In the end, it's their choice. The stats have always been there. Free will does not a murder make. Nice try.

The TSA is morphing into the USPD, which will be "a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military. And it will be considered unlawful to "hack" them by looking at their IP address or, as with so many local police forces, to record them. And 51% of the voters will accept it with smug happiness.

See you in the Job Re-Training Camp, Amy.
(Through the wire, i mean. Hain't gonna be co-ed.)

Well "Knowing" isn't that interesting. A government employee on a government computer system going going toe to toe with a private citizen.

I'd say that is misuse of government resources. All employees are required to be familiar with what constitutes misuse of resources. I'm fairly sure that counts.

I wonder which this should be regarded as and which way it should be handled?

A. Contact the DoHS and inform them of the misuse of government resources.
B. File a congressional complaint and report that the Department of Homeland Security employees are using government resources to go after bloggers who speak out against the government.
C. Just spread it around the internet that DoHS employees use government resources to harass private citizens on the citizen's dime.

None of that looks pretty. Maybe "Knowing" you should bother to KNOW, something about what you should and should not be doing on a government system. Maybe you should remember your own policies. I'm pretty sure we're not so Orwellian yet that you are actually being paid to harass citizens that speak out against the government.

SO, may we now get your actual name so you may retain at least SOME dignity when you are reported to your supervisor for misuse of resources? And to let them know the bar has now been dropped so low that they're hiring people to stupid to realize that with an IP address the individual system and who accessed it is all readily available to the IT department, which can then follow through with the relevant disciplinary action.

You know, when you login to that government computer, and it pops up with that little message, informing you that you consent to monitoring? Yeah, you are actually monitored. I used to work for the Information Assurance department during my last deployment, all sorts of wonderful toys they have, can track down everything a user does on a system.

See I know these things, because I'm a federal employee myself. Military branch, but 6 of one half dozen of the other. But "I" don't use government resources to go after citizens. I DEFEND their rights.

Maybe you should consider doing the same. You know, like what your job SHOULD BE.

Please do not take these things as threats, threats or ambiguous, this is a simple statement of fact, you are in direct violation of your acceptable use policy, I can all but promise you that, you are also a government employee acting to verbally accost one of the citizens YOU WORK FOR. This is NOT acceptable behavior by a government employee at any level, LEAST of all the federal level in a department that is meant to serve the public's best interests.

And don't try to play this off as if you are doing your job right now, Public Affairs offices exist for a reason, to address, officially, complaints, concerns, and put out the official line or respond to inquiries or allegations made publicly. YOU are no way working in public affairs.

I'd wager good odds that you read that TSA blogger, or this citizen's interactions with him, and you decided on your own to use government resources to make a response to a citizen's free speech. At least the blogger, if I understand correctly, actually does that for his job. (Whether the position should exist doesn't matter, the point is HE is doing what he is supposed to, YOU, are not.)

Bah, I've overstepped a bit I believe. Miss Alkon I leave it to you.

You are well within your rights to report the misuse of government resources.

There is NO acceptable circumstance under which a government employee on government systems on government time should ever be harassing a private citizen engaged in the act of free speech. I'm not sure if it is worse, or better, that he is doing so anonymously as a citizen, rather than officially.

I don't give a shit WHAT their personal feelings are, we're held to a higher standard than that.

Oh and "Knowing" just so that you "know" something in the future, that might be useful to you, if you come across speech such as Miss Alkon's again, the professional response would be to notify the appropriate PR department which specializes in dealing with the public and addressing concerns.

Not going on a long winded spiel that is full of passion, half truths, insults, and justifications. Just do your job, and if you MUST resort to the aforementioned spiel, do it from home, on your own time.

Knowing: "In the end, it's their choice. The stats have always been there. Free will does not a murder make."

@Knowing: What the hell are you talking about? You've posted a lot of sentences and paragraphs, but no coherent thoughts. It's apparent that you dislike Ms Alkon because of her objections to the despicable activities of TSA employees, but so far you've made no clear argument as to why you think she's wrong. The only thing you've made clear is that you yourself are a government employee engaged in those despicable activities.

Could you give some reasons why you think specific activities of TSA workers that are similar to the activities of someone who molests children at a mall are justified? I don't expect that I'll agree with you, but I am sincerely interested in "knowing" why people like you think what you do for money is a good thing. Thanks.

In the end, it's their choice. The stats have always been there. Free will does not a murder make. Nice try.

It's the "she was wearing a tight skirt" defense. There are few things more satisfying than blaming the victim, which is what you're doing when you say, "it's their choice." It's not their choice to die. They would rather be flying, but government asshats like you make it so unpleasant that they opt to drive instead. You should "know" that actions have consequences, and right now the taxpayers are forking over $8 billion a year for something that is killing us more than protecting us.

