Fun Fact: The government said this spring that they don't work.

You really should read your own links sometime, because they don't even come close to that conclusion.

Based on recent first hand experience, they work very well. I had to go back through the scanner because (after being told to completely empty my pockets) I had accidentally left a piece of paper in my shirt pocket.

Turns out the Sniffer from Ghostbusters was a real industrial device.

"It's not the money -- it's the gobs and gobs of money. A bit from the end of Weber's post:

Government Security News reported yesterday that Morpho Detection, Inc., and L-3 Communications have each been awarded contracts worth over half a billion dollars "to supply 'medium speed' explosive detection systems that can screen checked baggage." What GSN didn't mention is that Morpho's CEO, Brad Buswell, is the former head of TSA's Science and Technology Directorate."

Lobbyists In, Lobbyists Out. LILO.

Jonathan Corbett proved the scanners don't work.

Bollocks.

From the links, which I did read:

"Airport Insecurity: TSA’s Failure to Cost Effectively Procure, Deploy and Warehouse its Screening Technologies," states that the TSA "is wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars by inefficiently deploying screening equipment and technology to commercial airports."

Well, okay, maybe by "inefficiently deploying" the article to which Corbett linked buffoonishly summarized the report itself, which surely must show the scanners don't work. I know an entire minute to look is an awful lot of time and effort, but what the heck.

From the executive summary:

This report highlights serious inefficiencies in TSA’s management and deployment of screening technology …

And from further in that report I found a reference to the actual GAO report that Corbett is apparently using as "proof":

While [TSA] officials said AITs performed as well as physical pat downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information GAO has received.

Clearly, both your and Corbett's standards of what constitutes proof aren't particularly lofty.

Obviously, I shouldn't believe my own lying eyes. After all, a scan that identified a piece of paper the size of a Post-it couldn't possibly work, could it?

And your notion of what "works" is no loftier. If scanners make attack planning more difficult, and odds of success lower -- are you prepared to argue that they don't? -- then by definition they work.

Just to be clear, I am no apologist for the TSA; I have far more experience of them than almost anyone you know.

Yet it is impossible to miss the fact that you are two bloggers in one. Vile Islamists continue to have both the motive and the means to kill us. The TSA is completely ineffective.

But you can't get from the first to the second without at least acknowledging the third required element of any crime: opportunity.

There are two historical facts that need explaining: First, we haven't had a successful terrorist attack on an airliner since 9/11. Second, all attempts are originating outside the US.

I don't doubt the TSA is inefficient, or infuriating (took almost an hour for me to get through screening in SEA last Sunday morning), or that it penalizes millions in the search for dozens.

The argument that it is ineffective, though, is one you, despite frequent hysterics, haven't made. And misreading (presuming you went so far ) the source material doesn't help your case.

And when it comes to money, the low ball cost for losing just one airliner is over $1B. And that ignores the worth of the lives, or the knock-on effects.

"But you can't get from the first to the second without at least acknowledging the third required element of any crime: opportunity."

As in, "The TSA is using fear of 9/11 as an opportunity to strip us of our Constitutional rights and to demand quivering obeisance to their every act of nude x-ray child photography, public finger-rape, and other disgusting acts that would be cause for arrest for any other citizen."

I recently had to pass through security at the Vancouver BC airport. I still shake my head.

Imagine approximately 10 different lines to go through metal detectors. Passengers can self select which of the 10 lines they will got through. At the farthest metal detector is the Canadian equivalent of a TSA worker, with a device where she takes a swipe on various parts of your anatomy to see if there is explosive residue on your person.

Now, imagine you are terrorist that just assembled a bomb and put it in your underwear. You have 10 lines to chose from, only one of which has the bomb residue detection device. Which of the 10 metal detector lines are you going to chose to go through?

As in, "The TSA is using fear of 9/11 as an opportunity to strip us ..."

Kind of OT, donchya think?

Perhaps "we" could put a wrench in the works by going Commando en masse. It might rattle the rent-a-cops who have to touch you. Would the backscatter monitor have a potentially embarrassing image on it? Would a backscattered traveller have their junk broadcast to the public? If I actually did this, I like to think that, were I asked to undergo some type of clothing removal, I'd have the stones to insist on doing it in public.

Based on recent first hand experience, they work very well. I had to go back through the scanner because (after being told to completely empty my pockets) I had accidentally left a piece of paper in my shirt pocket. -- Jeff Guinn at August 22, 2012 9:30 AM

You know why it caught the paper? It was in a front or back pocket. You can get something through if it is on the edge of the outline (i.e. on the side of the body).

