1st paragraph -- Well no, that doesn't follow. To put what I said another way, it's not my job to think of an alternative and I'm sure as hell not qualified. Luckily one needs no expertise to figure out whether or not they're comfortable with this brand of pat-down (unluckily, it seems many are not).
3rd paragraph -- Sounds about right, and here's Exhibit A. Unfortunately the perception being detrimental to the TSA doesn't automatically make it false. The fact is, people don't like this, and some to a strong enough degree that they'd rather go without it than have the added safety that results. Getting this added safety another way may be possible and it may not, and that may be crucial to have it or it may not. We're not the experts, the TSA is. All the people complaining know is, they don't like it. If there's a Plan B, in other words, now's the time. If getting rid of this type of search while maintaining a reasonable level of security is truly an impossible demand, then the TSA should have no problem providing a convincing explanation as to how.
5th paragraph -- Yeah, but you're acting like there are no other security measures at all, or that getting rid of this one removes the rest with it. Obviously that's not true. They already do **something.**
6th and 7th -- As I said before I don't have an alternative. I don't know dick about detecting explosives using anything other than the five senses. I do know that can't possibly be the only way in 2010, so if you really need an answer from me it would be a very vague "bomb-detecting technology" or something. Or, I dunno, provide an option where you check all lighters, matches and electronics and then get to bypass this. As far as I know it would be extremely difficult to set something off without one of those.
Can't copy-paste to quote, yay iPhone
3rd paragraph -- Sounds about right, and here's Exhibit A. Unfortunately the perception being detrimental to the TSA doesn't automatically make it false. The fact is, people don't like this, and some to a strong enough degree that they'd rather go without it than have the added safety that results. Getting this added safety another way may be possible and it may not, and that may be crucial to have it or it may not. We're not the experts, the TSA is. All the people complaining know is, they don't like it. If there's a Plan B, in other words, now's the time. If getting rid of this type of search while maintaining a reasonable level of security is truly an impossible demand, then the TSA should have no problem providing a convincing explanation as to how.
5th paragraph -- Yeah, but you're acting like there are no other security measures at all, or that getting rid of this one removes the rest with it. Obviously that's not true. They already do **something.**
6th and 7th -- As I said before I don't have an alternative. I don't know dick about detecting explosives using anything other than the five senses. I do know that can't possibly be the only way in 2010, so if you really need an answer from me it would be a very vague "bomb-detecting technology" or something. Or, I dunno, provide an option where you check all lighters, matches and electronics and then get to bypass this. As far as I know it would be extremely difficult to set something off without one of those.