New (and idiotic) TSA rules proposed

[SirFozzie]

"I'm sorry, Mom, I can't fly home for Dad's funeral on Sunday, because it's already Friday, and the TSA won't let me fly."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/12/flying_into_data_hell/

Under new rules proposed by the Transport Security Administration (TSA) (pdf), all airline passengers would need advance permission before flying into, through, or over the United States regardless of citizenship or the airline's national origin.

Currently, the Advanced Passenger Information System, operated by the Customs and Border Patrol, requires airlines to forward a list of passenger information no later than 15 minutes before flights from the US take off (international flights bound for the US have until 15 minutes after take-off). Planes are diverted if a passenger on board is on the no-fly list.

The new rules mean this information must be submitted 72 hours before departure. Only those given clearance will get a boarding pass. The TSA estimates that 90 to 93 per cent of all travel reservations are final by then.

[CamEdwards]

Wow. That would have completely screwed me going to Houston to be with my mom when she got her diagnosis a few weeks ago. I can also think of one work-related trip that would have been affected as well.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah, that's bullshit - Business travellers would get screwed, especially in our field.

[Klinglerware]

Hmm, even if you are an American citizen? Can the United States keep you out legally if you are a citizen of the US?

[SackAttack]

Commerce clause ostensibly gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, and ostensibly the Congress has given the TSA authority to make regulations as it sees fit.

So, yeah, I'd guess pending challenge they can.

Doesn't mean they should.

[molson]

Funny that the UK register is the cited source here. Not that I doubt the story, but I guess the strategy is to quickly post a "controversial" story that flies around internet message boards, increasing their web page impressions and ad fees.

Edit - I totally skimmed and missed the 72 hours in the post.

[SirFozzie]

Looks like it's not quite as bad as it looks on first blush (I'm reading the PDF that's linked in that article)

Airlines are required to submit all this information 72 hours before each flight. All these folks will get boarding passes (barring any other trouble)

If someone registers after that for a flight, the airline has to submit all their details immediately after they register, and they will not get a boarding pass till TSA's done their magic checks..

Well, that's no where near GOOD, mind you, but that's not as bad..

Looks like anyone who has to get into the secure area (for example, a parent who is sending their kid on a flight), has to be prescreened the same way.

[Coffee Warlord]

Obey, citizen.

[flere-imsaho]

I can't wait for the first weather cancellations where a whole bunch of people have to re-book/go on standby and a ton of people miss their (new) flights because the checks can't happen in time to get the boarding passes issued for departure.

I wonder if Ted Kennedy's still on the no-fly list. Sounds like he'll be taking the train more often.

Oh, here's another (actually serious) question: where, exactly, is the fine line between someone being on the no-fly list and someone just being arrested for being a suspected terrorist? Does anybody know?

[TroyF]

I don't see how this is going to be that big of a deal at all. Like most things with the TSA, it seems horrible at first blush and then isn't really a big deal. They'll figure out weather issues flere.

[molson]

I don't see how this is going to be that big of a deal at all. Like most things with the TSA, it seems horrible at first blush and then isn't really a big deal. They'll figure out weather issues flere.

It does seem like something like this comes up once a month.

[flere-imsaho]

It's not atypical, in the summer, for a thunderstorm to cause the cancellation of dozens of flights at Chicago O'Hare. The airlines cancel those flights and start booking people on flights that leave a few hours later (when the weather will clear) or the next morning.

You either have confidence that the TSA can handle that load in a timely manner, or you don't.

[Surtt]

I don't see how this is going to be that big of a deal at all. Like most things with the TSA, it seems horrible at first blush and then isn't really a big deal. They'll figure out weather issues flere.

You are now guilty until proven innocent.

[molson]

You either have confidence that the TSA can handle that load in a timely manner, or you don't.

If they can't, the proposal won't be implemented.

Nobody will remember this thread in 6 months, just like the last dozen threads where people jumped to conclusions soley to make a political statement.

[molson]

You are now guilty until proven innocent.

Huh? This has nothing to do with the criminal justice process. It takes minutes for names to clear or not clear on the no-fly list. No one's being declared guilty of anything. It's a name check.

[CU Tiger]

this doesnt apply ( as I read it) to flights thaat begin and end in the US only international flights that
A) Fly directly into the country
B) Have a flight path over the county
C) Cross Over the US

So most business travel (US - US) wouldnt be effected.

[Atocep]

I don't see how this is going to be that big of a deal at all. Like most things with the TSA, it seems horrible at first blush and then isn't really a big deal. They'll figure out weather issues flere.

QFT

This will probably affect .00001% of passengers, one of whom will write a blog about how it ruined thier life and cause another uproar.

[Buccaneer]

Commerce clause ostensibly gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, and ostensibly the Congress has given the TSA authority to make regulations as it sees fit. And you, the voters, keep electing Democrats and Republicans that want to increase their powers to regulate and centralize.



Fixed.

Vote libertarian-minded.

[Surtt]

Huh? This has nothing to do with the criminal justice process. It takes minutes for names to clear or not clear on the no-fly list. No one's being declared guilty of anything. It's a name check.

This is the opposite of the no fly list.
They are not screening for risky people, they are banning everyone unless you get their ok.
As a practical matter it will probably be transparent and no one will care but the reasoning is very different.

[gstelmack]

this doesnt apply ( as I read it) to flights thaat begin and end in the US only international flights that
A) Fly directly into the country
B) Have a flight path over the county
C) Cross Over the US

So most business travel (US - US) wouldnt be effected.

That seems correct, and is likely why the register is jumping all over it. It's not going to affect domestic travel one whit.

[Galaxy]

What about business travelers who need to go overseas on a whimp (and that happens a lot)?

[ThunderingHERD]

Sounds to me like this only applies to flights originating outside of the US. I don't really see what the big deal is.

[ISiddiqui]

What, so Canadian travelers don't count? :p

[Rizon]

"First blush" has been used 2 times in this thread. That is 2 times more than I have ever heard it in my life.

[RendeR]

What, so Canadian travelers don't count? :p

When have Canadians ever really counted?

[Raiders Army]

"First blush" has been used 2 times in this thread. That is 2 times more than I have ever heard it in my life.

yeah

[Radii]

What about business travelers who need to go overseas on a whimp (and that happens a lot)?

That's a first for me!

[TroyF]

It's not atypical, in the summer, for a thunderstorm to cause the cancellation of dozens of flights at Chicago O'Hare. The airlines cancel those flights and start booking people on flights that leave a few hours later (when the weather will clear) or the next morning.

You either have confidence that the TSA can handle that load in a timely manner, or you don't.

I'm in the minority and I understand it. I don't really have a problem with the TSA. Are some of the rules stupid? Sure they are. It's asinine a nail clipper gets taken and I can take a set of car keys on the plane.

But. . . I just don't have that many problems in airports. They aren't my favorite place to be. I've had bad experiences in them including canceled flights, delayed flights, rude stewerdasses and kids throwing up on me. (I fly at least once a month, most of the time two to three times a month) Despite all of that, airports aren't a miserable experience for me and a vast majority of the time I fly I have no issues at all.

Do I have confidence that a flight canceled due to lighning would get through this process without the passengers being grounded for 36 hours while background checks are done? Yes, I do. As the people on the flight would have already had the checks ran on them, it'd just be a matter of flagging them in the system. 99.999999999% of the people are going to be fine here.

Am I confident you'll be able to go to the airport and grab an airline ticket to Paris on Tuesday morning and be able to fly out Tuesday morning? Yeah, I am. The person who does it will probably be subject to the "special" search. (like pretty much any one way, no luggage traveler gets it now) But you'll catch your flight and be able to do what you always do.

I think the chances are fairly high (like 95%+ high) that nobody will remember this article in six months. There may be one or two stories of how the system failed in its initial rollout. Outside of that, this will be a non story.

I think the chances are equally high that about 15 more of these articles or threads are started about how horrific the airline experience is, how the TSA wants to eat America's children and 4 or 5 examples of the TSA being jerks. (and not a single word of the hundreds of thousands of people who go through screening on a given day that don't have problems with it)

[flere-imsaho]

No offense Troy, but I really wish I had your luck/karma when I was travelling weekly for business.

[TroyF]

No offense Troy, but I really wish I had your luck/karma when I was travelling weekly for business.

I really don't consider it luck. More an attitude.

Read my experiences paragraph above. A kid sitting next to me threw up on me during a flight. I'll trade that experience for just about anything you've went through. :) I'd bet money I've had as many bad experiences than anyone else who travels by air. (ok, people who have been in plane crashes have it much worse than I ever have)

I just do what I'm supposed to do to make things easier. I show up at least 1 1/2 hours early. I have my ID handy. I have my confirmation number. I know what the rules are for carry on bags and make things easy on the screeners. (even with 2 laptops, a digital camera and a PSP or DS I can get through screening in about 45 seconds once I get to the buckets) I eat before I leave the house/hotel so I don't get screwed by the airport food court. And I bring either the PSP/DS and/or a good book. If my flight's delayed/canceled, I have something to do waiting for the next one.

I have my favorite airports (my hometown of Denver for example). I have airports I despise. (Atlanta, you suck) But it really, really takes a lot for me to get angry or have a miserable experience at an airport. I'm in control of the experience I have. And when it comes to travel, I don't worry about the things I can't control. A cancelation or delay is out of my hands.

I'm curious now. Maybe the "bad" experiences I'm thinking of are quite different from yours. What exactly are your bad experiences and how many have you had? Maybe you get analy probed everytime you go through the security checkpoint and I really am lucky I'm not traveling in your airports. Were you listening to an I-Pod in a bathroom stall and got arrested? :)

[molson]

This has been covered on this board in depth in the past, but I agree 100% with on Troy on this one.

I'm no business traveler, but probably have flown around 8-10 times a year over the last few years, at a wide variety of airports. My average time going through security, after the line, is under 1 minute. Average time waiting in line is about 5 minutes, but never more than around 20 in the busiest times.

Know the rules, don't be a jerk (and be lucky enough not to get stuck behind a jerk), be prepared BEFORE you get to the line, and I don't see how you can't breeze through.

In terms of non-security issues, ya, things do seem to be getting worse in terms of delays, but I never plan a layover less than 90 minutes (and preferably 2 hours+) unless I absolutely have to. These days with airport wifi, airports aren't the black holes they used to be, it really doesn't kill you to play it safe and give yourself some time.

