Skip to main content

The TSA - on the Horns of a Dilemma

The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is on the horns of a dilemma, and a big one it is.

In the early days after 2001, just after the TSA was created, a huge corps of highly zealous officers was recruited to monitor those boarding our airlines. (Similar screening is now in place worldwide.)  They looked for the slightest violations in the rules.  Any breach meant the perpetrator would be awarded a thorough search.   Taken aside in front of all travelers, the "perp" was given quite a thorough going over.  With over 50,000 employees the TSA faces formidable problems.

Forget to remove your shoes, you were searched; forget to remove your belt, you were searched; forget to remove your computer (horror-of-horrors), you were searched.  That is, you were taken aside and given a careful inspection.  But there is more, there were the pat-downs, sometimes bordering on sexual assault. People complained, and in large numbers.  More was involved in the general search for bombers.  The process was supposed to be random, and there were also those of us, me many times, that endured the careful search for no apparent reason.  In the eyes of the TSA, I suppose it was thought to be something of a deterrent.  Then came grannies-in-a-wheelchair and the granddaughters of age five.  When these folks were searched, patted down and otherwise semi-molested, the events made the national news. Of course, the TSA agents use hermetically sanitized rubber gloves.

Profiling of more the likely suspects was completely disallowed.  It still is.

The TSA, under a barrage of complaints and pressure, decided to become more humane. The consequence has been a drastic diminution of such granny and little girl searches.  Until now, when in the current situation, the TSA relies mostly on their technological scanning devises.  Just the other day in flying to DC, of all places, I forgot to remove my computer from the case.  The TSA caught this and simply asked me to please wait while they rescanned the computer and bag separately.  What?  No search?  The other day when being scanned, I had forgotten to remove a quarter from my pocket.  They caught it, and when I showed it to the TSA agent, he said no problem and to proceed to my gate.  No search?  Then, when entering the scanning machine, I had forgotten to remove my belt.  I offered to remove it immediately.  "No problem," was the response.  No search?  I rarely, any more, see people remove little bottles of this or that from their luggage and place them in clear plastic bags for separate scanning.

It's been a long while since I've seen one of our poor citizens, or senior citizens, or even children pulled aside for one of the TSA patented pat-downs.  So, it occurred to me, what's happened?  And then it came to me.  First, the TSA can't profile, which evidence shows would work. Second, the TSA gets many complaints and horrible PR for their dedicated pat-downs.  Thus, they have found themselves on the horns of a dilemma.  That is, they can't do anything unless there is incontrovertible evidence in one of their scans that something is really amiss.

My conclusion is we are seriously at risk for any clever terrorist who wishes to take a gamble.*  Or could it be that terrorists are waiting for a "lull" in scrutiny?

The TSA directives have been compromised by political correctness on the one side the coin, and compromised by public opinion (and the news) on the other.  Let us hope and pray, the TSA electronic devises are up to the challenge.

* An apprehended terrorist should always be given the maximum penalty allowed by law.  These people are intent on  murder with no purpose other than to murder as many as possible. There can be no allowances for a first offense, no mitigating circumstances, no credits for good behavior. 

Suicide terrorists are nothing more than contract killers with an ecclesiastical contract and having an arbitrary target. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view