And your notion of what "works" is no loftier. If scanners make attack planning more difficult, and odds of success lower -- are you prepared to argue that they don't? -- then by definition they work. -- Jeff Guinn at August 22, 2012 11:58 AM

The odds of success has absolutely nothing to do with the TSA. The rules of hijacking changed on the Eleventh Day of September in the Year of our Lord two thousand and one. I'm going to post my normal statement in a moment why the TSA was never needed.

I sincerely ask you to find a flaw, a hole, anything that refutes it. I have not had anyone say I'm wrong. About the only complaint I have had was the 9/11 timeline source I refer to. I have no connection to it other than that was the first one in the Google search.

For all you regular readers of the Goddess' blog you can skip past this post. I'm going to post my regular rant about not needing the TSA. For all you new readers, please read it carefully and refute any statement or misstatement. ;-)

=================================================
The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!

The paradigm, the norm, the expected, what everyone was taught to do was to sit down, shut up and wait for the plane to land and the negotiations happen. That was the model from Entebbe onward.

The passengers on board did not really know what was about to happen on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:30 when Flight 11 struck Tower I.

Even the passengers on Flight 175 probably didn't realize what was about to happen when they struck Tower II at 9:03:02.

The Pentagon crash of Flight 77 at 9:37:46 may have been still a matter of ignorance.

At 10:03:11 on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after the brave souls counter-attacked and caused the hijackers to crash the plane.

The time difference is 60 minutes and 9 seconds from Tower II being struck to the crash of Flight 93. The shoe bomber and panty bomber were taken down by fellow passengers as well. Recently, JetBlue's Flight 191 pilot was taken down by the passengers once he was out of the cockpit. Additionally how many times have you heard of passengers' concerns and diverted flights?

The TSA is and has always been a joke, no make that a total stupidity, that has wasted our country's fortune going down a rabbit hole.

If you don't believe me look at the 9/11 timeline.

There will never be another 9/11 style attack unless the attackers can arrange planes full of geriatrics, and even then it would be doubtful.

Small correction, Amy. Author is Philip Weber, not Bruce Weber (the famous photographer).

You know why it caught the paper? It was in a front or back pocket. You can get something through if it is on the edge of the outline (i.e. on the side of the body).

Perhaps. But even if that is true, in order for anything in that orientation to go undetected, it must have essentially no volume, which leads to ...

The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!

If your only concern is hijacking, then you are right. Intrusion resistant cockpit doors and a complete change in aircrew training (pre 9/11: comply w/ hijacker demands; post 9/11: put the aircraft down on the nearest suitable piece of pavement, then disable the aircraft) mean hijackings will only be found in history books.

Unfortunately, hijacking isn't the only threat.

As has been amply demonstrated since 9/11, Islamists want to use explosives to destroy airliners full of people, and they can find people who are willing to kill themselves in the process.

If you have a way to prevent that other than something along the lines of our annoying personal inspections, I'm all eyes.

But I can't think of one. And for all the whingeing Amy does on this topic, I can't help but note the egoism.

Hypothetical: Let's assume that the TSA prevented only one hull loss over the last decade. No way to know, of course, but since the Islamists have made several attempts, and they all originated outside the US, it certainly isn't an outlandish assumption.

If Amy's life is on the line, she is willing to get her boobs squished during a mammogram, or go through pelvic exams.

But if it is someone else's life at stake, the hell with 'em.

Just to make clear: I think the TSA is wildly inefficient, and spends too much time and effort looking for the wrong things.

Fine. The threat is a splodeydope sneaking enough explosives onto an airliner to bring it down. That's bad enough. What if the Islamofascists manage that several times in the same day?

That is the threat that should keep you awake at night.

How would you counter it?

"If your only concern is hijacking, then you are right. "

Vwry well then Jeff Guinn, name one, JUST ONE, person, plot, or device that the TSA found or foiled.

Just ONE

Vwry [sic] well then Jeff Guinn, name one, JUST ONE, person, plot, or device that the TSA found or foiled.

There isn't one, SFAIK.

But what does that answer mean?

a) That the Islamofascists have caved and are all now eating BLT sandwiches and demanding women dress like Britney Spears.

b) That all manner of plots and devices made it through TSA screening, yet every one of them failed so badly as to go completely unnoticed.

c) That every plot was foiled ahead of time, making the TSA redundant.

d) The TSA, as inefficient as it might be, actually works, to the extent that it forces Islamofascists to operate in ways far less likely to produce success.

IMHO, the evidence excludes the first two. Distinguishing between the second two is far harder; however, the fact that the half dozen or so plots uncovered in the last ten years were outside the US is at least indicative that the splodeydopes are avoiding US security, including the TSA.

My question still stands. The threat is bringing down an airplane using an explosive device brought on board by a suicidal passenger. The cost of just one such incident starts at $1B.

You are in charge of the TSA. How do you counter it?

BTW, Amy, do you still stand by your "proof"?