[Eaglesfan27]

As far as the weather issue: If someone was cleared to fly on the initial flight, couldn't that clearance just transfer over to their new flight. I'm with Troy and Molson, this just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Of course, I only fly about once a year.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Fortunately all of the travel that I do with my students has to be done over a month in advance (thank you school district red tape), but if they don't figure out a weather emergency alternative, then a problem like last year in New York with JetBlue would completely destroy our chances of being allowed to travel. It takes me about 5 minutes to get through security in Phoenix with a laptop, coat, belt, shoes, and students; taking things off, putting them back on, figuring out who wandered off, making sure everyone has their tickets, keeping the kids from buying the porn, etc.

[TroyF]

As far as the weather issue: If someone was cleared to fly on the initial flight, couldn't that clearance just transfer over to their new flight. I'm with Troy and Molson, this just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Of course, I only fly about once a year.

That's exactly what they'd do. They don't even check ID on the actual flights anymore. All that is done at the TSA screening station. Once through there, you'd have your all clear and the flights could be changed.

[flere-imsaho]

TroyF & molson: You guys have me a bit wrong here, and maybe I'm to blame for creating this impression, but the fact is that I don't recall having a single problem, personally, with TSA screeners during the 9-10 months I was flying each week. I'd say about 85% of my pain during those months had to do with ATC issuing ground delays for O'Hare, meaning I'd be sitting on a runway at ORD or SFO for a while. Eventually I solved this by taking the first flight on Mondays so that I'd be sleepy and snooze through boarding/taxiing/ground delay, and then getting exhausted during my week in SF so that when I got on the plane at SFO I'd fall fast asleep and not wake up until we were airborne (after the customary ground delay).

Bear in mind, though, that now that the statistics for last year are out, I can now see that I was flying between two of the worst airports for delays during this period and the #1 carrier for delays (as in, had the most), American. :(

Anyway, I don't want to give the impression that I'm one of these impatient travellers. Quite the opposite. I'd always get to the airport with plenty of time to spare, get through everything with no hassles (including the security line - never any problem there) and then be able to amuse myself (I'm easily amused) in the club/terminal until my flight. In real life, I'm a very patient person. :)


Having said all of that, the angle I'm coming from here on these TSA threads is one of having a certain skepticism whenever we hear about the TSA's new rules of the week. I guess I have three main points of contention with the TSA:

1. The rules we've seen implemented always seem to be only a knee-jerk reaction to the latest threat that gets hyped in the media. There doesn't seem to be an overall security/screening strategy. It's as if someone in TSA headquarters has a light bulb go off and says "OMG, someone could do X" and before you know it there's yet another hoop everyone has to jump through.

2. I'm skeptical about the efficacy of some of their tools, the No-Fly list in particular. Again, I've posed specific questions about this list above that no one seems able to answer. The No-Fly list, to me, is indicative of a lot of rules that sound good, but, upon further reflection, are of questionable use. Again, if someone's suspicious enough to be on a No-Fly list, are they not suspicious enough to be brought in for questioning, or even arrested? Where's the line here, exactly?

3. We've spent billions of dollars on the TSA, and as noted in #1 and #2, I don't think we're getting our money's worth. The useless "Terror Level" is still stuck at Orange, security lines continue to be annoying due to people who don't understand how to take their shoes off, and we've also got the comedy "OMG Ted Kennedy = terrarist" No-Fly list. It all seems to me to be a misguided reaction (and resultant waste of money) to what's in reality a pretty serious threat.

[TroyF]

flere,

To me there is a HUGE difference in complaining about the methods or usefullness of the TSA and the TSA actually impacting you when you have a flight. The contention at the top of this thread (and thorugh most people I've seen post on this through various boards) is that the TSA makes their life miserable. That everything the TSA does causes widespread delays and pain.

That's not the case. As you pointed out above "never any problem in the security line"

Do I think the rules are great or the money is being spent wisely? Not really. Do I think they are effective? Maybe to a point. I mean, I think they are in a no win. If something happens and they had word of it as a possibility, the media will crucify them. "What, you mean you weren't ready for the possiblity a guy would hide an explosive in his fake limb and the plane exploded, you guys suck!!!"

So if you want to say the rules suck and the TSA is wasting money, I'm good with it.

If you want to say everything they are doing is causing mass chaos and the airport experience is being destroyed by their idiocy? I'll disagree a lot. Very few of the things they do impact the normal traveler in any meaningful way.

[Desnudo]

So what's the benefit of this rule supposed to be?

[molson]

What Troy said - I think I'm just so used to the "Airport security is now anal rape" line of argument that goes around here so often, that's what I responded to even though you didn't say that.

The only thing about air travel that I find unreasonable at this point is when people are stuck in planes on runways for 4+ hours (And that's not a TSA issue). That hasn't happened to me yet, but I'd definitely be pissed if it did.

[molson]

So what's the benefit of this rule supposed to be?

I'd guess that they're just trying to cut down on the number of people on no-fly lists that fly on planes. Obviously under the current rules, more are slipping between the cracks then they'd like. They'll never keep 100% out, but if they can increase the success rate at minimal (and probably zero) inconvience for passegners, it's worth it.

[flere-imsaho]

If you want to say everything they are doing is causing mass chaos and the airport experience is being destroyed by their idiocy? I'll disagree a lot. Very few of the things they do impact the normal traveler in any meaningful way.

Yeah, I think we agree, actually. On the above note, I do think some of the new TSA rules/regulations have contributed to the overall deterioration in the efficiency of the air travel system, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to the main culprit, which is clearly demand overburdening the country's ATC system.

So yeah, the security rigamarole can make it so a few people have to sprint for their planes, but it's nothing compared to dozens of planes sitting out a ground delay because there just aren't enough takeoff/landing slots for aircraft.

So what's the benefit of this rule supposed to be?

It looks to basically be an extension of the enforcement of the No-Fly List. Instead of airlines submitting their passenger lists moments before takeoff (as is currently the case), the TSA is going to require that the lists be submitted 72 hours in advance, apparently with amendments submitted after this period.

Note that this change only applies to flights flying into the U.S., over the U.S., or making layovers in the U.S. between international destinations. U.S. domestic flights are not affected.

Practically the result will probably be to make last-minute flight bookings (usually the result of last-minute deals, but also for business travelers) into the U.S. less common.

[flere-imsaho]

I'd guess that they're just trying to cut down on the number of people on no-fly lists that fly on planes. Obviously under the current rules, more are slipping between the cracks then they'd like. They'll never keep 100% out, but if they can increase the success rate at minimal (and probably zero) inconvience for passegners, it's worth it.

Of course, this all begs the question as to what the value of the No-Fly List is if, as you say, people are slipping through the cracks. If you want to argue that it's a CYA exercise by the TSA (it would be bad if someone blew up a plane when no No-Fly List existed, and they would have been on it if it did), then I'll certainly agree with that.

Plus, the No-Fly List only catches the stupid terrorists. You know, the ones who fly under their actual names. And we already have other rules to combat the stupid terrorists, from stricter security screenings to reinforced cockpit doors to heightened security measures on the planes themselves.

[molson]

Of course, this all begs the question as to what the value of the No-Fly List is if, as you say, people are slipping through the cracks. If you want to argue that it's a CYA exercise by the TSA (it would be bad if someone blew up a plane when no No-Fly List existed, and they would have been on it if it did), then I'll certainly agree with that.

Plus, the No-Fly List only catches the stupid terrorists. You know, the ones who fly under their actual names. And we already have other rules to combat the stupid terrorists, from stricter security screenings to reinforced cockpit doors to heightened security measures on the planes themselves.

True it's not a perfect science, but you do what you can.

And remember too that a no-fly list doesn't only have to cover terrorists. I believe it includes people who are otherwise a safety risk (violent schizophrenics who have caused problems on planes before, etc).

[Surtt]

So what's the benefit of this rule supposed to be?

Right now you can fly unless you are flagged on the no fly list.
If there is a screw up and the feds do not get the passenger list everyone can still fly.
If someone slips through the cracks, no one is the wiser.

Under the new proposal, you can not fly until you are OKed.
So if you slip through the cracks, you can not get on the plane.

[Telle]

I suppose part of the question has to be how long does it take the TSA to clear a person? To me it makes sense for them to have the airlines submit the names in advance and have 95% of the passengers pre-cleared. Then they only have a handful to do at the last minute. And if it only takes a moment or two for the grand majority of those people to be cleared as they're buying their last-minute tickets, then it's not a big deal. But if we're talking hours and pretty much eliminating the ability of people being able to fly internationally at a moment's notice, then that could be a big problem for businesses.

[chesapeake]

I know the article refers just to international flights, but the proposed rule for TSA's Secure Flight program indicates their intent to apply the 72-hour rule to domestic flights as well. You can find all the details on TSA's website:
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/secureflight/index.shtm

For international flights, I have no problem with a 72-hour rule, all the document checking, and not allowing boarding until you have been cleared. Note that it does not appear that the proposed rule precludes ticket purchase inside the 72-hour window. It could be implemented that way, but there could also be a procedure whereby purchasers inside that window can be screened as they show up if sufficient time and resources are available.

For domestic flights, I think there are some serious problems with the government preventing travel until it approves you. I don't think they have that right.

[molson]

For domestic flights, I think there are some serious problems with the government preventing travel until it approves you. I don't think they have that right.

But this wouldn't change that though, right? The government could always keep you from flying, all this does is make the checking process more efficient.

If you disagree with no-fly lists in general, fine, but I don't think these new rules change anything.

[flere-imsaho]

I think I've previously not made a good, articulate case for why I think the TSA is such a waste of time and money. However this weekend's New York Times had an editorial (http://jetlagged.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/the-airport-security-follies/?em&ex=1199250000&en=357b97db69dd112d&ei=5070) on the subject, with which I agree fully.

Six years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, airport security remains a theater of the absurd. The changes put in place following the September 11th catastrophe have been drastic, and largely of two kinds: those practical and effective, and those irrational, wasteful and pointless.

The first variety have taken place almost entirely behind the scenes. Explosives scanning for checked luggage, for instance, was long overdue and is perhaps the most welcome addition. Unfortunately, at concourse checkpoints all across America, the madness of passenger screening continues in plain view. It began with pat-downs and the senseless confiscation of pointy objects. Then came the mandatory shoe removal, followed in the summer of 2006 by the prohibition of liquids and gels. We can only imagine what is next.
To understand what makes these measures so absurd, we first need to revisit the morning of September 11th, and grasp exactly what it was the 19 hijackers so easily took advantage of. Conventional wisdom says the terrorists exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling aboard box-cutters. What they actually exploited was a weakness in our mindset — a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of hijackings.

In years past, a takeover meant hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were trained in the concept of “passive resistance.” All of that changed forever the instant American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the north tower. What weapons the 19 men possessed mattered little; the success of their plan relied fundamentally on the element of surprise. And in this respect, their scheme was all but guaranteed not to fail.

For several reasons — particularly the awareness of passengers and crew — just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th template is all but useless to potential hijackers.

