Outrageous!

[tapu]

Hmm.... So in this case, TSA and "real security" let him by? Great.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Yellow band

No, TSA has a function. But they are not our main line of security. Our main line of security is secret. As it should be. If airline security was openly discussed, it would be much easier to defeat it. And now, same will apply with the railroad and buses. Railroad is more complicated. As Amtrak does not own the rails, (highspeed excluded) they pay to run on
the privately owned tracks.

I don't mean to belabor the point but I don't understand what the purpose of TSA is, especially if we have a main line of security. Would you please expound on TSA's purpose.

And maybe you could touch on why TSA type security is necessary for passengers on railroad and buses when any terrorist action would be more effective in larger venues or used on the tracks and roads rather than the vehicle.

I appreciate any insight you have to offer.

Andrea

[Dominique]

I'm not sure who you are talking to Andrea, if it is me, (since you quoted me) I will respectfully bow out of this conversation.

I can not continue as I stated very early in the thread. However, you have done a good job with providing links and info. It was you who mentioned VIPR. Maybe you'd like to expound. I'm out of this.

[T4Texas]

I think if people are going to be angry, they should be angry at the world politics and cultural movements that have placed us in this situation to begin with. We must do what we can to protect our citizens, even if that system is flawed, its still better than none at all. I would rather spend my time in airport security, with its lopsided methods that might reduce the possibility of my being blown out of the sky, than not do anything preventative. I also feel the whole system needs to be reworked given the fact that this is going to be our way of life from now on. The world has changed and we must change with it.

[tapu]

I've noticed, on a few threads, that people are kind of, um, touchy today....


Anyway, Yellow Band's brief outline of the difference btwn TSA and what we're referring to as "real" security makes very good sense to me. I have no objective data to shore it up, but it seems logical:

TSA is the "security theater"--it is there precisely to make people aware that they can't bring potentiallly dangerous stuff onto an airplane. This is particularly relevant in the cases YB pointed out: with wannabes, and copycats. Oh, and assholes. I would add, assholes.

"Real Security" is looking for organized terrorist incidents, involving bombs, hijackings, bio attacks, etc. And I can see how it would be ineffective, not to say 'dumb,' if they were obvious.

Andrea, if you look back at earlier posts abotu this, you'll see this mentioned. I don't know, but do you think it's not plausible sounding?

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Yellow band

I'm not sure who you are talking to Andrea, if it is me, (since you quoted me) I will respectfully bow out of this conversation.

I can not continue as I stated very early in the thread. However, you have done a good job with providing links and info. It was you who mentioned VIPR. Maybe you'd like to expound. I'm out of this.

I am sorry if I put you in an uncomfortable position. It was not my intention. When you said there were things you couldn't speak of, I understood you to mean the real security and not the purpose of TSA. I am guessing speaking of one does not preclude the other.

Please accept my apology and thank you for your participation to the point you were able to participate.

Andrea

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by T4Texas

I think if people are going to be angry, they should be angry at the world politics and cultural movements that have placed us in this situation to begin with. We must do what we can to protect our citizens, even if that system is flawed, its still better than none at all. I would rather spend my time in airport security, with its lopsided methods that might reduce the possibility of my being blown out of the sky, than not do anything preventative. I also feel the whole system needs to be reworked given the fact that this is going to be our way of life from now on. The world has changed and we must change with it.

Using the logic of anything for security, do you feel that everyone should have to pass a breathalyzer prior to operating a car? There are far more drunk drivers killing people than there are terrorists attempting to blow airplanes out of the sky.

It is not my desire to argue with you (the collective you). I am really curious why we (the collective we) are okay with anything for security regarding travel but we are not up in arms regarding other issues that are far more common and have far more people dying.

Andrea

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by tapu

I've noticed, on a few threads, that people are kind of, um, touchy today....


Anyway, Yellow Band's brief outline of the difference btwn TSA and what we're referring to as "real" security makes very good sense to me. I have no objective data to shore it up, but it seems logical:

TSA is the "security theater"--it is there precisely to make people aware that they can't bring potentiallly dangerous stuff onto an airplane. This is particularly relevant in the cases YB pointed out: with wannabes, and copycats. Oh, and assholes. I would add, assholes.

"Real Security" is looking for organized terrorist incidents, involving bombs, hijackings, bio attacks, etc. And I can see how it would be ineffective, not to say 'dumb,' if they were obvious.

Andrea, if you look back at earlier posts abotu this, you'll see this mentioned. I don't know, but do you think it's not plausible sounding?

I think it is plausible TSA is not the real security. At least I am hoping our government is not pinning our safety on the TSA. I am unconvinced that TSA is doing any level of real security work and unconvinced TSA prevents even wannabes, copycats and asshole terrorists from getting on a plane.