Calling it "proof" doesn't make it any less. It just makes you look like somebody who debates like an insulted 8-year-old.

Now just hold on. You were the one who cited as proof sources that said no such thing; that made your claim baseless. Either you don't read your own links, or your notion of proof is laughable. Which is it?

I did watch that link, and it is important to keep in mind what it does not claim: that it is possible to get through a scanner enough explosives to bring down a plane. His demo device could contain enough C4 to kill him, and perhaps a couple nearby passengers. But not enough to "bring down a 747" (the video was quite clear that the Israeli security expert had never further explained his own statement, BTW.)

What you need to keep in mind, though, is that your theory (The TSA is utterly useless) is completely incapable of explaining historical fact (all plots have originated outside the purview of the TSA). Moreover, since the essential ingredient of a crime are motive, means, and opportunity, you are also left with the burden of explaining the complete absence of downed airliners.

Your frequent posts on Islamism assure me there is no lack of motive; explosives haven't been dis-invented.

So, why no crimes?

You don't have unskilled workers who are not intelligent or competent enough to get a job beyond the TSA uncover terrorist plots.

No, of course not. They are there to uncover acts. Just as you are apparently unable to distinguish between plots and acts, you are also feverishly inclined to attribute to complete ineffectiveness that which is actually, at least, sufficient effectiveness.

NB: I shouldn't have to repeat, but I will: effectiveness and efficiency are two entirely different things.

Finally. I can't help but notice that, when it comes to answering the question of what you would do in response to the threat, you are utterly silent.

And, your egoism is coming through loud and clear.

Probable cause is the essence of who they're investigating. It's ridiculous to, say, put any money or any effort whatsoever to investigate me and every American as a possible mob-belonging criminal, just as it's ridiculous to feel the balls of every American who goes through the airport.

Gosh, that's funny. I go through security more times than I can count in a year, and I have never once been groped. Aren't you just a bit hysterical on this subject?

In the 1980s, at LHR a pregnant British woman was found to have explosives in her luggage.

I won't go into the backstory, since I am certain your expertise on the subject is so thorough that you know all of this already.

But to everyone else, the woman was exactly the sort of person who, according to Amy, would never be searched. The only reason she was detected was that she was boarding an El Al flight.

Unfortunately, the US has about 8 times as many aircraft boardings in a day as Israel has in an entire year.

So, once again. If you are so damn smart, what is your solution?

Pretend you are the one on the hook if it goes wrong.

Jeff, back up a second.

Do you "buy" the following premises?

1) Airlines are the only American target for terrorists.

2) TSA searching passengers, but not baggage or caterers - and not verifying freight content - is effective at keeping explosives off planes.

3) TSA is needed today to keep a hijacker out of the cockpit.

I don't.

"Jeff, back up a second."

To which the TSA would add, "...and arch your back a little. That's it, baby. Thaaat's it."

As has been amply demonstrated since 9/11, Islamists want to use explosives to destroy airliners full of people, and they can find people who are willing to kill themselves in the process. -- Jeff Guinn at August 23, 2012 8:45 AM

If the destruction airliners full of people of was an effective approach, why didn't that happen often after Lockerbie?

The explosives carried by both the shoe and panty bombers might have caused a decompression of the aircraft, but they would have had to cut about a three backup systems to cause a crash. They would have been pressed to the outer wall of the plane when the explosives detonated.

Saying post 9/11 that blowing up planes was effective and we need the TSA to stop it ignores history. Pan Am Flight 103 went down to a bombing in 1988. The TSA was not implemented in 1988. There were changes made afterward, but none of them involved a TSA agent groping me or limiting how much liquid I could carry on a plane.

The short way of saying this: Your arguments fail; please try again.

So Jeff, if by your own addmission the TSA has no real purpose and has accopmplished nothing, and by your finacial estimate it would have been better for dozens of 'incidents' to occur from a finacial standpoint - what the fuck is your reasoning for supporting the TSA at all?

[Amy] I know the story. She was an Irish woman with an Arab boyfriend, and she was discovered to have a bomb in her luggage because Israel does not have people working security who would otherwise be manning the cash register at a pizzaria on Dizengoff Street.

So let me get this straight: You advocate (ignoring for the moment the practicality of doing so in a nation of 330 million people) here in the United States the kind of intrusive state monitoring of individuals that Israel practices.

Oh wait, you don't.

Which points directly at why I say you are doing nothing more than shrieking. You never address the threat, which means you don't burden yourself with wondering what else can do about it. Worse, you haven't devoted so much as a pixel to the downside risks of a successful attack.

On this you are all egoism and noise, untainted by anything remotely resembling analysis or reading your own sources.

[Jim P] The short way of saying this: Your arguments fail; please try again.

Perhaps, but it is hard to tell since you didn't address even one of them.

