They didn't force this person through the scanner, they could have asked for a supervisor and discussed the situation. Don't trust the people at the bottom of any organization if you have a concern.
They don't exactly have a great track record in that regard.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-...
"In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as passengers were able get weapons past TSA agents in 67 out of 70 tests — a 95 percent failure rate, according to agency officials."
(Don't worry, though. They fixed it... by classifing the reports. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noem-dhs-watchdog-feuding-over-...)
That is not super comforting.
> And the point of these exercises is precisely to continually improve in response to the findings.
Then they should proudly release some more recent results showing that improvement!
> Most of the people who bring guns on to planes aren't trying to hide anything at all, they're idiots who forgot their CCW in their bag.
Which means they aren't even bothering trying to hide it.
Well, there's a good candidate for the dumbest assumption I'm going to see this month.
Well funded and planned security threats are overwhelmingly outliers. Most security threats in airports are drunk and pissed off idiots, and most terrorists are lone wolf crazies with zero experience or expertise in security.
Random citizens on planes have. At least once.
We’ve had lots of stories about them missing weapons. Lots of stories about them making up ridiculous rules. Lots of stories about them sexually harassing people. Lots of stories about random agents going mad with power.
They have never accomplished anything that wasn’t accomplished by the much simpler and less invasive security we had before 9/11.
"Despite the woman's request for a pat-down search, a TSA agent told her that her only option was to pass through the AIT device."
>they could have asked for a supervisor and discussed the situation
"Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant."
Nobody said that. Go back to pre-2001 airport security, together with locked cockpit doors and the widespread understanding that it isn't safe to cooperate with hijackers.
No one suggested that. What do you think we did 30 years ago (look it up if you have to)? That, and locked cockpit doors: what value-add is TSA over procedures from 30 years ago?
There is a lot of security theater happening at airports.
When there is no coordination between airlines, none of them wants to be the one who implements tough security and pisses off their customer base.
Yes, because in most cases the hijackers would demand you land, negotiate, and either get some sort of asylum deal or get shot. Big inconvenience, but usually not much bloodshed.
9/11 changed the math for the people on the plane a lot, from "sit down, be quiet, and you'll probably be fine" to "you are about to be flown into a building". Reinforced cockpit doors are one of the little bits of legitimate security improvement made since then.
Look how many on the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings end with "no casualties".
It's the Ford Pinto cost-benefit analysis scandal of the sky.
Too much security can be a problem just like too little can.
Maybe in the 70s, but that pretty much stopped with advent of metal detectors. And the hijackers had guns, not knives. Before 9/11 I carried a pocket knife on every flight I took.
Regardless, they’re doing it now, so I fail to see your point.
They miss more knives than they find.*
They did, in fact, summon a supervisor, who lied to her.
*I am of the opinion that, since 9/11, passengers should be encouraged to have knives rather than discouraged. Knives won't get through the cockpit door; no one will open the cockpit doors for a hostage anymore.
Hard to say how things would play out.