I really was a bit freaked out about something I read in the run-up to Christmas in one of the larger news websites (can't recall for sure which, but *might* have been the new york times), about how TSA agents doing pat downs and the like may be wearing gloves, but it's for their protection - so they don't change the gloves between passengers! That kinda made me sway in disgust. It seems ironic that the very practices that are supposed to keep us safe (from the somewhat vague and hazy threat of terrorism) could become a source of threat to our health or physical integrity relating to the much more commonplace problem of transmissible diseases.
It's like, OMG, I feel so much more secure after that *eyeroll* Does anyone know if that's true? I'm sorta scared to ask, but I figure it'd be useful to know!
And the scanners have their issues too - there are a lot of mutterings about the exposure to radiation, and I really wish governments didn't just jump at the opportunity to give various equipment manufacturers more money, errr, sorry, I meant invade our privacy even more while still not protecting us as well as they should, errr, oh dear, I got it wrong again didn't I - of course, I meant just install the scanners ;-) without there being some open reviewing of both the safety for these and their effectiveness.
Thing is, time and again, it seems that THE single most effective and efficient preventer of attacks like that is just plain ole human intelligence - as in, spies. Stuff like that is way to spread out and unfocused to produce good results - the bad guys still find a way to dodge it, and meanwhile the regular folks see their daily life become harder and harder. Like the poster said above where she didn't even get asked to remove her liquids bag, but the person with the easter basket got a load of grief. The system is stretched into too many directions and has too broad a scope to be reliable or efficient.
