We've already been down this path, and it isn't a yellow-bricked road.
Some argue that you should make it unpleasent for TSA agents to work there because technically they do have a choice for who they work for, and if they choose an employer that is trying to infringe on your rights then showing your upsetness to them might get them to quit and send the message to their employer about the policies.
Frankly I see no problem with what he did. Not only did he stand up for what he believed in, he was persistent and what he asked of the TSA was perfectly reasonable. I point to the following article from The Atlantic:
This past Wednesday, I showed up at Baltimore-Washington International for a flight to Providence, R.I. I had a choice of two TSA screening checkpoints. I picked mine based on the number of people waiting in line, not because I am impatient, but because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.
If the someone gets to the airport with explosives, they can do their job of holding up airline traffic without even stepping through a metal detector. The TSA know this, and all of this security theatre is getting out of hand. I mean, they banned ink cartridges last week!
Eventually they might get the message and spend time on developing better ways of catching the terroists than inconviencing the American public.
Or they might just ban humans on airplanes. That would certainly stop the attacks...
Some argue that you should make it unpleasent for TSA agents to work there because technically they do have a choice for who they work for, and if they choose an employer that is trying to infringe on your rights then showing your upsetness to them might get them to quit and send the message to their employer about the policies.
Frankly I see no problem with what he did. Not only did he stand up for what he believed in, he was persistent and what he asked of the TSA was perfectly reasonable. I point to the following article from The Atlantic:
This past Wednesday, I showed up at Baltimore-Washington International for a flight to Providence, R.I. I had a choice of two TSA screening checkpoints. I picked mine based on the number of people waiting in line, not because I am impatient, but because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...
If the someone gets to the airport with explosives, they can do their job of holding up airline traffic without even stepping through a metal detector. The TSA know this, and all of this security theatre is getting out of hand. I mean, they banned ink cartridges last week!
Eventually they might get the message and spend time on developing better ways of catching the terroists than inconviencing the American public.
Or they might just ban humans on airplanes. That would certainly stop the attacks...