It's like hiring a bouncer at a club who doesn't stop the violence inside but occasionally beats up innocent people walking in. And sometimes steals their toothpaste.

"Guess what: "Knowing" is yet another government thug."

For me, the sign that somebody has an inflated sense of self-worth is a handle like that. Ditto, for people using "Truth", etc.
Radwaste is my job.

Dude, here's a tip: the brown shirt doesn't hide those food stains like you think it does.

Buddy of mine has an adage about people like "Knowing": Once a tool, always a tool.

Nothing more, nothing less. Well, maybe something less. Less than the shit I scrape off the bottom of my boot. Which actually describes most of the TSA workers anyway, dunnit?

Nice try. Better recheck the IP.

Nice try. Better recheck the IP. -- Knowing at November 24, 2012 11:20 AM

I bet you're now posting from some aircard. It doesn't really matter. Until you come up with some truly fact based posts you're just an irritating troll.

Amy: this.

Also, try to keep in mind the difference between intent and accident.

It matters.

[Amy:] Jeff, you actually have to digest a link and explain what it is, not just post "this" and expect everyone is going to read a PDF of some subcommittee meeting.

Predigested, as in I already knew airline pilots' position on this issue.

Maintaining and enforcing effective control of access to sterile and secure airport areas is critically important to the safety and security of the airline industry and the traveling public.

…

Airport screening checkpoints play a prominent role in an airport’s security plan, providing access and screening controls to airport sterile areas for passengers, aviation and airport workers.

…

It has been ALPA’s general experience that TSA and airport authorities do a very good job in controlling and preventing unauthorized access to sterile and secure airport areas. There have been some documented failures in this regard, causing inconvenience to passengers and resulting in a negative impact on the timeliness of airline and airport operations. However, we know of no such instances which involved persons who possessed the intent to do harm to the aviation industry. Based on the specifics of these reported incidents, we believe that both TSA and airports have developed sound strategies intended to prevent their reoccurrence.

You have done plenty of bleating on this subject, without saying a syllable about what you would want done instead.

Which is?

Before answering, review FAR 91.3. It matters. A lot.

"You have done plenty of bleating on this subject, without saying a syllable about what you would want done instead."

That's been done by the commenters. Read back.

And the first two paragraphs above are NOT done, as has been noted repeatedly here, with citations taken from news reports.

Did you notice the excuse in the third case? Basically, it says that when there were lapses nothing happened, so that's OK.

No football coach excuses missed coverage just because the ball wasn't thrown that way.

You cited empty words.

ALPA is just another crony union. It represents the interests of everyday pilots about as well as the NEA represents the interests of everyday teachers.

Just a thought on getting the government to monitor itself…

A couple of months ago there was a Command meeting (filled with Lieutenant Colonels, Colonels and other such high-level GS employees) talking about ways to make the hospital more efficient. One of the surgeons in attendance recommended directly keeping track of the amount of time spent on such non-official websites as Youtube or Facebook. Per the surgeon, he was immediately shot down by said Lieutenant Colonels, Colonels and other such high-level GS employees who seemed to have a vested self-interest in not keeping direct tabs on web-related activities (even though all the data is recorded and stored). As a view from the inside, the only way you can get the government to care about what its minions are doing is if they are viewing porn at work. Even then it seems to be a hard sell to punish lazy government employees.

Maybe Knowing can feel comfortable (as a high school graduate GS-5-7) misusing/abusing government resources. Or maybe not… He/she seems to be rather quiet on the current discussion.

[Cousin Dave:] ALPA is just another crony union. It represents the interests of everyday pilots about as well as the NEA represents the interests of everyday teachers.

That is an absolutely perfect ad hominem.

[Radwaste:] That's been done by the commenters. Read back.

Really? Link, please, because I sure can't find anything.

And the first two paragraphs above are NOT done, as has been noted repeatedly here, with citations taken from news reports.

NB: I have never said the TSA is perfect, or even close enough to perfection that it can't be made better. Rather, I have maintained that checkpoint screening has been effective (which is also ALPA's position), and is, unfortunately, essential.

So, if you can find a better way to keep bombs off airplanes, then please let us all know.

Because so long as the Islamist threat continues, the option of eliminating, or relaxing, screening does not exist.

Which is why I referred you to FAR 91.3 above: Captains will not fly the airplanes.

So, if you can find a better way to keep bombs off airplanes, then please let us all know.

The timeline of airliner bombing attacks shows about 88 attempts to bomb planes in aviation history. Let's assume security missed 500% of the rest of the attempts. That is about 440 attempted bombings. The average number of commercial launches each day is well over 50,000.

The threat of bombs are the same pre and post 9/11 -- insignificant. The reason that the Lockerbie was not repeated often is that it was ineffective. Yes, while Pan Am Flight 103 did crash into Lockerbie, it only killed 11 people on the ground.