No matter that a deadly sharp can be fashioned from virtually anything found on a plane, be it a broken wine bottle or a snapped-off length of plastic, we are content wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and untold hours of labor in a delusional attempt to thwart an attack that has already happened, asked to queue for absurd lengths of time, subject to embarrassing pat-downs and loss of our belongings.

The folly is much the same with respect to the liquids and gels restrictions, introduced two summers ago following the breakup of a London-based cabal that was planning to blow up jetliners using liquid explosives. Allegations surrounding the conspiracy were revealed to substantially embellished. In an August, 2006 article in the New York Times, British officials admitted that public statements made following the arrests were overcooked, inaccurate and “unfortunate.” The plot’s leaders were still in the process of recruiting and radicalizing would-be bombers. They lacked passports, airline tickets and, most critical of all, they had been unsuccessful in actually producing liquid explosives. Investigators later described the widely parroted report that up to ten U.S airliners had been targeted as “speculative” and “exaggerated.”

Among first to express serious skepticism about the bombers’ readiness was Thomas C. Greene, whose essay in The Register explored the extreme difficulty of mixing and deploying the types of binary explosives purportedly to be used. Green conferred with Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, an explosives specialist who has closely studied the type of deadly cocktail coveted by the London plotters.
“The notion that deadly explosives can be cooked up in an airplane lavatory is pure fiction,” Greene told me during an interview. “A handy gimmick for action movies and shows like ‘24.’ The reality proves disappointing: it’s rather awkward to do chemistry in an airplane toilet. Nevertheless, our official protectors and deciders respond to such notions instinctively, because they’re familiar to us: we’ve all seen scenarios on television and in the cinema. This, incredibly, is why you can no longer carry a bottle of water onto a plane.”

The threat of liquid explosives does exist, but it cannot be readily brewed from the kinds of liquids we have devoted most of our resources to keeping away from planes. Certain benign liquids, when combined under highly specific conditions, are indeed dangerous. However, creating those conditions poses enormous challenges for a saboteur.

“I would not hesitate to allow that liquid explosives can pose a danger,” Greene added, recalling Ramzi Yousef’s 1994 detonation of a small nitroglycerine bomb aboard Philippine Airlines Flight 434. The explosion was a test run for the so-called “Project Bojinka,” an Al Qaeda scheme to simultaneously destroy a dozen widebody airliners over the Pacific Ocean. “But the idea that confiscating someone’s toothpaste is going to keep us safe is too ridiculous to entertain.”

Yet that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. The three-ounce container rule is silly enough — after all, what’s to stop somebody from carrying several small bottles each full of the same substance — but consider for a moment the hypocrisy of T.S.A.’s confiscation policy. At every concourse checkpoint you’ll see a bin or barrel brimming with contraband containers taken from passengers for having exceeded the volume limit. Now, the assumption has to be that the materials in those containers are potentially hazardous. If not, why were they seized in the first place? But if so, why are they dumped unceremoniously into the trash? They are not quarantined or handed over to the bomb squad; they are simply thrown away. The agency seems to be saying that it knows these things are harmless. But it’s going to steal them anyway, and either you accept it or you don’t fly.

But of all the contradictions and self-defeating measures T.S.A. has come up with, possibly none is more blatantly ludicrous than the policy decreeing that pilots and flight attendants undergo the same x-ray and metal detector screening as passengers. What makes it ludicrous is that tens of thousands of other airport workers, from baggage loaders and fuelers to cabin cleaners and maintenance personnel, are subject only to occasional random screenings when they come to work.

These are individuals with full access to aircraft, inside and out. Some are airline employees, though a high percentage are contract staff belonging to outside companies. The fact that crew members, many of whom are former military fliers, and all of whom endured rigorous background checks prior to being hired, are required to take out their laptops and surrender their hobby knives, while a caterer or cabin cleaner sidesteps the entire process and walks onto a plane unimpeded, nullifies almost everything our T.S.A. minders have said and done since September 11th, 2001. If there is a more ringing let-me-get-this-straight scenario anywhere in the realm of airport security, I’d like to hear it.

I’m not suggesting that the rules be tightened for non-crew members so much as relaxed for all accredited workers. Which perhaps urges us to reconsider the entire purpose of airport security:
The truth is, regardless of how many pointy tools and shampoo bottles we confiscate, there shall remain an unlimited number of ways to smuggle dangerous items onto a plane. The precise shape, form and substance of those items is irrelevant. We are not fighting materials, we are fighting the imagination and cleverness of the would-be saboteur.

Thus, what most people fail to grasp is that the nuts and bolts of keeping terrorists away from planes is not really the job of airport security at all. Rather, it’s the job of government agencies and law enforcement. It’s not very glamorous, but the grunt work of hunting down terrorists takes place far off stage, relying on the diligent work of cops, spies and intelligence officers. Air crimes need to be stopped at the planning stages. By the time a terrorist gets to the airport, chances are it’s too late.

In the end, I’m not sure which is more troubling, the inanity of the existing regulations, or the average American’s acceptance of them and willingness to be humiliated. These wasteful and tedious protocols have solidified into what appears to be indefinite policy, with little or no opposition. There ought to be a tide of protest rising up against this mania. Where is it? At its loudest, the voice of the traveling public is one of grumbled resignation. The op-ed pages are silent, the pundits have nothing meaningful to say.
The airlines, for their part, are in something of a bind. The willingness of our carriers to allow flying to become an increasingly unpleasant experience suggests a business sense of masochistic capitulation. On the other hand, imagine the outrage among security zealots should airlines be caught lobbying for what is perceived to be a dangerous abrogation of security and responsibility — even if it’s not. Carriers caught plenty of flack, almost all of it unfair, in the aftermath of September 11th. Understandably, they no longer want that liability.

As for Americans themselves, I suppose that it’s less than realistic to expect street protests or airport sit-ins from citizen fliers, and maybe we shouldn’t expect too much from a press and media that have had no trouble letting countless other injustices slip to the wayside. And rather than rethink our policies, the best we’ve come up with is a way to skirt them — for a fee, naturally — via schemes like Registered Traveler. Americans can now pay to have their personal information put on file just to avoid the hassle of airport security. As cynical as George Orwell ever was, I doubt he imagined the idea of citizens offering up money for their own subjugation.

How we got to this point is an interesting study in reactionary politics, fear-mongering and a disconcerting willingness of the American public to accept almost anything in the name of “security.” Conned and frightened, our nation demands not actual security, but security spectacle. And although a reasonable percentage of passengers, along with most security experts, would concur such theater serves no useful purpose, there has been surprisingly little outrage. In that regard, maybe we’ve gotten exactly the system we deserve.

[Buccaneer]

flere, the same could be (and have been) said of every new major federal legislation/action - mainly a very expensive, wasteful, contradictory response to an alledged problem because people feel that the federal govt MUST do something about the problem.

TSA is just one of many examples and the solution is to get out of the mindset that the federal govt can solve problems by throwing a bureacracy and billions of dollars at them. This include not electing or supporting those candidates that favor continuing this mindset.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So much sand, such a little vagina.

I'm sorry but complaints about airport security efforts (incredibly lax though they may be) seems to be the ultimate in self-centered whining.

[Cringer]

flere, the same could be (and have been) said of every new major federal legislation/action - mainly a very expensive, wasteful, contradictory response to an alledged problem because people feel that the federal govt MUST do something about the problem.

TSA is just one of many examples and the solution is to get out of the mindset that the federal govt can solve problems by throwing a bureacracy and billions of dollars at them. This include not electing or supporting those candidates that favor continuing this mindset.

Describes the trucking industry pretty well.

[TroyF]

It's every industry.

Yes, we are spending a lot of money and some of it is being spent stupidly. But what did you expect? Let the government control something and you are going to see that everytime.

I had the worst experience I've had at an airport in the last four years this weekend.

I was supposed to head out of Tulsa to Denver at 2:35 on Saturday. Flight gets delayed until 5:30. Then they tell us at 5:30 the flight is still in Denver. They get a plane there at 7:30 or so. I get back to Denver at 9.

They said they'd give us all $150 vouchers because of the problems. Go to the customer service counter and there is a long line of people. There is also two customer service reps getting into a yelling match in front of everyone. A passenger tells them they can give him a bottle of Grey Goose and he'll call it good. The customer service rep says "Yeah, then you guys would really be pissed and I'd be the one who would need the drinks." She then talks about how horrific her day has gone.

I'm not upset at the delay. It sucks, but it happens. I'm not upset at the $150 voucher either. That's what, 18 bucks an hour to sit there? I can live with that. But the customer service people should have had the vouchers ready, they shouldn't have got into a fight and told everyone how horrible her day had gone. Really, really poor service.

The TSA didn't have a thing to do with it. I got through them in five minutes like usual.

[rkmsuf]

There's way too much flying going on anyway. I say the more rules and the more difficult they make it the better.

[Passacaglia]

There's way too much flying going on anyway. I say the more rules and the more difficult they make it the better.

I thought you would love flights, since you can't use cell phones while on them.

[rkmsuf]

I thought you would love flights, since you can't use cell phones while on them.

Good point. Bad stall situation on planes though.

[flere-imsaho]

So much sand, such a little vagina.


Quality response. Would read again.

[RendeR]

How about this, I'll give one major positive that the new security issues have created.


No people that are not flying hanging around the terminals.

The number of people flying is high enough that the terminals are crowded. Thank god no-one without a ticket can get into the gate areas anymore as well. I appreciate being able to find a seat to wait for my flight instead of having to stand around because little johniies 5 girlfriends al wanted to greet him at the gate and simply MUST take the chairs in the waiting area to do so.

I LIKE having a peaceful waiting area.

[CU Tiger]

I guess what I can't wrap my mind around is this, What is our objective?

If it is to keep planes off buildings and a repeat 9/11 scene, forget all the BS rules.
Insteead add 1 Trained marksman standing at the front of every plane, fully decked in bullet prroof padding and a self contained oxygen mask. He is unpenetrable and will solve the problem. (Ok thats even a it excessive, I mean really 1 trained armed individual can easily protect an entire plane, without the kevlar, O2 tank and mask)


If it is to protect passengers at all cost, then siple No carry ons, period end of discussion and everyoen throguh an Xray. All stow away bags are searched and secured, you have a perfectly safe military state plane ride.

The problem is we want absolute freedom and absolute security, unfortunately the two are polar opposites and can not, and have not at any point in the history of the earth, co-exist.

I wish we would either A) solve the problem or B) Accept the risk but either way just quit bitching about it.

[Note: I'm, not talking about this thread, but instead the overall society trend.]

[MacroGuru]

Well, lets say this, TSA isn't the greatest, xrays or not...

