Kids Keep Shoes on in DEN/BOS/ATL/IAH/MIA - UPDATED

Schumer mostly wants a news conference with cameras announcing the kick off of the no-ride list. Never get between Chuck Schumer and a camera.

 

I didn't ask but if I had and you didn't know would "I don't know" not have been a better answer?

Yes you work at an airport but who's to say your boss doesn't dispatch you down to the local train or bus station to shake down the people there?

 

Why ask a question like that in the first place? It was obviously aimed at Bart, and obviously a question he's not likely to have an answer for. Let's try focus on the discussion of security and avoid the subtle little personal barbs.

 

I respect your right to express an opinion; however, when it comes to the ETD, I'll defer to explosives experts. I don't agree with the comment "overwhelmingly high percentage of false alarms." I have faith in ETD technology. I've seen it work; it does the job quite effectively.

 

What parent would request this? and why?

 

Bart, one of TSA's ETD testers alerted on my camera bag. It had not been exposed to anything remotely dangeous.

A false positive and a failure of the testing method.

 

Tenth Anniversary Report Card: The Status of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/CommissionRecommendations.pdf

 

I imagine this is TSAspeak for "opt out of the body scanner". A parent "requests" to have their child rubbed over their bodies by deciding not to have child pornography made of their young bodies.

 

I'm not pretending to be an expert. It is simply obvious that the TSA is not using good judgement here. My argument is simple but admittedly not infallible: many, many thousands have alarmed the ETD swabs, and there have been no reports of explosive materials being found on persons, or virtually no reports. Having used glycerin soap, golfing, or walking through a construction zone should not result in people getting a genital and crotch massage at the airport. That is the height of unreasonable. If the application of a test detects certain substances, and those substances can be on you via any number of innocuous and legal pursuits, then that test cannot result in actions of that sort, not unless we have all gone nuts. Secondary questioning, ATR, ok, those are reasonable. But not the invasive things currently being done, not on those odds.

 

And I believe, as in boggie dog's example, it's highly likely that someone else having used glycerin soap or lotion handled the bag causing a truly false alarm. The chances that a) that other person had a bomb at any time and b) was in that same airport on the same day attempting to board an airplane with a bomb are virtually nil.

Therefore:

 

Probably right on the mark, unfortunately, a nice Orwellian twist.

 

What about all passengers will allowed to keep the shoes on again?