The security prior to 9/11 deterred most bombings. Then throw in that 60% of cargo is still not screened even after 9/11 the bombings have not significantly increased means that bombings are not a threat.

Which is why I referred you to FAR 91.3 above: Captains will not fly the airplanes. -- Jeff Guinn at November 25, 2012 3:45 PM

All FAR 91.3 says is that pilot is in charge. About all that encompasses is that the senior pilot is responsible for the aircraft and it's conduct and landing safely regardless of the normal rules.

If that were to include flying over Area 51 or other secured flight areas they are now subject to shoot down where the pilots weren't subject to shoot down prior to 9/11.

That is the only difference.

[Jim P:] All FAR 91.3 says is that pilot is in charge.

No.

What it says is that the pilot in command is the final authority. Which means that if the PIC decides that the flight is not safe to depart, it won't.

There is no particular disagreement among airline pilots that checkpoint screening (among other security measures) is essential. So, if some redhead was to show up without, thanks to an epic fit, having gone through screening and insist she be flown from point A to B, she will remain at point A.

Period.

Let's assume security missed 500% of the rest of the attempts. That is about 440 attempted bombings.

Let's not assume that, because it is silly on its face.

You don't seem to understand deterrence.

You don't seem to understand deterrence.

You dont seem to understand reality

Wow, lujlp, you really have that insult thing down. Constructing an argument, not so much.

Kinda hard to structure an argument for you what with your blind faith, and complete lack of reason, logic, and critical thinking skills

Wow, lujlp, you really have that insult thing down. Constructing an argument, not so much.

(apologies for the double post)

lujlp: Then it should be easy for you to do, so give it a try. And, by all means, send your argument to ALPA; I'm sure they will be thrilled to get it.

---

Amy: You really should give a sanity check to numbers before you trot them out: 242 extra automotive deaths per month should have prompted giant question marks, interspersed with exclamation points.

There were 800 additional motor vehicle deaths in 2002 vice 2001, along with 60 million more vehicle-miles, for a year-on-year increase in the fatality rate of .89%. However, 242 additional deaths per month means an increase in the monthly fatality rate of 7% -- nearly an order of magnitude greater.

Even if every death was attributable to driving in lieu of flying --which itself is an idiotic assumption -- the numbers are so far out of whack with reality that one wonders if Cornell University's notion of mathematics is yanking numbers from where the sun doesn't shine.

And that is before getting to jaw dropping nonsense behind

The Cornell researchers also suggest that enhanced domestic baggage screening reduced passenger volume by about 5 percent in the five years after 9/11, and the substitution of driving for flying by those seeking to avoid security hassles over that period resulted in more than 100 road fatalities.

Do you really think (actually, I doubt you gave it any thought at all) that those vaunted Cornell researchers can measure 100 deaths out of more than 214,000?

I know math is hard, but for pete's sake, this stuff is obvious by even the most superficial inspection.

You don't seem to understand deterrence. -- Jeff Guinn at November 25, 2012 9:40 PM

Yes, I do. You refuse to acknowledge that there have been only 88 attempted/successful airline bombings in aviation history. There are are about 108 hijackings total, over time,

So call it 1000 hijacking and bombings attempts in aviation history. And let's say that only 25K commercial flights launch per day. So 25K flights * 30 days = 750,000 flights per month.

That gets all bombings and hijackings combined to about a 1 in a 1M chance.

[Jim P:] That gets all bombings and hijackings combined to about a 1 in a 1M chance.

Since 9/11, how many didn't happen?

That's the problem you refuse to come to terms with.

While you are having fun with numbers, think about this. Had the shoe and panty bombers been successful, the loss rate for US airliners from bombings would have been 70% the loss rate for all other causes, combined. And infinity times as many fatalities.

And infinity times as many fatalities.

Ooops, hasty typing. And twice as many ...

Jeff Guinn:

I despair of mentioning anything and have you understand it, because of that earlier thing where you didn't understand safety analysis applying to deliberate as well as unintentional acts.
Hey Skipper, actually a pilot, favors dogs and interviews by qualified and vetted people (not the convenience store clerks without credentials found in TSA uniforms now), and if you step off this blog awhile to the often-cited Patrick Smith's Ask The Pilot column, he has plenty to say on the subject.

But let me return to a Gross Conceptual Error you have - that "deterrence" is "prevention".

It is NOT.

Not only does deterrence not prevent attacks on the venue claimed, it definitively does NOT protect ALTERNATE targets.

Basically, your entire argument is that because TSA is patting people down, terrorists will not attack anywhere.

Because they aren't doing that.

That argument is fallacious, and thus worthless.

Radwaste:

Jeff Guinn = Hey Skipper

Not only does deterrence not prevent attacks on the venue claimed, it definitively does NOT protect ALTERNATE targets.