One of my former co-workers can get his knife through the checkpoint every single time, he has had the knife since 9/11 and can get it through, it's his own little challenge...it scares me at the fact he can get it through.

BUT, I had an interesting conversation the other day about Flying and Taking the train.

Basically, the person I was talking with made the statement, if the U.S. would have taken care of the rail situation, upgraded it like Europe has, then it would be a competitive travel market, like Europe has.

I myself, didn't know what to think on this other than...he has a point.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well, lets say this, TSA isn't the greatest, xrays or not...

One of my former co-workers can get his knife through the checkpoint every single time, he has had the knife since 9/11 and can get it through, it's his own little challenge...it scares me at the fact he can get it through.

BUT, I had an interesting conversation the other day about Flying and Taking the train.

Basically, the person I was talking with made the statement, if the U.S. would have taken care of the rail situation, upgraded it like Europe has, then it would be a competitive travel market, like Europe has.

I myself, didn't know what to think on this other than...he has a point.

The rail system in the U.S. is a joke. It gets very little, to nothing, in the way of Federal funding. The freight trains also get the right of way on all the rail systems, which often causes significant delays. It's pretty shameful.

That said, I think the U.S. would be smart to focus on regional rail systems as opposed to an extensive national system. The U.S. is just too big in many instances to have a massive rail system like Europe that a lot of people will use.

I love train travel.

[Buccaneer]

TSA is typical of a bloated, inconsistent federal bureaucracy - all to give the illusion that "they" are doing something because we demanded that "they" do so after 9/11. Are we safer in the skies? YES because the rules they have in place do make it harder to do something bad on a plane. I believe that 9/11 was a singular incident (plus a few copycats afterwards) but because of they way the federal govt works, it has to provide a very expensive sledgehammer solution. The alternative is to be smarter, apply more common sense and be far less inexpensive to achieve the same results. (As a libertarian, I apply the same statement to other federal agencies as well.) But because of Congressional legislation and rules, a simple solution comes with mountains of related and unrelated regulations to ensure that one size fits all and that they won't get endlessly sued.

[Jas_lov]

I agree. TSA should be abolished.

[dawgfan]

So much sand, such a little vagina.

I'm sorry but complaints about airport security efforts (incredibly lax though they may be) seems to be the ultimate in self-centered whining.
Jon, did you actually read the editorial - I mean read it with open-minded comprehension, rather than a preset negative attitude?

Nobody is saying that security in airports is misguided - what's being said is the particular method of enforcing airport security is misguided and a waste of time and money.

[Cringer]

I am so disappointed there was no pictures with this article....

Traveler said TSA forced her to remove nipple piercings at Texas airport
March 27, 2008 - 5:57PM
Greg Risling | The Associated Press



LOS ANGELES (AP) - A Texas woman who said she was forced to remove a nipple ring with pliers in order to board an airplane called Thursday for an apology by federal security agents and a civil rights investigation.

``I wouldn't wish this experience upon anyone,'' Mandi Hamlin said at a news conference. ``My experience with TSA was a nightmare I had to endure. No one deserves to be treated this way.''

Hamlin, 37, said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on Feb. 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.

The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin's chest, the Dallas-area resident said.

Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The women then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.

Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.

She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.

``Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her,'' said Hamlin's attorney, Gloria Allred, reading from a letter she sent Thursday to the director of the TSA's Office of Civil Rights and Liberties.

Hamlin said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring.

``After nipple rings are inserted, the skin can often heal around the piercing, and the rings can be extremely difficult and painful to remove,'' Allred said in the letter.

Hamlin filed a complaint, but the TSA's customer service manager at the Lubbock airport concluded the screening was handled properly, Allred said.

Allred said she might consider legal action if the TSA does not apologize.

On its Web site, the TSA warns that passengers ``may be additionally screened because of hidden items such as body piercings, which alarmed the metal detector.''

``If you are selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to a pat-down search,'' the site says.

Hamlin would have accepted a ``pat-down'' had it been offered, Allred said.

Hamlin was publicly humiliated and has ``undergone an enormous amount of physical pain to have the nipple rings reinserted'' because of scar tissue, Allred said.

``The conduct of TSA was cruel and unnecessary,'' Allred wrote. ``The last time that I checked a nipple was not a dangerous weapon.''

TSA spokesman Dwayne Baird said he was unaware of the incident. There is no specific TSA policy on dealing with body piercings, he said, ``as long as it doesn't sound the alarms.''

If an alarm does sound, ``until that is resolved, we're not going to let them go through the checkpoint, no matter what they're wearing or where they're wearing it.''

People routinely pass through security wearing wedding rings without problems, and it might take a larger bit of metal to trigger an alarm, Baird said.

[Passacaglia]

Ouch.

[Cringer]

I forgot to point out my favorite line....

``The conduct of TSA was cruel and unnecessary,'' Allred wrote. ``The last time that I checked a nipple was not a dangerous weapon.''

[Rizon]

I am so disappointed there was no pictures with this article....

Go looking. Prepare to get more dissapointed when you find them (and possibly sick).

[Cringer]

Go looking. Prepare to get more dissapointed when you find them (and possibly sick).

Oh, bummer. Maybe Glorie Allred can show her nipples instead. :(

[terpkristin]

I am so disappointed there was no pictures with this article....

I'd actually like to know what hers were made of.

I've flown a LOT in my life, with and without piercings. NEVER did I have the piercings stop me up. The hardware in the ankle gets me pulled aside all the time, NEVER a piercing.

/tk

[sterlingice]

(there was a thread about this but I suppose it does bear metioning twice: http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=64501)

SI

[flere-imsaho]

In the wake of the underwear bomber, TSA security theater continues unabated:

Mikey Hicks, 8, Can’t Get Off U.S. Terror Watch List - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html?em=&pagewanted=print)

Some choice quotes:

Michael Winston Hicks’s mother initially sensed trouble when he was a baby and she could not get a seat for him on their flight to Florida at an airport kiosk; airline officials explained that his name “was on the list,” she recalled.

The first time he was patted down, at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mikey was 2. He cried.


Mario Labbé, a frequent-flying Canadian record-company executive, started having problems at airports shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, with lengthy delays at checkpoints and mysterious questions about Japan. By 2005, he stopped flying to the United States from Canada, instead meeting American clients in France. Then a forced rerouting to Miami in 2008 led to six hours of questions.

“What’s the name of your mother? Your father? When were you last in Japan?” Mr. Labbé recalled being asked. “Always the same questions in different order. And sometimes, it’s quite aggressive, not funny at all.”

Fed up, in the summer of 2008, he changed his name to François Mario Labbé. The problem vanished.


Several Web sites, including the T.S.A.’s own blog, are rife with tales of misidentification and strategies for solving them. Some travelers purposely misspell their own names when buying tickets, apparently enough to fool the system. Even the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy once found himself on a list.


It's been 8 years since 9/11. Virtually every TSA screening rule is nothing more than a reaction to an actual attack. It does not appear that once in these 8 years the TSA has decided to be proactive and ask "What are all the ways, realistically, one could attack a plane" and then put a comprehensive plan in place to preclude those.

We're only safer than we were 9 years ago because of a change in mindset amongst airline passengers. Someone being overtly hostile on an aircraft is jumped upon. Someone being suspicious is almost always reported to the airline staff. So while it's likely no one will ever successfully hijack an aircraft in the U.S. again, there still exist a multitude of ways to bypass the TSA's rules and compromise an aircraft. Note that the attacks thwarted have been so due to either a) the attacker's own stupidity or b) good law enforcement work that finds and eliminates the threats before they make it on the plane. I wonder, exactly how many terrorists have been arrested at the security line?

[gstelmack]

Agreed. I don't fly anymore, simply because it's not worth the hassle. Taking the Amtrak to Massachusetts back in November was actually kind of fun.

[MacroGuru]

Agreed. I don't fly anymore, simply because it's not worth the hassle. Taking the Amtrak to Massachusetts back in November was actually kind of fun.

Honestly, if it was cheaper than the plane tickets work flies me on, I would do it, just to do it, see a ton of country and such.

But for some reason my travel agent for work gets tickets DIRT CHEAP for flying out of here but the train is expensive...

[Lathum]

I have a pretty common name and just keep waiting to end up on the list

[saldana]

i was on the no-fly list for about 2 years...there was a 65 year old man (i'm 35) with the same name, middle initial included that actually WAS on the watch list, so every time i flew, I was flagged...i couldnt use any of the automated check in terminals...had to go to a live person every time and show my passport, even for domestic flights.

i filed on for relief on the TSA website about 3 years ago, and just received a letter last month that they told me to carry with me to show to anyone that questions me so they leave me alone...i can now use online check in and the like.

tbh, it was a pain in the ass getting questioned every time i flew, but i never really was delayed by it, and after the first few times, I was telling the airline people that they needed to check me against the list, which i think they appreciated, because I never really had any hassles.

[JPhillips]

I had the same thing happen for a couple of years and then it went away without me doing anything.

[sterlingice]

We are big, big fans of closing the barn door after the horse is out.

SI

[JediKooter]

With the TSA, you get what you pay for. I'm talking mostly about the TSA at the airports. There is barely any consistency from airport to airport other than take off your shoes, jacket and your laptop out of the bag. I wear a hat, some airports make you put the hat through the machine, some make you take it off after you go through the metal detector, some don't even bother with the hat.

All I can think of when I show my ID and boarding pass to the TSA person and they are looking at my ID and then at me and then back to the ID, is some bouncer at a bar trying to do the math on the birthdate.

Then there's the conversations between the TSA people about last nights date or whatever they did on the weekend, that are supposed to be monitoring the scanning machines video monitors.

[Lathum]

I agree with Jedi. It is hard to take any organization seriously when it pays their enforcers like taco bell workers

[Airhog]

if the US took security seriously like Israel, then we would be much safer. The gist of the article is that Israel focuses on people instead of things. Something TSA is clueless about

What Israeli security could teach us - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/23/what_israeli_security_could_teach_us/)

[lighthousekeeper]

my hastily crafted not-thought-out proposal:

1. Build a system that would allow ground control to remotely "auto-pilot" and land any commercial plane in cases of emergency (to prevent terrorist takeover of cockpit).

2. Have all airlines adopt amtrak's current train security standards/procedures (i.e. basically none), with the justification that a suicide bomber on a plane could inflict no more damage than s/he currently could on a train (or many other public places).

Seems cheaper in the long run - less salaries to have to pay.

lighthousekeeper for prez 2012!!!i!I!

