Got it. (For multiquote, start with the first post and click the "+ icon at the bottom right of each post, then on the last post hit the "reply with quote button.
My solutions:
For cops: Do a better job weeding out the small number of asshats in the ranks, quicker. Better communications in-house, and more training to keep everyone upto date on the law. You'd have less problems, better pr and save money for taxpayers. Over simplified solution, but it's somewhat off topic here.
For airports:
- Tie into government databases to -verify- id, not just match faces and names.
- Hire -law enforcement- to handle this step at least. Covers privacy concerns in not allowing civilian non-cop screeners access to government databases.
- Use a somewhat Israeli solution combining what works there with what works here, with a filtering system so that the 95% of travelers who are non-risk are quickly through non-invasive screening. Focus on the 5% that are more of a risk with more intense methods.
- Better train the people screening. As-is, they are not well trained, their own internal policies are confusing and no 2 screeners have the same answer to the same question.
Also, if sippy cups, juice boxes, water bottles and snow globes are really threats, why aren't they treated as such after surrender, but instead are left for Walt the Janitor to clean up at the end of the night?
My solutions:
For cops: Do a better job weeding out the small number of asshats in the ranks, quicker. Better communications in-house, and more training to keep everyone upto date on the law. You'd have less problems, better pr and save money for taxpayers. Over simplified solution, but it's somewhat off topic here.
For airports:
- Tie into government databases to -verify- id, not just match faces and names.
- Hire -law enforcement- to handle this step at least. Covers privacy concerns in not allowing civilian non-cop screeners access to government databases.
- Use a somewhat Israeli solution combining what works there with what works here, with a filtering system so that the 95% of travelers who are non-risk are quickly through non-invasive screening. Focus on the 5% that are more of a risk with more intense methods.
- Better train the people screening. As-is, they are not well trained, their own internal policies are confusing and no 2 screeners have the same answer to the same question.
Also, if sippy cups, juice boxes, water bottles and snow globes are really threats, why aren't they treated as such after surrender, but instead are left for Walt the Janitor to clean up at the end of the night?