Posted on 02/01/2012 10:35:42 AM PST by SmithL
Sorry, but I don’t visit sites that contract with RightHaven.
On several occasions I have unknowingly gone through security with things that should have been caught. Certainly doesn’t make me feel very secure. (Though I am glad I didn’t get hassled.)
Sorry, but I don’t visit sites that contract with RightHaven.I'm fairly certain that the Tennessean isn't associated with RightHaven. However, they are a Gannett paper, so they get a link instead of an excerpt. I only post stories from the Tennessean that I can't find elsewhere.
Isn’t Righthaven bankrupt?
The TSA is such a circle jerk..
Terrorists must be laughing their heads off..
The TSA is being terrorized.. by little old ladies and children.. and guys in wheel chairs..
Rather than just providing a link, how about summarizing the article? That way, the story is archived here, and Gannett doesn’t get any clicks.
I work pretty hard to follow Jim’s rules. Whether you click or not is entirely up to you.
I didn’t read the article, but the scanner accuracy for the detection of terrorists is easy to quantify: it’s zero.
The scanners, and, indeed, the entire TSA, have never detected a single terrorist, so the sensitivity is zero. The scanners are routinely claimed to have identified some “anomaly” which, thus far, has never actually been a terrorist, so the specificity is zero. Another way to put this is that the area under the receiver/operator curve for terrorist detection with those scanners is zero. Any way you look at this, the scanner accuracy for the detection of terrorists is ... you guessed it ... zero.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.