[panerd]

if the US took security seriously like Israel, then we would be much safer. The gist of the article is that Israel focuses on people instead of things. Something TSA is clueless about

What Israeli security could teach us - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/23/what_israeli_security_could_teach_us/)

Have to admit I didn't read the article yet. (I am busy enough here at work to not be able to do that but can post messages if that makes any sense :) )

But how exactly has our system broken down? Isn't 9-11 an outlier? Not trying to make light of it at all but it was one big fuck up. Nothing else has happened! On top of the shoe bombers not being able to pull off their idiotic attempts to blow up the plane is the fact that both were coming from OTHER COUNTRIES, not the United States. How is this a problem with the TSA? I don't get Obama talking about lapses in security. Wouldn't these two incidents be Dutch and French fuck ups? If I board a plane in New York City and blow up a plane in Madrid how is this Spain's fault?

Not aimed at you Airhog just the general idea that there is actually a problem with airline safety in this country.

[panerd]

Don't get me wrong the TSA is a complete waste of taxpayer money and taking shoes off etc are a huge joke. But I also don't blame them for things that are out of their control.

[DaddyTorgo]

Have to admit I didn't read the article yet. (I am busy enough here at work to not be able to do that but can post messages if that makes any sense :) )

But how exactly has our system broken down? Isn't 9-11 an outlier? Not trying to make light of it at all but it was one big fuck up. Nothing else has happened! On top of the shoe bombers not being able to pull off their idiotic attempts to blow up the plane is the fact that both were coming from OTHER COUNTRIES, not the United States. How is this a problem with the TSA? I don't get Obama talking about lapses in security. Wouldn't these two incidents be Dutch and French fuck ups? If I board a plane in New York City and blow up a plane in Madrid how is this Spain's fault?

Not aimed at you Airhog just the general idea that there is actually a problem with airline safety in this country.

I do somewhat agree...not our problems, problems with other places. Until/Unless you have US TSA personnel overseas in every airport screening and verifying passengers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

if the US took security seriously like Israel, then we would be much safer. The gist of the article is that Israel focuses on people instead of things. Something TSA is clueless about

Hard to blame TSA for having their head up their ass on that point though, at both the governmental level & significantly at the individual level, we place a much higher value on trying not to hurt someone's feewings than on trying to avoid having something blow up.

[PilotMan]

I had this posted on my facebook page but it bears repeating here. This is a well written article about security and the TSA from a pilot's perspective.

The 'Israel model' is discussed, as is the 'failure' of the current setup.

Ask the Pilot - A wake-up call for airport security (http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2010/01/05/askthepilot346/index.html)

[sterlingice]

I had this posted on my facebook page but it bears repeating here. This is a well written article about security and the TSA from a pilot's perspective.

The 'Israel model' is discussed, as is the 'failure' of the current setup.

Ask the Pilot - A wake-up call for airport security (http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2010/01/05/askthepilot346/index.html)

It's interesting and Salon does a good job with these types of stories. However, he doesn't really have solutions. Tho, telling people to calm down and reminding everyone that you can't stop everything but that we should try to do what best we can, within reason.

SI

[kcchief19]

San Diego Man Balks at Scan - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20101114/tr_yblog_newsroom/san-diego-man-balks-at-scan;_ylt=Arme06SbiQjMBD_kqHKG9ESs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM0MWJldWF1BGFzc2V0A3libG9nX25ld3Nyb29tLzIwMTAxMTE0L3Nhbi1kaWVnby1tYW4tYmFsa3MtYXQtc2NhbgRwb3MDNQRzZWMDeW5fbW9zdF9wb3B1bGFyBHNsawNzYW5kaWVnb21hbmI-)

I'll probably be this guy one day. I think to a degree the terrorist have gotten a big win by reducing our productivity, damaging our economy and general making airline one of the more miserable and ridiculous tasks to go through. I'm all for sensible security measures, but we passed common sense a long time ago.

That Salon article sums up my perspective on 9/11 precisely:
The attacks had nothing to do with airport security, and everything to do with the element of surprise. What the hijackers exploited was not a weakness in security, but rather a weakness in our mind-set. That is, our understanding and expectations of hijackings at the time. All of that is changed now, and today a box cutter is all but a useless weapon.
Almost everything we've done with airline security since 9/11 has been to prevent another 9/11. The only change we needed to make to prevent another 9/11 was to change the mindset that of what you do when someone tries to hijack a plane. Done.

The inane screening we go through now and these preposterously expensive body scanners have prevent exactly zero terrorist acts. In fact, all the examples people frequently bring up in defending the need for security (the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber) all overlook the fact (1) screening did zero good; and (2) it was passenger mindset that stopped them both.

I guess most people just chalk it up as a cost of doing business, but I feel like my time is too valuable to spend on completely wastes of time like airport screening as it is done today.

[Lathum]

I think the guy was a total ass clown looking for publicity. Be like everyone else and deal with the security measures that are in place for your protection. Instead this guy chose to resist, and instead took people away from their job of protecting us to deal with him.

[dawgfan]

I'm not getting the impression he refused the pat-down or full-body scanner with the intention of generating publicity for himself, but I'm fully behind whatever publicity he has decided to generate after the fact - since our leaders appear to be lacking the balls to stand up for common sense and rescind these intrusive measures that do little to no good in preventing terrorism but terribly inconvenience travelers and impact the economy and the airline industry, it may very well take citizen disobedience to correct this problem. Good on him.

[Lathum]

I'm not getting the impression he refused the pat-down or full-body scanner with the intention of generating publicity for himself, but I'm fully behind whatever publicity he has decided to generate after the fact - since our leaders appear to be lacking the balls to stand up for common sense and rescind these intrusive measures that do little to no good in preventing terrorism but terribly inconvenience travelers and impact the economy and the airline industry, it may very well take citizen disobedience to correct this problem. Good on him.

You're right, we should just let anyone get on a plane with no security measures.

[mckerney]

You're right, we should just let anyone get on a plane with no security measures.

:rolleyes:

[Lathum]

Roll your eyes all you want but I'll take a little extra inconvenience and cost to feel safe when I am flying, even if that security is just an illusion.

[jeff061]

Why are you ok with it if it's an illusion. That doesn't make any sense.

I don't care about the privacy thing, I'm not embarrassed. It does piss me off watching 5+ people walk through the metal detector as some power tripping security agent has his hand on my chest while I wait for them to analyze my scan. The process is slooow. God forbid you get in that line without realizing it(as I did).

And I'm not ok with it because it's an illusion. I was reading it's mostly for weapons, not bombs. Yet I know people who have knives and even box cutters(he forgot to take them out) in the carryons. Whole thing is a joke. TSA is trying to justify their bloated budget. Even if someone does get a knife onboard, after 9/11 they aren't going to be dealing with a bunch of passive hostages.

[jeff061]

By the way, as cheesy as it is and as much as I hate to tout the line. The terrorists have won. Our way of life continues to change for the worse due to their actions. Everyone chants how we aren't afraid of them. But that's BS, we as a nation are extremely afraid.

[Tigercat]

I work for the DHS/TSA these days as part of my government career. (I alluded to it in a thread a little while back.) TSA's necessity (or lack thereof) in airports depends on if you think air travel will be attacked again. Air transportation has been the most consistent terror target for 50 years. If any part of our modern lifestyles need increased security presence...

Without going into specifics I shouldn't get into, the new pat down and the new scanners are not meant to just find weapons, they are primarily meant to find explosives and IED components. The type of things that may be concealed in hidden areas of the body/clothing, but would be near impossible to hide inside the body. The TSA does at least a pretty good job of staying on top of new weapons and new explosive components. I would go more detail into that, but yea...

Its popular to hate on TSA because screening is inconvient, and like all security there are those that abuse what authority they may have. But you would probably be surprised the kind of intel, foresight, and behind the scenes screening and analysis that goes into the TSA. I know I was.

[Tigercat]

Dola, and as far as losing rights... Walk through metal detectors have been intruding on your person for decades, making sure you aren't smuggling metal. Checked bags have been screened for decades. Now that that threats to people on the planes go beyond just metal, screening must detect harmful objects beyond just metal. If it wasn't TSA, private companies that existed before 9/11 would be adopting their own methods for screening for non metal harmful contraband.

[jeff061]

And yet people have and still will continue to board planes with explosive material with or without these measures. If TSA was gone some other company would be doing because there is money to be made. Hardly altruistic or looking out for anyone's safety, a nation full of people potentially to scared to question it.

I read a quote from some security guy on the scanner being used more for weapons than bombs(searched but couldn't find linkage). In any case I'll defer to your experience on that. Still don't buy pure safety is the actual motivation.

[mckerney]

Roll your eyes all you want but I'll take a little extra inconvenience and cost to feel safe when I am flying, even if that security is just an illusion.

:rolleyes:

[Tigercat]

I read a quote from some security guy on the scanner being used more for weapons than bombs(searched but couldn't find linkage). In any case I'll defer to your experience on that. Still don't buy pure safety is the actual motivation.

New scanners are definitely for bomb component emphasis. Very few weapons of any decent use can even get past walk through metal detectors. Some exist, but they are generally pretty worthless. Passengers are more likely to try to put weapons through bags, and they are picked up in abundance. Even the smallest of pocket knives set off the walkthrough, and can easily be seen on a XRay. (Assuming both are working as they should be. Equipment and the competency of those running them can vary with anything of course.)

TSA/Government press releases about security measures may not paint the whole picture of the purpose/effectiveness of equipment and procedures while they are still being rolled out. If you think about why, the reasons should make sense to you.

[sterlingice]

You're right, we should just let anyone get on a plane with no security measures.

Because, clearly, our choice is a groin check (without the guard buying us dinner first) or airports just having one big barn door with no security before you board a plane and every plane turning into fiery wreckage the moment a person gets on a plane.

Well, when you phrase it like that, I can't help but think I only have one choice.

SI

[JediKooter]

Wonder if people employed by the TSA have to go through the same type of screening when they go on vacation? I would not be surprised if there's some sort of secret head nod or code on their ticket or they just flash their badge and walk on through. I mean, I'm sure a terrorist would never try and actually try to get a job at TSA.

[Tigercat]

Wonder if people employed by the TSA have to go through the same type of screening when they go on vacation? I would not be surprised if there's some sort of secret head nod or code on their ticket or they just flash their badge and walk on through. I mean, I'm sure a terrorist would never try and actually try to get a job at TSA.

Yup. Gotta go through the checkpoint regardless. As a passenger you might notice uniformed TSA employees can walk through alarmed metal detectors and don't have to go through scanners. Doubtful any TSO would want to travel in his/her uniform though. (And it is against regulations.) If one TSO tried to pass his buddy TSO in plain clothes through a line or past screening, other passengers would notice, and be upset. (And rightfully so.)

