaks volumes about how you see us.
     
  8. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    1. "Prisoners", eh? What is next, cavity searches? Why stop there?
    2. For some time now I have been able to the difference between a brassiere and a shoulder-holstered firearm. I allow as there may be those in our society who can't.
     
  9. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    No, it speaks volumes of how you twist the English language. I'd like you to define in plain clear language of how you expect people to be screened. You seem to be saying that people should be given the benefit of the doubt rather than screened.

    Care to clarify?
     
  10. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Seems you are ignoring the point of the new ATR version is that all the screener has to rely on is a cartoon outline on a screen with a triangle or square that indicates the machine detected something. There is no image of the passenger to look at. There is no way to tell simply by looking if the item is a sheet explosive taped down between the shoulder blades or the clasp of the bra. That's my point: when viewing images, a person can tell by looking that it's only a bra clasp and can dismiss it as a non-concern. With the ATR upgrade, no one is going to know exactly why the machine indicated an alarm.

    You can't have it both ways. That's my point. Under one system, someone has to look at the images in order to make the judgment call of whether or not there really is something that needs to be checked out. Under the other system, the machine does all the work, no one looks at images, and there's no way of telling whether it alarmed on the bra hook or something concealed underneath it.

    I can't explain it any simpler than that. I hope you understand my point. You don't have to accept it. But this twisting of words gets a bit tiresome, snake.
     
    Rugape likes this.
  11. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I'm not so sure that TSA doesn't just like feeling up little kids. Sure seems to be the case.

    How about a minor change to TSA policy. That TSA must document every pat down from WBI alarm, document the area of the alarm, what was felt up, and who did the pat down. See if we can get a little history on which TSA employee is doing the pat downs and why.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  12. RB

    RB Founding Member

    So how can you explain DFW TSA missing a gun 5 out of 5 times?
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  13. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    If there is a real danger of "sheet explosives" underneath clothing, then why is the screening not done in bomb proof room? Also, why are not dogs being used for explosive detection of this nature? Seems like TSA is endangering themselves and every one at the check point by proceeding otherwise ... if there is a real danger.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  14. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    It is amazing that as government, as pseudo-law enforcement/military, or just as workplace management that there wouldn't be screening data collected. That's step one performance management. Even just to understand how the machines are working an agency would want that data.
     
    Lisa Simeone and barbell like this.
  15. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    I don't work at DFW.
     
  16. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Many TSOs ask the same question. They're not too thrilled about the theoretical possibility.
     
    Rugape likes this.
  17. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Believe it or not, I do cover this during my training sessions. I ask officers how we can better inform parents so that we can reduce/eliminate unnecessary pat-downs of children. Children have to stand completely still inside the AIT, and a lot of youngsters can't stand still for the five to seven seconds it takes to scan the image. If it appears the child won't stand still, then why not direct the child through the WTMD? That way, if the child alarms the WTMD, we can have him pass through again until we figure out what caused the WTMD alarm.

    As for documenting every AIT pat down, that's not very practical. We'd kill a forest full of trees which would result in more filing cabinets, at taxpayer expense, just to store these documents. Under government regulations, we'd have to keep these records for something like five years before we could finally destroy them. I don't mean to poo-poo your idea; I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of bureaucratic (expletive deleted) that comes with the territory.
     
    Rugape likes this.
  18. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    There is such a thing as digital record keeping. And in any case, it seems the German police were able to keep track of their extensive experiments with the machine. Seems like the agency isn't really interested in whether its machines are working or what they are finding.
     
    Lisa Simeone and barbell like this.
  19. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    What about the possibility that a rogue TSO could smuggle in bomb or shoot up the place Fort Hood style. Seems like that is at least as much if not a greater possibility.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  20. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    That's always a possibility in any profession.
     

Share This Page