I don't agree with a lot of what this article says, because it seems like a deliberately narrow and skewed view, but I do think that much of what the TSA does is negative PR. Security is of course, necessary but I truly do not think that most of the TSA's procedures are effective in providing security at the level they claim.

I have personally seen TSA agents chatting away while things that by their definition are objectionable pass through the scanner. If the TSA were serious about providing security, then I would think that TSA agents would receive intensive counter-terrorism training and that they would carry firearms. They do not.

Furthermore, there are already firearms on board some flights, in the possession of air (sky) marshals. Yes, those people are vetted but it's not inconceivable that one of them could snap or have a really terrible day, or else have someone take control of their weapon by some misfortune or happenstance.

There are many documented transgressions by TSA agents and personally, I think that airline security needs an overhaul, if it's to be truly effective. In my view, the main reason why there isn't more outrage against the TSA is that most people see it as a very occasional inconvenience as they don't fly often.

Think about the 3 oz. rule. Let's say that the kind of liquid explosive that the TSA uses to justify this rule is an option that terrorists would choose. Well, given that many planes are capable of carrying hundreds of passengers, could a large enough group of passengers not simply carry all the material needed to construct a device secreted amongst them?

How about "no-fly" lists? Given the sheer number of people flying everyday, how well do they ensure that people who coincidentally have the same name as legitimate persons of interest are clear to fly? Yes, most of the evidence is anecdotal, but the number of anecdotes is high enough to warrant this line of questioning. Furthermore, there have been abuses of "no-fly' lists in the past, including one officer (who I believe was from the UK) who placed his wife on such a list so that she would be barred from visiting him and discovering that he had a woman on the side.

For delicate work involving decision making, humans are still the most effective way to go, especially in matters of security. The problem (one of them) is that they are human and they get tired, bored, and have their own motivations and interests and so are bound to make mistakes. When that quality is spread over thousands of individuals, it will undoubtedly have an impact on the intended security measures. Add that to the poor training and pay that many TSA agents receive and I think that the argument against the TSA as it is, becomes more apparent.