[DaddyTorgo]

The way I look at it is this: the guy doesn't have a constitutionally protected right to fly onboard an aircraft. If he doesn't want to comply...no big deal. He can drive/take a bus/take a train.

[Coffee Warlord]

The way I look at it is this: the guy doesn't have a constitutionally protected right to fly onboard an aircraft. If he doesn't want to comply...no big deal. He can drive/take a bus/take a train.

He does, however, have a constitutionally protected right barring unreasonable searches.

The TSA has shot about 5000 miles beyond the point of unreasonable searches.

[DaddyTorgo]

He does, however, have a constitutionally protected right barring unreasonable searches.

The TSA has shot about 5000 miles beyond the point of unreasonable searches.

Eh. Guess I just think there's a lot more important things to be worried about then somebody seeing an image of my naked body or touching my junk through my clothes.

I mean does this guy not go to the gym and get seen naked? Does he not go to the doctor and have the doctor check his balls for cancer?

Seriously.

[panerd]

Eh. Guess I just think there's a lot more important things to be worried about then somebody seeing an image of my naked body or touching my junk through my clothes.

I mean does this guy not go to the gym and get seen naked? Does he not go to the doctor and have the doctor check his balls for cancer?

Seriously.

Wow. What powers should the TSA not have under the ruse of security from terror?

[JediKooter]

Yup. Gotta go through the checkpoint regardless. As a passenger you might notice uniformed TSA employees can walk through alarmed metal detectors and don't have to go through scanners. Doubtful any TSO would want to travel in his/her uniform though. (And it is against regulations.) If one TSO tried to pass his buddy TSO in plain clothes through a line or past screening, other passengers would notice, and be upset. (And rightfully so.)

That's good to know. However, I'm sure they have access besides through the metal detectors. I used to work at an airport and there were always side entrances that required badge access and that was it. Not sure if that's changed since I worked there though.

If I was Al Quessadilla or some other group that didn't like america, I'd be concentrating on hacking into our financial networks or something along those lines than worrying about trying to get a bomb through an airport.

[JediKooter]

Eh. Guess I just think there's a lot more important things to be worried about then somebody seeing an image of my naked body or touching my junk through my clothes.

I mean does this guy not go to the gym and get seen naked? Does he not go to the doctor and have the doctor check his balls for cancer?

Seriously.

Shoot, right now, I'd be happy if someone touched my junk through my clothes.

[Logan]

Eh. Guess I just think there's a lot more important things to be worried about then somebody seeing an image of my naked body or touching my junk through my clothes.

I mean does this guy not go to the gym and get seen naked? Does he not go to the doctor and have the doctor check his balls for cancer?

Seriously.

Does it make me a homophobe if I try to limit my instances of guys grabbing my junk?

[Lathum]

Shoot, right now, I'd be happy if someone touched my junk through my clothes.

Special Offers - Air Specials - Southwest Airlines (http://travel.southwest.com/specialoffers/offerDetails.html?id=53607218)

[Greyroofoo]

He does, however, have a constitutionally protected right barring unreasonable searches.

The TSA has shot about 5000 miles beyond the point of unreasonable searches.

Kind of like how I have a the constitutionally protected right of free speech but I can't post a picture of a boobie on FOFC or tell a certain few posters what I REALLY think of them w/o getting banned.

[Logan]

Special Offers - Air Specials - Southwest Airlines (http://travel.southwest.com/specialoffers/offerDetails.html?id=53607218)

If Southwest charges baggage fees, that's a complete ripoff for a rushed squeeze.

[dacman]

If Southwest charges baggage fees, that's a complete ripoff for a rushed squeeze.


You must not have watched any TV in the last few months. The Southwest "no bag fees" commercials are everywhere.

[lordscarlet]

Kind of like how I have a the constitutionally protected right of free speech but I can't post a picture of a boobie on FOFC or tell a certain few posters what I REALLY think of them w/o getting banned.

FOFC is not a government entity. TSA is. Is that not obvious?

[Greyroofoo]

I don't see why that distinction matters in this case.

[JediKooter]

Special Offers - Air Specials - Southwest Airlines (http://travel.southwest.com/specialoffers/offerDetails.html?id=53607218)

Hmmmm....I wonder if they'd be mad if I just kept going through the security check.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

don't they save those images? can't wait for that security breach.

everyone_youve_ever_known_naked.com

[Coffee Warlord]

don't they save those images? can't wait for that security breach.

everyone_youve_ever_known_naked.com

They said they don't, they said the machines couldn't store images.

Which was quickly proven to be bullshit. The machines are capable of storing and transmitting images.

[Khorium]

I was at the airport on Friday.

Walked thru security with sandals and sweats - my usual post-9/11 attire. Had no problems.

Guy 3 spots behind me got patted down. He went on some rant blaming Bush for the whole thing.

[dawgfan]

To be clear, I don't have a problem with us having security and screening measures for boarding airplanes - it's that we apply the majority of these measures to everyone that flies, even though 99.9% of us are not reasonable suspects to commit hijackings and/or terrorist actions on an airplane.

This is one of those cases where I believe we need to get over our sense of political correctness and apply logical suspect profiling measures and stop the inconveniences and privacy intrusions applied to all of us when only the tiniest fraction of us would ever consider committing these crimes we're trying to prevent.

[Lathum]

This is one of those cases where I believe we need to get over our sense of political correctness and apply logical suspect profiling measures and stop the inconveniences and privacy intrusions applied to all of us when only the tiniest fraction of us would ever consider committing these crimes we're trying to prevent.

Why I don't necessarily disagree with you if you think the civil liberties outcries are bad now imagine what they would be...

[dawgfan]

Why I don't necessarily disagree with you if you think the civil liberties outcries are bad now imagine what they would be...
I'm sure the ACLU would combat moves towards suspect profiling, but I'm not so sure they'd have a valid case.

[Rizon]

..

[JPhillips]

To be clear, I don't have a problem with us having security and screening measures for boarding airplanes - it's that we apply the majority of these measures to everyone that flies, even though 99.9% of us are not reasonable suspects to commit hijackings and/or terrorist actions on an airplane.

This is one of those cases where I believe we need to get over our sense of political correctness and apply logical suspect profiling measures and stop the inconveniences and privacy intrusions applied to all of us when only the tiniest fraction of us would ever consider committing these crimes we're trying to prevent.

You'd need to include some sort of random sample or it would be very easy to slip through the system.

[Tigercat]

That's good to know. However, I'm sure they have access besides through the metal detectors. I used to work at an airport and there were always side entrances that required badge access and that was it. Not sure if that's changed since I worked there though.


If TSA officers (TSOs) were once able to just enter through the checkpoint exit lanes, that is no longer the case.

[Tigercat]

He does, however, have a constitutionally protected right barring unreasonable searches.

The TSA has shot about 5000 miles beyond the point of unreasonable searches.

Dola, TSA operates under administrative searches, the same as security in any other Federally secured area or building. Considering clear threats under the clothing existed BEFORE we actually had the attempted shoe bomber and underwear bomber, finding the least intrusive way to scan under clothing is a reasonable administrative search.

If one goes through any of the body scanner, which is meant to be the front line of security, your face is fuzzed out and the picture looks like a mannequin. The person that sees your weird looking mannequin double is closed up in a room where he will never know who you are.

Now the pat downs, they have to give as much information as the scanners if they are going to be an alternative. I think the reasons why would make sense to you if you think about it.

[JediKooter]

If TSA officers (TSOs) were once able to just enter through the checkpoint exit lanes, that is no longer the case.

Actually what I meant was, various doors throughout the airport (San Diego) would take you to the taxi way, or behind baggage claim, offices, etc, without even being near the security check points. Airline employees, security, and others could use those doors as long as they had badge access.

[Tigercat]

Actually what I meant was, various doors throughout the airport (San Diego) would take you to the taxi way, or behind baggage claim, offices, etc, without even being near the security check points. Airline employees, security, and others could use those doors as long as they had badge access.

Ah, I gotya. I can't speak for every airport, but the general idea is that a secured door/area(SIDA) that connects to the terminal should not connect to a concourse past the security checkpoint. But it would probably be naive to assume that is the case absolutely everywhere. And there would be quite a few airports that would probably allow tarmac workers access to the ramps as well. That is meant to be limited as well, with airports keeping track of when IDs are used on secured doors.

[CU Tiger]

. Still don't buy pure safety is the actual motivation.

Just because I am obtuse, what do you submit IS the ulterior motive.

[jeff061]

Same motive everyone has in the western world. Justifying their existence, their jobs, their money. Keeping their "company" afloat and profitable for employees.

This was fine, as maintaining the illusion of security works to a certain point when it comes to ensuring people are willing to travel. However with recent developments that's out the window. Unless this truly is just a vocal minority these new measures are doing more harm than good when it comes to people choosing to buy a flight ticket.

We are going to lose another plane to terrorist actions and it's going to happen with or without these measures.

[DaddyTorgo]

Same motive everyone has in the western world. Justifying their existence, their jobs, their money. Keeping their "company" afloat and profitable for employees.

This was fine, as maintaining the illusion of security works to a certain point when it comes to ensuring people are willing to travel. However with recent developments that's out the window. Unless this truly is just a vocal minority these new measures are doing more harm than good when it comes to people choosing to buy a flight ticket.

We are going to lose another plane to terrorist actions and it's going to happen with or without these measures.

Umm - this is pretty clearly a vocal minority.

[Tigercat]

We are going to lose another plane to terrorist actions and it's going to happen with or without these measures.

You may think so, but the reality is if security does its job right, there is no explosive or legit weapon that should make it on the plane via a passenger.

I don't understand why people would be 100% pessimistic about methods that they don't really know much about or care to fully know about. I guess its easy to be pessimistic about procedures that you find a hassle. But those of us that do our jobs well, we are confident in our abilities and methods and drive to evolve before the threats happen. Some members of the public can just keep assuming that we don't do so, because then those with ill intent might not know any better either.

[sterlingice]

Wow. What powers should the TSA not have under the ruse of security from terror?

Wow. Panerd and I are agreeing today. :D

Well, at least in this thread ;)

SI

[sterlingice]

If I was Al Quessadilla or some other group that didn't like america, I'd be concentrating on hacking into our financial networks or something along those lines than worrying about trying to get a bomb through an airport.

Um... that's happening all the time. See: China

Oh, and I like Al Quessadilla :D

SI

[jeff061]

Well I mention that because I acknowledge its a possibility, if it is this will be a distant memory a week from now.

Like I said earlier, I don't personally have a problem(beyond the slow pace), but if the public backlash persists action needs to be taken against these new procedures. Touting the fuzzy and questionable security aspects of it just does not carry any weight against a public outrage(if it persists).

[jeff061]

You may think so, but the reality is if security does its job right, there is no explosive or legit weapon that should make it on the plane via a passenger.

