Agreed.
Several years ago, a lady wrote an article for one of the Sunday magazines that are distributed with newspapers. Don't remember which one, but it made an impression on me.
Seems she was going through an Israeli airport customs area, and while standing in line, she struck up an innocuous conversation with a guy who was next in line. Unbeknownst to her, every member of the line was under surveillance. When she got to the front of the line, she was ushered into a separate room, and was "cross examined" by the Israelis regarding the conversation: who started it, what it concerned, what she thought of the other person in line, where did he come from, had she ever met him before, did she know him, what did he say about his traveling, etc.
It is definitely a different kind of screening. And we could learn a lot from it.
The practice DHS has made of hiring minimum wage screeners, and subjecting all passengers to the same screening only defeats the screening process. If we in the US want to ensure security in the air, it's NOT with the current system. It's with an intuitive system that works on many levels, and uses professionals who are well trained in seeing what is meant to be unseen.
Quite frankly, there is an argument to be made against the establishment of TSA at all. First of all, hijacking of airplanes is not an everyday occurrence. If I remember correctly, prior to 9/11 a hijacking had not occurred in the US for more than 10 years. And since 9/11 it has been a decade w/o a hijacking in the US. And, despite DHS/TSA sticking its chest out and saying it is because of their screening measures, I really don't believe it. There are ways to get weapons (or even WMDs) on planes if a person is intentional about it, and was determined to hijack a plane. I don't think DHS/TSA can take the credit because I don't think their screening is that effective.
Second, the cost benefit analysis (although I haven't done it) would probably fail.
Third, in Israel, there's a reason for them to have this kind of security in place. Here, not so much, I don't think.
In any event, Ans, you make a very good point.
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
We have a very reactive system. Post 9/11 there was panic. The outcome was hiring a not so small army of low paid, low skilled workers. Workers that didn't have a law enforcement or security background. Literally applicants applying to the TSA were also applying to retail & fast food companies for entry positions.
If you follow the argument that, at least within a sector, pay correlates with skill/resposibility we shouldn't be surprised with the results we get. We have one of our most important security targets guarded by the law enforcement equilivant, pay-wise, of meter maids and below that of dog catchers.
Not suggesting you pay the current folks more, just making an observation (sorry RK, I can't come up with a solution this AM
)
