Interview With TSA Screener Reveals 'Fatal Flaws' 582
OverTheGeicoE writes "Jonathan Corbett, creator of the video showing that TSA's body scanners can't see metal objects on our sides, has a new video out. This time he's interviewing an experienced TSA screener identified only as 'Jennifer,' and her allegations point to 'fatal flaws' in TSA and its procedures. Worse, TSA's screeners are well aware of these flaws. According to Jennifer, body scanners frequently fail to detect objects on passengers, and this flaw is well known to the screeners on the job. People with visible items in their pockets can pass through scanners without detection, even when the items are simulated weapons or explosives. Jennifer also alleges that training for screeners is severely lacking. Screeners are directed to operate body scanners, even the X-ray scanners, without any training whatsoever. The manual of standard operating procedures often can't be found at the checkpoints, let alone read. Jennifer was so alarmed by what she experienced that she wrote her congressional representative to complain. She was ultimately fired as a result, effective yesterday."
Re:She's missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
TSA's root reason for existence :
0) Transfer power (in the form of money) into fewer hands
It's a service economy. Ever wonder why they are called "security services" now? Service economies are ideal for oligarchs, because they don't even involve the transfer of goods - your customers won't have anything to show for their money that they could trade elsewhere after they finish partaking of your service.
Heaven forbid that someone point out that the service being provided is essentially worthless. That threatens this particular segment of the economy.
Re:Fired for speaking up? (Score:5, Interesting)
How the hell does that make sense, she finally spoke up that the system is broken and got fired?
The system is not really meant to work. Early on, plenty of people pointed out the following:
What the TSA is meant to do is give people the appearence of security, so that they will feel safe and keep flying, and so that they will think that the same people who supported Osama Bin Laden in the 1980s are now "doing something" to protect them. That goal was accomplished years ago, but getting rid of the TSA would undo all of that. Now that the TSA is here for good, corrupt politicians can use it to funnel money into the wallets of their friends -- the people who own high-tech scanner making businesses.
If a TSA employee says that the TSA's procedures are useless, they are threatening the appearance that the TSA is meant to foster, and worse still they are increasing the likelihood that the general population will wake up and realize how idiotic the TSA is.
It's the same as the facebook password issue... (Score:4, Interesting)
And yes, European countries do protect workers more, but much of this protection is negotiated by free marked powers (ie. unions and employers).
IMO the system of "consenting mutually beneficial relationships" without powerful unions fails to benefit the small man.
Especially, when big (greedy) business is involved.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets back this up - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate [wikipedia.org]
It's very hard to fire a person in German and they've got one of the lowest unemployment rates (5.7%) in Europe. In Japan (4.7%) they tend not to fire people even if they are awful, they just get moved to another office. The USA and UK are both ranked at 8.3%. That's a whole country worth of people in the US without a job and no social system to fall back on - erghh. Does that mean the poorest country is inside the richest country? How do they pay rent?
Greece(21%) and Spain(23.6%) no longer have any jobs to be fired from, so it doesn't matter what the hiring laws are, you can't hire or fire a person for no job. I've lost the point to this. back to work...
Re:Firing in US (Score:2, Interesting)
on the other hand it could be that the EU recognises that businesses are out to make money (often at any cost) and are therefore known to treat human beings like disposable products. In my experience the people who act like children are management (the higher up you go the more toddler like they behave). Sacking someone because you are having a bad day is pretty shitty on the person being sacked so the EU has laws in place to prevent such things. Here's a little example...
Spando Corp is run by Mr Trumpton - the national press in UK publishes a story about Mr Trumpton's gaudy taste, flappy comb-over hair style and aggressive attempts to purchase a large amount of land that is in an area of special scientific interest to rip the landscape up and turn into a giant sandpit for him and his rich friends to play in. Mr Trumpton takes exception to the publication of these facts and decides to shutdown Spando Corp's production in the UK. 2000+ people (and their families) are now facing financial hardship down to nothing but the stroppy-toddleresk behavour of an ignorant tasteless prick. Thankfully the UK has laws that prevent this (i.e. requirement for 90 consultation if making more than 20 people redundant) and financial recompense when they finally are made redundant (not forgetting legal periods of notification based on how long you've been with Spando Corp). In the US could Trumpton really just sack 2000 on a whim? what's that tosh about Government of/for/by the people?
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Interesting)
Horse$#!t.
Go spend some time in Europe. My experience in Germany and Austria has been that that the government produces regulations that assume you can make your own decisions and be responsible for your own actions. If you screw up, you pay the price. Slip on a puddle and hit your head at the water park? Your fault - everyone knows water parks have slippery spots. Be more careful next time. A lawsuit is out of the question.
My experience was that day-to-day rules and regulations are mostly self-enforced: Occasionally an inspector will come around and if you are caught in violation, you will be fined. And you know what? It works. The government doesn't want to pay someone to poke into your life all the time, so they don't.
In comparison, the US (and England, in my experience) is practically a surveillance state. Every level of government assumes that you won't possibly comply unless someone is actually watching you. The government assumes you are an idiot and can't be trusted to walk onto a subway car without someone watching you. If you could make the US police and security industries as efficient as the ones I say in Europe, you'd make a good start on cutting the cost of government. Let's not even get started about the US policies about air travel.
The reason people in the US hate regulation is because the federal, state, and local governments have proved so bad at implementing them.
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I have no insurance, go to an ER in the US because I got hit by a car. It's a hit and run, so there's no other person's insurance to cover it. I now have literally $20-30k in doctor's bills that will likely take the rest of my life to pay. And if I get sent to collections, good luck getting a decent paying job or any credit ever again. Yes, the top tiers of US health care are some of the best in the world. However it's paid for on the backs of those who can't really afford it.
Re:Firing in US (Score:4, Interesting)
Firstly, the TSA is not a business.
Secondly, those involved in businesses may have an incentive to act this way, but it's not what an economy is about, or for, and businesses are just a legal/organizational tool to economic ends. An economy's correct purpose is to make economic decisions - what/how much to produce, how to produce it, who gets to consume it - so as to maximize its citizens welfare. (Simple to say, of course....limited rationality, the enormous potential for conflict between individuals and between equity and efficiency and the mixing in of politics makes it incredibly hard).
An economy can fail by producing too little or too much or dividing the work badly (and so the leisure/consumption balance is wrong). It can fail by degrading the environment its citizens experience without adequate associated benefits to them (eg, allowing poor quality building, or the destruction of parks). It can fail by producing something stupid, such as air passenger scans that cause harm and bring no benefits. It can fail by incurring costs such as the training of new staff in exchange for a smaller benefit to an individual in a powerful position, and with the result that poor economic decisions continue to be made because his mismanagement goes unchallenged.
So.....how do you think this particular government decision is doing when it comes to having a well functioning economy?
Re:Firing in US (Score:5, Interesting)
Totally agree the specific case isn't free market. But interested in the wider debate. My experience is that the theory you state (and as I was taught), just doesn't appear to happen. From my working life, which I don't have any reason to believe has brought me in to contact with a particularly bad subset of people, poor performing people are often promoted, and massively inefficient business regularly carry on. Don't get me wrong I like the implied use of evolutionary theory, but I do not believe in the limited real world that it is the major factor. Many businesses work in isolated or limited gene pools, if i may abuse the metphor. Nor do I believe we should abbrogate responsibility for management of finite resources , or have the time (millions of generations) to allow such a crude tool to work.