I don't understand why people would be 100% pessimistic about methods that they don't really know much about or care to fully know about.

Because I don't believe the burger flippers doing the grunt work in the airports are capable of doing the job right.

Even if every one of them were well paid and highly trained there is too much margin for error. These people are human, the monotony of screening passengers must be difficult for everyone. Sooner or later you reach the point of diminishing return.

[kcchief19]

I work for the DHS/TSA these days as part of my government career. (I alluded to it in a thread a little while back.) TSA's necessity (or lack thereof) in airports depends on if you think air travel will be attacked again. Air transportation has been the most consistent terror target for 50 years. If any part of our modern lifestyles need increased security presence...
I would disagree with the assumption that air transportation has been a consistent terror target in the U.S. In fact, terrorism on U.S. airlines has been remarkably rare. In fact, outside 9/11, I doubt most people can recall the last successful act of terrorism on flight originating from a U.S. airport. Our previous systems worked pretty darn well.

The system had a huge flaw that was tragically exploited on 9/11. But I think most people would agree that 9/11 could never happen again -- if someone tries to hijack a plan, passengers and crew are no longer programmed to sit idly by.

I would agree that explosives are the biggest threats facing U.S. air travel, but many of the countermeasures that have been added since 9/11 have been designed to prevent another 9/11. If the body scanners are successful in detecting explosives, great. Then in theory that means we should be able to take a bottle of shampoo or a soda onto a plan since the scanner should catch them.

I would be fine with the delays and the billions of dollars we have spent on security if it actually added security. But given the security measures I've had to go thru when I travel, I don't feel any safer.

[Tigercat]

Because I don't believe the burger flippers doing the grunt work in the airports are capable of doing the job right.

Even if everyone one of them were well paid and highly trained there is too much margin for error. These people are human, the monotony of screening passengers must be difficult for everyone. Sooner or later you reach the point of diminishing return.

Even the lowest TSO position earns right below 30k a year (they are the equivalent of a high GS-4 low GS-5 if you know the GS scale). At our airport the hiring percentage of TSOs this year against total applicants was well below 1%. At every airport today you have to take a barrage of tests, and a heavy duty government background check to be hired.

There are so many negative myths about the TSA, its insane. The only good news about them all is that it may give those that would do harm a false sense of security.

Edit: as far as monotony, if you watch the checkpoint next time you fly, you will probably notice that TSOs change positions. Every checkpoint TSO is trained to do everything, and positions are rotated so that monotony of doing just one job should never be an excuse.

[Lathum]

Umm - this is pretty clearly a vocal minority.

I would agree.

Nobody enjoys flying, it is a necessary evil. Could I choose not to fly, of course, but I will never see my family, travel for business, etc...

The people who are so outraged by this that claim they will never fly again likely aren't frequent fliers anyway, so no great loss.

[jeff061]

I guess paying well is relative. I was exaggerating burger flippers, but what you quote is about what I'd expect. A family member of mine makes in the 25-30k range serving coffee(seriously, love those tips) in a low cost city.

The question is at the end of this argument, what's next? The TSA would strip everyone naked and parade them around if they could get away with it. I'm sure they'll push towards it. And people will say it's a vocal minority, they strip you down to protect you!

Edit: And yeah, I have a minor authority issue that I seem to get more belligerent about with age. I'm sure you noticed, sorry :D.

[Coffee Warlord]

Dola, TSA operates under administrative searches, the same as security in any other Federally secured area or building. Considering clear threats under the clothing existed BEFORE we actually had the attempted shoe bomber and underwear bomber, finding the least intrusive way to scan under clothing is a reasonable administrative search.

Show me one location aside from airports subject to close to the same manner of intrusive security measures. Hell, I've been to speeches by two different Presidents with FAR less security theater.

Show me one potential terrorist who has been thwarted by these machines.


If one goes through any of the body scanner, which is meant to be the front line of security, your face is fuzzed out and the picture looks like a mannequin. The person that sees your weird looking mannequin double is closed up in a room where he will never know who you are.

It has already been proven these images can be stored and transmitted. Whether or not SOP is for this to be disabled in production is irrelevant. It CAN be, it was designed to be, and therefore I promise you has been at some point in live use, either by simple mistake or intent.

Are these images date/time stamped? Reported in numerical sequence? It would be utterly simplistic to match the image to the person, with a quick look at security cameras. They CAN be matched up.

But really, that's not my biggest problem. My biggest problem is the seemingly never-ending erosions of privacy and absurd searches/restrictions all in the name of 'keeping us safe'. I'm tired of being treated like a criminal when I travel to an airport. I'm tired of people saying our legal rights don't matter when the big bad terrorists are waiting around every corner to blow us up.

It never ends. Take a look at the ever increasing insanity of airport security over the past, say, 20 years. I shudder to think where we'll be in 20 more. And you know what? Argue all you want, but the simple fact is, a well motivated, well planned out individual who has no regard for his/her own survival will break through whatever security you throw at them.

Invest your money in intelligence gathering & prevention. Uncover the plots and find your likely targets BEFORE they get to their target.

[mckerney]

To be clear, I don't have a problem with us having security and screening measures for boarding airplanes - it's that we apply the majority of these measures to everyone that flies, even though 99.9% of us are not reasonable suspects to commit hijackings and/or terrorist actions on an airplane.

This is one of those cases where I believe we need to get over our sense of political correctness and apply logical suspect profiling measures and stop the inconveniences and privacy intrusions applied to all of us when only the tiniest fraction of us would ever consider committing these crimes we're trying to prevent.

Yep, they need to be on the look out for the type of people who've flown planes into government buildings in the past, meaning we need to profile people who look like this.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/hash/a3/7b/a37bd0fc9b6629b9bf2cc0c610623e6b.jpg

[Tigercat]

It has already been proven these images can be stored and transmitted. Whether or not SOP is for this to be disabled in production is irrelevant. It CAN be, it was designed to be, and therefore I promise you has been at some point in live use, either by simple mistake or intent.

Are these images date/time stamped? Reported in numerical sequence? It would be utterly simplistic to match the image to the person, with a quick look at security cameras. They CAN be matched up.

But really, that's not my biggest problem. My biggest problem is the seemingly never-ending erosions of privacy and absurd searches/restrictions all in the name of 'keeping us safe'. I'm tired of being treated like a criminal when I travel to an airport. I'm tired of people saying our legal rights don't matter when the big bad terrorists are waiting around every corner to blow us up.


All I can tell you is that TSA employees travel as well. And absolutely all of us have to go through screening. There is no real professional indoctrination that I have seen in the organization, and yet seeing how the procedures and machines work, there is usually very little concerns about our own privacies from undergoing the same procedures.

I am glad there are some people that are worried to flat out paranoid about government protection. That will provide some degree of a check. But just remember that the guy in the booth and his immediate supervisors don't want to even see your ananomous mannaquin if he doesn't have to, much less store the information and track down who the ghost mannaquin it belongs to.

There is realistic worries and then there is paranoia. Like the difference between worrying about overall airline safety issues and being concerned with no reason your flight will be the one in a hundred thousand to have the critical issues. Do you avoid trying on any clothes in any store, certain that the capability exists to record you naked via security cameras?

[dawgfan]

Yep, they need to be on the look out for the type of people who've flown planes into government buildings in the past, meaning we need to profile people who look like this.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/hash/a3/7b/a37bd0fc9b6629b9bf2cc0c610623e6b.jpg
When I say "profiling", I mean something more sophisticated than visual appearance.

[RainMaker]

He does, however, have a constitutionally protected right barring unreasonable searches.

The TSA has shot about 5000 miles beyond the point of unreasonable searches.
That right doesn't really apply when it comes to other people's personal property. I have a right to ask someone to empty their pockets before I let them into my home. An airline or airport has a right to do the same before allowing you on to their airplane.

I look at it as part of flying. If I don't want to be scanned or searched, I am free to hop in my car and drive to where I want to go. None of us are being forced to be scanned. Flying on someone else's airline is a privelage, not a right.

[RainMaker]

Show me one location aside from airports subject to close to the same manner of intrusive security measures. Hell, I've been to speeches by two different Presidents with FAR less security theater.
Show me a scenario where a terrorist was able to kill over 3,000 people in one morning with a pair of box cutters.

[DaddyTorgo]

That right doesn't really apply when it comes to other people's personal property. I have a right to ask someone to empty their pockets before I let them into my home. An airline or airport has a right to do the same before allowing you on to their airplane.

I look at it as part of flying. If I don't want to be scanned or searched, I am free to hop in my car and drive to where I want to go. None of us are being forced to be scanned. Flying on someone else's airline is a privelage, not a right.

Exactly

[dawgfan]

Exactly
You're assuming that airlines want to have to fully screen every passenger.

[MacroGuru]

Honestly, I travel as much as most airline crew. I had one pat down after going through the backscatter machine...guy got my junk pretty good and I told him so. However, it doesn't piss me off....

If this is for my safety and those around me I am fine with it, but they need to do better with their diligence. I have had co-workers get knives through security and I had left a cologne bottle in my backpack and it got through security as well.

However, we fly with a printer and they are now confiscating printer cartridges due to the bomb scare with shipping the stuff as printer cartridges.

[Coffee Warlord]

Show me a scenario where a terrorist was able to kill over 3,000 people in one morning with a pair of box cutters.

And that scenario will not happen again. Passengers and airline personnel were trained at the time to let hijackers take over.

The threat changed, the in-air response has changed. It had utterly nothing to do with front line security.

[Coffee Warlord]

That right doesn't really apply when it comes to other people's personal property. I have a right to ask someone to empty their pockets before I let them into my home. An airline or airport has a right to do the same before allowing you on to their airplane.

I look at it as part of flying. If I don't want to be scanned or searched, I am free to hop in my car and drive to where I want to go. None of us are being forced to be scanned. Flying on someone else's airline is a privelage, not a right.

Last I checked, it's not the airlines enforcing, or even asking for these policies. It's the government. This is not a private entity conducting these searches, this is a government agency. The airlines have little to no say in how the TSA operates.

[panerd]

I am a little surprised at the number of responses in favor of these nonsense security measures in this thread. I guess (hope) maybe a lot of people are just staying away from it. The good old making us safer argument, suprised nobody has started talking about the children yet.

[Lathum]

I am a little surprised at the number of responses in favor of these nonsense security measures in this thread. I guess (hope) maybe a lot of people are just staying away from it. The good old making us safer argument, suprised nobody has started talking about the children yet.

Because I think most of us think it is a minor inconvenience at worst. Why get all pissy about something you can do nothing about? Just accept the fact that is is going to be a 20 minute stretch of your life that is annoying and move on.