Andrea

[tapu]

In the sense that the very presence and the practices of the uniformed TSA officers can in many cases deter dangerous materials on a plane, and the more simplistic "terrorists" (i.e., wannabe's, copycats, etc.), then what is there has to work to some degree. I don't know how anyone could dispute that.

Let me try to be clearer: the visibility helps.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by tapu

In the sense that the very presence and the practices of the uniformed TSA officers can in many cases deter dangerous materials on a plane, and the more simplistic "terrorists" (i.e., wannabe's, copycats, etc.), then what is there has to work to some degree. I don't know how anyone could dispute that.

Let me try to be clearer: the visibility helps.

We will have to agree to disagree because I don't believe wannabes, copycats, etc, care the least little bit about TSA and their rules. I believe if bad guys (wannabes, copycats, etc included) cared about rules, there wouldn't be so many people in jail.

Andrea

[tapu]

Let me try to be clearer: the visibility helps.


Imagine if you walked up with a boarding pass you printed out at home, and right onto an aircraft. No checks. You don't think a few people might be more likely to bring dangerous things with them, and be bad enough or nuts enough to do something with it? You don't think checking their carry-on--even the threat of checking their carry-on--has any deterrent effect?

If you think that's not a good point, then you're right. We disagree.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by tapu

Let me try to be clearer: the visibility helps.


Imagine if you walked up with a boarding pass you printed out at home, and right onto an aircraft. No checks. You don't think a few people might be more likely to bring dangerous things with them, and be bad enough or nuts enough to do something with it? You don't think checking their carry-on--even the threat of checking their carry-on--has any deterrent effect?

If you think that's not a good point, then you're right. We disagree.

I think people are currently bringing 'dangerous' things with them, knowingly and unknowingly. TSA catches some and misses some. I think most of what TSA deems dangerous, isn't so dangerous. I think some things not listed on the TSA dangerous list are more dangerous than things that are. (I am much more afraid of 12" knitting needles than a bottle of water.)

As to people using things to do something inappropriate on the plane... I believe someone wanting to cause trouble will find a way to do so with or without things considered dangerous.

Please understand that I am not against security and I believe some level is appropriate and helpful. I am just questioning if the current level of security is appropriate and/or necessary, or should there be less or should there be more.

And shouldn't we also be checking others who may have an opportunity to place dangerous items where bad people can get them. Are you aware that pilots are not required to go through TSA security? Are you aware that many airports do not require airport employees or TSA employees to go through security? If a bad guy wanted to bribe or blackmail someone to place a dangerous object (gun, knife...), wouldn't it make more sense to select someone who has unfettered access than hope to carry one on board yourself?

Tapu, thank you for giving me the opportunity to air some of my thoughts. I appreciate the exchange.

Andrea

[T4Texas]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Using the logic of anything for security, do you feel that everyone should have to pass a breathalyzer prior to operating a car? There are far more drunk drivers killing people than there are terrorists attempting to blow airplanes out of the sky.

It is not my desire to argue with you (the collective you). I am really curious why we (the collective we) are okay with anything for security regarding travel but we are not up in arms regarding other issues that are far more common and have far more people dying.

Andrea

The first point is that I thought we were talking about airport security and the problems associated with it. As for drunk drivers, that is a subject near and dear to me as I have had two family members killed by a drunk driver and their family totally devastated by that event. I believe if you are convicted of a DWI that you should have to take a breathalyzer, yes..and have your license revoked, particularly if there was a death involved and we won't even discuss jail time. But so as not to derail the conversation, I stand by the fact that people cry too much over airport security because they are inconvenienced and don't really think about what the consequences might be if that security were not there. You can bet all those people that hit the world trade center would probably have wanted tighter security had they known what awaited them. I also stated that it did need to be revamped given the amount of people that fly to make the process smoother and more efficient.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by T4Texas

The first point is that I thought we were talking about airport security and the problems associated with it. As for drunk drivers, that is a subject near and dear to me as I have had two family members killed by a drunk driver and their family totally devastated by that event. I believe if you are convicted of a DWI that you should have to take a breathalyzer, yes..and have your license revoked, particularly if there was a death involved and we won't even discuss jail time. But so as not to derail the conversation, I stand by the fact that people cry too much over airport security because they are inconvenienced and don't really think about what the consequences might be if that security were not there. You can bet all those people that hit the world trade center would probably have wanted tighter security had they known what awaited them. I also stated that it did need to be revamped given the amount of people that fly to make the process smoother and more efficient.

Once again, I must apologize. This time for changing the subject without putting on my turn signal.

I am sorry to hear you have been touched by drunk drivers. It was not my intention to trigger unpleasant memories.

Thank you for being willing to engage.

Andrea