Flying the Quiet Skies

[ignerntbend]

They're following people around that they shouldn't be following around and even the follow arounders recognize it as stupid. Apparently nobody has gotten hurt. What you do is justify your budget by spending as much money as possible. Things work the way they work. Maybe next year they'll find a more productive way to waste money. Right now they're grasping at straws and the straws they grasp at, while ungraspable, give a lot of good people jobs which drive the economy. that's very commendable. Very commendable. I, for one, doff my hat to these brave men and women who follow people around. And you should too.

 

[C_Hallbert]

They're following people around that they shouldn't be following around and even the follow arounders recognize it as stupid. Apparently nobody has gotten hurt. What you do is justify your budget by spending as much money as possible. Things work the way they work. Maybe next year they'll find a more productive way to waste money. Right now they're grasping at straws and the straws they grasp at, while ungraspable, give a lot of good people jobs which drive the economy. that's very commendable. Very commendable. I, for one, doff my hat to these brave men and women who follow people around. And you should too.

Perfectly Ludicrous..... Bravo! LMAO.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dennishoddy]

They're following people around that they shouldn't be following around and even the follow arounders recognize it as stupid. Apparently nobody has gotten hurt. What you do is justify your budget by spending as much money as possible. Things work the way they work. Maybe next year they'll find a more productive way to waste money. Right now they're grasping at straws and the straws they grasp at, while ungraspable, give a lot of good people jobs which drive the economy. that's very commendable. Very commendable. I, for one, doff my hat to these brave men and women who follow people around. And you should too.

There is a lot of truth in your comment.

 

[Dave70968]

I'm questioning the need for the "quiet skies" program, but if it does increase security and does help identify terrorist, and it costs tax dollars, your against it because of the dollars?
I'm not following this train of thought.

1) I doubt whether it actually increases security. I doubt it seriously, in fact.
2) Even if it does increase security, I doubt whether it's the most efficient use of the money. If something costs a billion dollars per year, and identifies one potential threat a year, and another program costs the same billion dollars per year, but identifies ten (legitimate) threats per year, where should the funding be sent? Assume--unlike fed.gov seems to think--that money is a limited resource. Remember that economics is the study of scarcity; in a real-world scenario, where resources (capital and otherwise) are scarce, it seems only sensible that they should be allocated to the most productive ends. Any third-grader can understand that; pity we can't send third-graders to fed.gov service (not a dig at you, but at the idjits in DC).

I think the program is a waste of time, manpower, and money. I think that of TSA generally, and of this "hey, let's stalk people without any probable cause" program specifically.

 

[C_Hallbert]

1) I doubt whether it actually increases security. I doubt it seriously, in fact.
2) Even if it does increase security, I doubt whether it's the most efficient use of the money. If something costs a billion dollars per year, and identifies one potential threat a year, and another program costs the same billion dollars per year, but identifies ten (legitimate) threats per year, where should the funding be sent? Assume--unlike fed.gov seems to think--that money is a limited resource. Remember that economics is the study of scarcity; in a real-world scenario, where resources (capital and otherwise) are scarce, it seems only sensible that they should be allocated to the most productive ends. Any third-grader can understand that; pity we can't send third-graders to fed.gov service (not a dig at you, but at the idjits in DC).

I think the program is a waste of time, manpower, and money. I think that of TSA generally, and of this "hey, let's stalk people without any probable cause" program specifically.

If this program was a viable concept, it should be applicable to other forms of crime control and consistent with U.S. Constitutional Protections. Law Enforcement could then proceed with similar programs with randomly selected surveillance of Citizens for murder, theft, illicit drug crimes, assault, domestic violence, indecent exposure.....anything that can be imagined, with justification based on a simple selection from a list of normal human behaviors that anyone might exhibit at any given time. The next big innovation might then be random arrest and incarceration as Crime Prevention because: if you’re behind bars, you can’t commit crime. Perfect.....






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hobbes]

That list of red flag behaviours must include half the passengers on the plane.
I can understand the logic behind some of them but dozing off to sleep on a long flight is an absurd red flag.

 

[okie362]

I'm typically asleep before we push back and I wake up when the wheels touch down on domestic flights. On international flights I usually get at least one of the three or so meals if going from say Dallas to Abu Dhabi but I ca sleep from Dallas to London or Frankfurt.

Odd thing is never sleep more than 3-4 hours when I'm on the ground.

 

[Catt57]

TSA is nothing more than "security theater".

------------------------------------

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...10/11/does_the_tsa_ever_catch_terrorists.html

The aforementioned "behavioral detection program," also known as SPOT (Screening of Passengers by Observational Techniques), has been one of the TSA's most roundly criticized initiatives. In May, the Government Accountability Office released a report noting that SPOT's annual cost is more than $200 million and that as of March 2010 some 3,000 behavior detection officers were deployed at 161 airports but had not apprehended a single terrorist. (Hundreds of illegal aliens and drug smugglers, however, were arrested due to the program between 2004 and 2008.) What's more, the GAO noted that at least 16 individuals later accused of involvement in terrorist plots flew 23 different times through U.S. airports since 2004, but TSA behavior-detection officers didn't sniff out any of them.

-----------------------------------


https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2017/07/03/new-test-tsa-still-failing-detect-95-threats/

The TSA has failed to meaningfully detect dangerous items going through the checkpoint for years. Two years ago their disclosed 95% failure rate seemed shocking and surprising to many but is hardly new, ten years ago they had a 91% failure rate.

 

[Duncandl]

Once again, those who cry the loudest after an incident are the same folks who whine about footing the bill yet want to be protected. The question of, "Why didn't we know?" always seems to come from those willing to doubt law enforcement efforts.

That bill that I gladly pay every two weeks for programs like this is money well spent, if you doubt that visit Jakarta and don't be shy about being different over there. Go ahead, book that trip, I dare you.

 

[Tanis143]

Once again, those who cry the loudest after an incident are the same folks who whine about footing the bill yet want to be protected. The question of, "Why didn't we know?" always seems to come from those willing to doubt law enforcement efforts.

That bill that I gladly pay every two weeks for programs like this is money well spent, if you doubt that visit Jakarta and don't be shy about being different over there. Go ahead, book that trip, I dare you.

If it was effective I would agree. The TSA however has been proven to be ineffective, abusive and intrusive. And lets get this straight, they are NOT law enforcement officers. They are nothing more than a more powerful version of the old airport security guards with full body scanners. There has been plenty of times people have proven its easy to get weapons past these checkpoints.

And I bet Jakarta doesn't have a constitution that enforces individual rights.