eventualbuddha · November 19, 2010 19:37
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
 This is really more about the blog in general. After reading a number of the blog articles, particularly http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/tsa-myth-or-fact-leaked-images.html, it seems that you guys are completely ignoring the comments on the blog. I get that. Most of them are really angry. I would hate my job if it involved trying to respond to all these people, many of whom won't listen to a thing you say.

 Here's the problem: it looks bad, and is just making things worse. Though I'm sure this would be perceived negatively, I'd suggest turning off comments on the blog altogether. People have their own blogs and the can and do comment on your articles there. It raises the bar a bit so you end up with much fewer "TSA SUCKS" comments.

 If you don't want to do that, then you'll have the bite the bullet and actually engage with people. Not all of them, and perhaps not individually, but address the major concerns. For example, on http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/tsa-has-not-will-not-and-our-advanced.html the title explicitly says that the machines "cannot store images of passengers", which, according to your requirements documentation for these machines, is false. People have called you out on this. If this is a misunderstanding, please explain it. If not, admit your fault and explain the steps you're taking - in detail - to ensure that, while the machines _can_ store images, they never will in practice outside of training among TSOs. Doing what you're doing now - ignoring people who voice these concerns - only gives detractors another thing to point to saying, "See? The TSA is lying to us and hoping that people won't notice." That only makes your job, which is already tough, that much harder.

 Back to the Myths vs Facts post: many of the myths appear to me to be straw-men, but I like to consider myself well-informed on the topic so perhaps my viewpoint is not representative. Nevertheless, your "facts" are pretty hollow-sounding and can read like double-speak. For example, the quote from Pistole says, in part, "Work with us in a partnership to provide the best possible security." Parnerships are about semi-equals working together toward a mutually beneficial end. Well, we have an end: safer air travel. Everyone agrees on that. We even have a sort of tacit agreement on means. But the recent policies that the TSA has enacted have crossed a line, and when people are being subjected to what in other contexts would be considered sexual abuse, there can be no partnership.

 Would you want to explain to your thirteen year old daughter - who like most people her age is very body-conscious and sensitive - that someone may either have to view her essentially naked _or_ have to feel her vagina and breasts just so she can go see grandma for Christmas? It's horrible that this is what it's come to.

 Obviously I am among the angry minority, and I believe that the enhanced pat-downs and full-body scanners should be discarded regardless of the original reason for having them. But I am willing to listen, and I will respond to transparency, competency, humaneness and respectful - and real - dialog. The only problem is that I've yet to find any of these things coming from the TSA, and I hope that it is possible for you to change that.
	This is really more about the blog in general. After reading a number of the blog articles, particularly http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/tsa-myth-or-fact-leaked-images.html, it seems that you guys are completely ignoring the comments on the blog. I get that. Most of them are really angry. I would hate my job if it involved trying to respond to all these people, many of whom won't listen to a thing you say.

	Here's the problem: it looks bad, and is just making things worse. Though I'm sure this would be perceived negatively, I'd suggest turning off comments on the blog altogether. People have their own blogs and the can and do comment on your articles there. It raises the bar a bit so you end up with much fewer "TSA SUCKS" comments.

	If you don't want to do that, then you'll have the bite the bullet and actually engage with people. Not all of them, and perhaps not individually, but address the major concerns. For example, on http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/tsa-has-not-will-not-and-our-advanced.html the title explicitly says that the machines "cannot store images of passengers", which, according to your requirements documentation for these machines, is false. People have called you out on this. If this is a misunderstanding, please explain it. If not, admit your fault and explain the steps you're taking - in detail - to ensure that, while the machines _can_ store images, they never will in practice outside of training among TSOs. Doing what you're doing now - ignoring people who voice these concerns - only gives detractors another thing to point to saying, "See? The TSA is lying to us and hoping that people won't notice." That only makes your job, which is already tough, that much harder.

	Back to the Myths vs Facts post: many of the myths appear to me to be straw-men, but I like to consider myself well-informed on the topic so perhaps my viewpoint is not representative. Nevertheless, your "facts" are pretty hollow-sounding and can read like double-speak. For example, the quote from Pistole says, in part, "Work with us in a partnership to provide the best possible security." Parnerships are about semi-equals working together toward a mutually beneficial end. Well, we have an end: safer air travel. Everyone agrees on that. We even have a sort of tacit agreement on means. But the recent policies that the TSA has enacted have crossed a line, and when people are being subjected to what in other contexts would be considered sexual abuse, there can be no partnership.

	Would you want to explain to your thirteen year old daughter - who like most people her age is very body-conscious and sensitive - that someone may either have to view her essentially naked _or_ have to feel her vagina and breasts just so she can go see grandma for Christmas? It's horrible that this is what it's come to.

	Obviously I am among the angry minority, and I believe that the enhanced pat-downs and full-body scanners should be discarded regardless of the original reason for having them. But I am willing to listen, and I will respond to transparency, competency, humaneness and respectful - and real - dialog. The only problem is that I've yet to find any of these things coming from the TSA, and I hope that it is possible for you to change that.