The TSA: Worse Than Useless
The TSA is the Transportation Security Administration.
In the wake of the 'underwear bomber' they insisted on body imaging scanners - Nude O Scopes - that let you see under a person's clothing. Heavy lobbying by former Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff for this occurred at the same time; Mr. Chertoff was paid by the company that made the scanners.
The scanners have not been fully tested for health effects. It is thought that they produce a small amount of radiation an could produce a long term use risk, but the TSA hasn't bothered finding out or paying attention to studies done.
The scanners have been slowly rolling out in the past year or so. It should be noted that the Government Accountability Office has determined these NoS may not even detect the type of bomb the underwear bomber had on. I.e., they could well be completely useless for their intended purpose. They likely are; the TSA doesn't know because it hasn't actually tested them for their effectiveness.
In fact, the former head of security at the Tel Aviv airport said he could smuggle enough explosives through a NoS to bring down a 747. The Israelis don't use these scanners at their airports.
In the past few weeks the TSA noticed no one wants to go through these NoS because they don't want federal perverts looking at pictures of them naked. The TSA says the scanners won't store pictures, but that's a lie - federal marshalls using a NoS at a courthouse stored 35,000 images.
In response TSA stepped up the pat down of people who refused the scanner, making it more invasive and uncomfortable in order to compel people to go through the scanner. Now agents feel around the genitals, the inner thigh, buttocks, etc.
Yet these patdowns, unconstitutional and invasive as they are, remain useless because a terrorist could hide something in his body.
So, we have two useless but very invasive methods of security everyone has to go through to board a plane in the USA (in addition to the stupid bans on large containers of liquid and things like nail clippers).
These should stop. They don't make people safer. They intrude on our rights. We should not have to give up our rights to travel in a modern manner.
We need to look rationally at the risks involved. There have been millions of flights since 9/11 and hundreds of millions of passengers. But not one successful attack by people flying in the US. In fact, the TSA has never stopped a terrorist attack. Ever. They have caught items like knives and guns and even some explosive materials, but none of the people planned to use them to try to hijack or bomb the plane.
The handful of attacks that have occurred - the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, and attacks in the planning stage - like the group that planned to make a liquid bomb - have all been stopped by passengers or by government investigators before the attackers got to the airport.
The only worthwhile changes in security since 9/11 have been the hardening of cockpit doors and passengers knowing they have to fight any hijackers. The best way to stop future attacks is not by overreacting to yesterday's attempt, but by investing more in human intelligence to find attackers before they strike.
If a group of terrorists reaches the airport, that means they have planned how to make a bomb or carry out an attack, and have eluded the FBI, CIA, NSA and DHS. There's no way some federal rent a cops will stop them; the terrorists can easily plan around whatever rules there are.
A reasonable look at the risks shows that the chances of a terrorist attack are astronomical. Deciding to undergo humiliations for a nonexistent safety benefit is not logical. There's more chance of injury from driving to the airport than from a terrorist attack.
The NoS itself may well kill as many people with radiation, even with a conservative estimate of radiation, as terrorists do, since terrorist attacks are so low.
And by discouraging travelers from flying and encouraging more risky methods like driving, these procedures increase the number of people who die from car accidents way above the number of people who die from terrorist attacks in planes.
We need to not give in to fear; we need to not let irrational fear of terrorists compel us to give up our rights. We have to think clearly about the risks and realize the chance that a terrorist attacks is extremely, extremely low. And since it's so low, we need to recognize that other activities in our lives, like driving, are much more risky than flying.
Therefore, these new security measures should be ended. They serve no purpose except the humiliation of passengers. The TSA's calls for ever more invasive screening must be opposed and stopped.
CR
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Bookmarks