You have absolutely no evidence for the former, and have yet to understand the irrelevance of the latter.

Like it or not, Islamofascists view airliners as being particularly high-value targets (try counting attacks on Western targets sometime: compare those against or using airliners against all others).

I despair of mentioning anything and have you understand it, because of that earlier thing where you didn't understand safety analysis applying to deliberate as well as unintentional acts.

I have a pretty decent background in safety, and the "deliberate acts" you talk about have nothing whatsoever to do with suicidal acts of war; rather, they are the intentional deviations from standard procedures, whether through sloppiness, ego, or complacency. "Blue Threat: Why to err is inhuman" is a whole book about just that.

Basically, your entire argument is that because TSA is patting people down, terrorists will not attack anywhere.

Bollocks. Pure alternate universe nonsense. Basically, your entire argument has thus far rested upon ignorance (1), conceptual confusion (2), and a tour of logical fallacies (3).

----

1: you were ignorant of what is required for a bomb, and similarly clueless about continuing attacks on the U.S.

2: continued inability to distinguish the realm of safety programs, and intentional criminal acts. I can't think of, off hand, and even with more prolonged reflection, a single safety measure that would be even glancingly effective against the suicidal.

3. Previously, you clearly didn't know what a straw-man is, but in the statement above, you demonstrate considerable skill in using one. How can that be?

----

But hey, why take my word for any of this? Like I suggested above, take your argument to ALPA. What I am arguing is essentially ALPA's position. Clearly, since you know so much more, I am sure they will be thrilled to hear from you.

And if you don't think checkpoint security is effective, try sneaking through something that could plausibly become a bomb.

But hey, why take my word for any of this? Like I suggested above, take your argument to ALPA. What I am arguing is essentially ALPA's position. Clearly, since you know so much more, I am sure they will be thrilled to hear from you.

Other than the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program PDF on the ALPA website do they mention terrorism? And the FFDO program is subject to cuts under Obama.

1: you were ignorant of what is required for a bomb, and similarly clueless about continuing attacks on the U.S.

No, I am not. You keep insisting that Like it or not, Islamofascists view airliners as being particularly high-value targets. That may be true -- but you refuse give any citation for this "fact". If the shoe bomber and panty bomber are your facts -- that is two actual attempts among 182,500,000 (50000 * 365 * 10) flights. Two bombing attempts comes to about 2/(50000 * 365 * 10) .00000000109589041% of all fights have had an attempted bombing. The TSA was not involved as both flights originated overseas.

Saying the TSA is effective is similar to the argument that because a village disbanded the local police force and contracted with the state the murder rate is steady.

The murder rate in the village was 0% for the prior 20 years. The state police becomes the local law enforcement, the murder rate stayed at 0%. Is this the state police doing their job or is that the natural state of the village?

[Jim P:] Other than the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program PDF on the ALPA website do they mention terrorism?

Here.

(FWIW, for reasons you have given, and I agree with, I think both the FFDO and FSM programs should be scrapped.)

The TSA was not involved as both flights originated overseas.

Yes, the TSA was involved, precisely because they originated overseas.

[Me: ] Like it or not, Islamofascists view airliners as being particularly high-value targets.

That may be true -- but you refuse give any citation for this "fact".

Who needs a citation for the bleeding obvious?

(And it isn't as if a citation somehow creates ground truth — as the patently bogus numbers that were the source for this post clearly demonstrate.)

Two bombing attempts comes to about 2/(50000 * 365 * 10) .00000000109589041% of all fights have had an attempted bombing.

So let me get this straight. Security screening works, and you want to, well, what?

If you want to argue there is no threat, then give it a go. Or if you think it better we change things so as to shave some of those leading zeroes, then make the case.

Otherwise, you are doing a lot of typing without a point.

The murder rate in the village was 0% for the prior 20 years. The state police becomes the local law enforcement, the murder rate stayed at 0%. Is this the state police doing their job or is that the natural state of the village?

Arguing from analogy is only worthwhile if the analogy is not itself false, and also clarifies the argument.

Here it does neither. The argument is already plenty clear, and your analogy is so false even the punctuation is suspect.

Jeff, you've just plain lost it. Two posts ago, you've confused me with someone else.

I have a pretty good idea of what bombs need to be. An acquaintance here actually teaches IED construction to a variety of state and Federal agencies.

It remains that the USA is NOT protected from terrorism by patdowns, AND the lack of attacks by terrorists on other targets shows that TSA is not being challenged.

It remains that IF TSA is challenged by a determined adversary - the one alleged to be at our throats daily - the failure rate demonstrated by TSA audits will let one through.

IF the adversary really exists.

I really wish you'd visit one of the many sites regarding fallacies and apply their points to your claims.