My argument is this: Islamists continue to have the motive and means to bring down airliners. Therefore, the only reason they haven't is because they lack opportunity.

And it isn't as if they haven't tried. They have, from outside the US; the most recent incident was in May. There are a couple explanations that fit this set of facts. Intel inside the US is, and will always be, so good that we know about all plots before they become acts; therefore, the TSA is redundant. Alternatively, the reason Islamists are initiate their acts outside the US is because the TSA provides enough of a barrier to make operational success unlikely.

I don't know which, and you don't either. But I think the former to be an extraordinary claim.

Consequently, IMHO, the fact that the TSA hasn't uncovered any terrorist acts demonstrates that airport security is, in fact, sufficiently effective (reiterating: that doesn't mean efficient)

The explosives carried by both the shoe and panty bombers might have caused a decompression of the aircraft, but they would have had to cut about a three backup systems to cause a crash. They would have been pressed to the outer wall of the plane when the explosives detonated.

As it happens, I'm an airline pilot, so I'm reasonably well informed on this subject. However, I have no how much explosive of the types available to terrorists is required to have, say, a 1% chance of bringing down an airliner, and you don't, either. Is it 5 ounces, a pound?

Just guessing, but I think a pound is plenty, and four ounces not enough. So pick a middle number. Say that 8 oz is enough.

What measures do we have to take to keep 8 oz of explosives off an airplane?

If the destruction airliners full of people of was an effective approach, why didn't that happen often after Lockerbie?

What, ten times not often enough for you?

[lujlp] So Jeff, if by your own admission the TSA has no real purpose and has accomplished nothing, and by your financial estimate it would have been better for dozens of 'incidents' to occur from a financial standpoint - what the fuck is your reasoning for supporting the TSA at all?

When I said $1B for an accident, that is just the first order costs (cost of the plane, investigation, lawsuits, insurance payouts, etc.) And that is if the airplane doesn't hit anything other than dirt. That, of course, makes no attempt to assign a monetary value to the lives lost.

Clearly, you, like Amy, haven't given the downside risks any thought. But do. Consider the possibility that terrorists manage to bring down two airliners in the same day.

What do you suppose that would do to the airline industry? How many people do you think would lose their jobs? What do you think might happen to civil rights as a consequence?

You, like Amy, are perfectly willing to undergo all manner of invasive medical procedures when it is about you.

To hell with anyone else.

So, to reiterate, the TSA acomplishes nothing, and is more expensive than actual acts of terrorism.

And as you have failed to answer it I'll ask again.

Why then do you endorse the program?

Why then do you endorse the program?

Try re-reading Posted by: Jeff Guinn at August 24, 2012 11:44 AM.

This time for comprehension.

Which you could demonstrate by actually addressing my arguments.

Goes for Amy, too.

I did read your comment Jeff the only thing I could find that aproaches an answer would be this

"Islamists continue to have the motive and means to bring down airliners. Therefore, the only reason they haven't is because they lack opportunity."

Was that your answer?

Its been more than five hours Jeff, I am for the sake of the argument I am about to make assume this is your reason for supporting the TSA, if I am wrong please point out the specific paragraph you inteneded.

So then an I understand it you support the TSA because you believe terrorists are out there and have the means an motive but not the opportunity, and once they have the opportunity then they will strike.
But just airliners nothing else?

My repsonse to that line of reasoning is thus.

I have this button you see and I'm willing to sell it to you for the low, low price of 200,000 dollars. It repels Wangdoodles, and Hornswogglers, and Snozzwangers, and rotten, Vermicious Knids to a radius of 50 miles away.
Ohh, almost forgot, it also repels snow ligers, but not snow lepords, I have a marble that repels snow lepords I'll throw in for free if you want

Sure you might think its expenseive, but your family man, is any cost too great to protect their well being? Now to be fair I cant prove to yopu that it works, in fact according to several independent tests by the buttons oversight commitee it fails horrible every time. But someday when they come for you its protection will be better than nothing at all right? Right?

[lujlp] So then an I understand it you support the TSA because you believe terrorists are out there and have the means an motive but not the opportunity, and once they have the opportunity then they will strike.

So far as you have gone, which isn't very, you understand correctly.

Which part do you disagree with?

But just airliners nothing else?

No. So what?

BTW, your response, given five hours to ferment, was as perfect an example of a non sequitor as I have ever seen.

Unless, of course, you think Islamists are no more real than Wangdoodles, Hornswogglers, et al.

Nope, I just think my magic button is more effective than the TSA.

Even assuming you are right Jeff and the only thing stopping terrorists is lack of opportunity it still makes no sense to sprnd more on a jobs program that costds more than dozens of terrorist incidents and is in fact LESS EFFECTIVE than mall cops