I am equally amazed anyone would get all worked up about it (not directed at you specifically), the responses in the article about this on the Seattle Times are 100X worse. People over there are literally calling it the end of the constitution.

[RainMaker]

Last I checked, it's not the airlines enforcing, or even asking for these policies. It's the government. This is not a private entity conducting these searches, this is a government agency. The airlines have little to no say in how the TSA operates.
Are you opposed to searches of people entering the White House? How about meeting the President? Is your argument that the government should not be allowed to do searches of any kind on people? Or is this only an airport thing?

I'm under the impression that our government has a bit of leeway when it comes to protecting themselves. They can shut down Pennsylvania Avenue if they want. They can scan you if you enter the White House. They can make have you show the contents of your purse if you're meeting the President.

[RainMaker]

And that scenario will not happen again. Passengers and airline personnel were trained at the time to let hijackers take over.

The threat changed, the in-air response has changed. It had utterly nothing to do with front line security.
Terrorists have consistently targeted airlines over the past few decades. Over and over again they have attempted and even carried out attacks that have killed a lot of people.

We learned on 9/11 that a plane can be used as a pretty big weapon. It can cause mass casualties in the wrong hands. I want to make sure the people getting on the plane have no way of turning that thing into a 3,000 pound missile.

[jeff061]

I want to make sure the people getting on the plane have no way of turning that thing into a 3,000 pound missile.

This is not possible. How far do we push to meet a goal that is not possible.

I know several people that accidentally got knives, razor blades and box cutters on their carry on. Our existing measures don't even work as designed.

[RainMaker]

This is not possible. How far do we push to meet a goal that is not possible.

I know several people that accidentally got knives, razor blades and box cutters on their carry on. Our existing measures don't even work as designed.
So we don't try? We can't stop murders but I don't see us disbanding the police department.

[jeff061]

I'm not saying let people walk on the runway and onboard. But at some point the return isn't worth the time, money and hassle involved with the increased measures.

But if these new actions are put in place for a goal that will never be reached, when do you stop?

[molson]

Still not seeing the big hassle at all in my anecdotal experience. I wonder what % of travelers are actually subject to more intrusive security headaches, or actually experience these kinds of delays that are portrayed.

I'm just one person but the only change I've really noticed since the 90s is the liquids thing, the taking off your shoes thing, and the scan thing (which takes a second). All of that together adds seconds, and I think people are a far more prepared to go through security nowadays, so it might actually balance out.

(Or maybe all you complainers are just super-suspicious looking :))

[JPhillips]

Just saw a poll that says 81% of people are fine with full body scans.

But at least we're going to protect our freedom by eliminating earmarks.

[JPhillips]

Still not seeing the big hassle at all in my anecdotal experience. I wonder what % of travelers are actually subject to more intrusive security headaches, or actually experience these kinds of delays that are portrayed.

I'm just one person but the only change I've really noticed since the 90s is the liquids thing, the taking off your shoes thing, and the scan thing (which takes a second). All of that together adds seconds, and I think people are a far more prepared to go through security nowadays, so it might actually balance out.

(Or maybe all you complainers are just super-suspicious looking :))

My name was flagged for years and writing letters didn't seem to help. Eventually my name was removed for reasons unclear to me. Flying when I was flagged was a terrific pain in the ass.

[jeff061]

I'm just one person but the only change I've really noticed since the 90s is the liquids thing, the taking off your shoes thing, and the scan thing (which takes a second). All of that together adds seconds, and I think people are a far more prepared to go through security nowadays, so it might actually balance out.

(Or maybe all you complainers are just super-suspicious looking :))

Scan for me took several minutes longer than the metal detector. Which adds up very quickly if you are in that line. I stepped in and quickly put my hands up hoping to get it over with faster than my predecessors. I'm told to wait, put my hands down. Keep waiting. Put hands up. Wait some more. Put hands down, step forward, wait some more for them to clear image. During the last step the guard is trying to act like an authoritative dick for some reason, not sure the point. In your face with a hand on your chest, no words spoken.

Half the problem is simply this new attitude of the agents, at best you get treated like a criminal. God forbid you opt out, 3 of them start screaming at the top of their lungs and surrounding you. I have to imagine this is some sort of directive, but it's only hurting the cause.

Liquids, shoes, laptop, all that doesn't add to much since you can prep all that ahead of time. The scan line was horrible.

[molson]

The body scans are going to save a ton of time in the whole process when then technology approves.

[molson]

Scan for me took several minutes longer than the metal detector. Which adds up very quickly if you are in that line. I stepped in and quickly put my hands up hoping to get it over with faster than my predecessors. I'm told to wait, put my hands down. Keep waiting. Put hands up. Wait some more. Put hands down, step forward, wait some more for them to clear image. During the last step the guard is trying to act like an authoritative dick for some reason, not sure the point. In your face with a hand on your chest, no words spoken.

Half the problem is simply this new attitude of the agents, at best you get treated like a criminal. God forbid you opt out, 3 of them start screaming at the top of their lungs and surrounding you. I have to imagine this is some sort of directive, but it's only hurting the cause.

Liquids, shoes, laptop, all that doesn't add to much since you can prep all that ahead of time. The scan line was horrible.

Must be the airport. Logan? I've never seen anything like that.

[Drake]

Just saw a poll that says 81% of people are fine with full body scans.

I've seen 81% of the people. We need to pay the poor TSA folks more if they're going to have to look at that all day long.

:D

addendum: I actually don't have a problem with having my junk scanned. It's impressive junk.

[JonInMiddleGA]

the responses in the article about this on the Seattle Times are 100X worse.

Now there's a shocker. Oh, wait ...

[molson]

But at some point the return isn't worth the time, money and hassle involved with the increased measures.



True. And we're probably well past that point, as we are with most things the government tries to manage.

But the point at which we're talking constitutional violations and appellate court intervention would have to have a much higher standard of intrustion and delay and violation of rights. I really don't want to put the Supreme Court in charge of airline security and telling the TSA how much "enough" is. All of the constitutional balancing tests the Courts have come up with are in the government's favor on this one. The level of intrusion is LOW - we still are really only talking about convenience in a limited area - this ain't the cops breaking down your door at 2 in the morning on a hunch. You can walk away. Courts acknowledge things like mobility (you have more rights in your house than in your car). The government interest is HIGH, national security. I mean, there's plenty of close constitutional questions running through the appellate courts right now and there's a reason this isn't one of them. It's not even close.

[Lathum]

Now there's a shocker. Oh, wait ...

yeah, they got very mad at me when I told them they were all romanticizing a 200 year old document.

[jeff061]

Must be the airport. Logan? I've never seen anything like that.

Pretty sure it was O'Hare.

[lighthousekeeper]

don't they save those images? can't wait for that security breach.

everyone_youve_ever_known_naked.com

why wait:
One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans (http://gizmodo.com/5690749/)

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

why wait:
One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans (http://gizmodo.com/5690749/)

hot

[jeff061]

But the TSA said it was impossible for that to happen.

[JPhillips]

People visiting that courthouse need to lose weight.

[Lathum]

While the scans should never have been released if that is what they look like I couldn't care less if they broadcast my image on every TV in the terminal. It may as well be a Wii Me.

[jeff061]

That's not what they look like usually, not sure why they are the way they are.

Just google image TSA scans. Bunch of examples, still not horrifying really. The one of the hot naked girl is a fake though :D.

[molson]

The government has plenty of info on people it shouldn't be leaking. Photos, financial information, social security numbers. Any time it happens it sucks and federal criminal charges wouldn't be unreasonable. The fact that the government has sensitive information on people doesn't really justify lower levels of security.

[jeff061]

Yes, except the TSA has been saying not only is it against policy but it's a technical impossibility. TSA, lying to back their agenda? No...

[molson]

Yes, except the TSA has been saying not only is it against policy but it's a technical impossibility. TSA, lying to back their agenda? No...

Always hard to tell with government agencies if its dishonesty or just incompetence.

[Tigercat]

Don't see how that is a TSA story seeing as the system is a totally different setup using totally different software administered by a totally different agency in a totally different venue.

[dawgfan]

However, we fly with a printer and they are now confiscating printer cartridges due to the bomb scare with shipping the stuff as printer cartridges.
See, this is exactly the kind of knee-jerk, idiotic response I'd expect from the TSA. You and your co-workers are not going to be putting explosive devices in place of printer cartridges, yet you have to deal with this reactionary response and be inconvenienced for no reason.

[Tigercat]

Hmm, I wonder if it could be a temporary response while a longer lasting decision is made on an object that could possibly tightly pack harmful liquids and powders? Nah, why would anyone assume that there is actual testing and brainstorming going on behind the scenes.

[JPhillips]

Oh for God's sake.

The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan.

Tyner recorded the half-hour long encounter on his cell phone and later posted it to his personal blog, along with an extensive account of the incident. The blog went viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers and thousands of comments.

Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $11,000.

TSA agents had told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $10,000.

“That’s the old fine,” Aguilar said. “It has been increased.”

Even if you support the security measures this kind of harassment should piss you off.

[Greyroofoo]

Always hard to tell with government agencies if its dishonesty or just incompetence.

Just like private organizations...

[molson]

What's the threatened fine/prosecution for? I've googled three articles on this and nobody thinks that's relevant to report. I hate the news.

[molson]

Just like private organizations...

There's plenty of very well run companies/charities/schools/churches/etc. They actually have to look at the numbers and see if things are working, are efficient, ect.

For airline screening though, we have to live with TSA. You can't have a more appropriate government function. It's best just to accept it and recognize that it's really not too bad. They don't really hinder airline travel on the whole. And the safety record is pretty good. I mean, what do you guys want to do, put Blackwater or Haliburton in charge of airline security?

[dawgfan]

Hmm, I wonder if it could be a temporary response while a longer lasting decision is made on an object that could possibly tightly pack harmful liquids and powders? Nah, why would anyone assume that there is actual testing and brainstorming going on behind the scenes.
Look, it's not that I dispute that this is a valid thing to potentially screen among certain passengers - it's that all of us are subjected to this long litany of privacy intrusion and inconveniences when the percentage of likely potential terrorists/hijackers among the flying population is probably 0.01% or less.

At what point are we going to realize that the idea of being "fair" by equally targeting all passengers really isn't fair at all, and has had a rather significant impact on business and travel by increasing travel time (both in terms of packing as well as getting to your gate)? When are we going to realize that there are smarter ways of going about this and utilizing the intelligence community to apply higher levels of screening to a much smaller, select portion of the flying population?

Metal detectors, luggage scanners - sure, no problem. The 3 oz liquid limits, putting toiletries in ziploc bags, removing our shoes, no printer cartridges, inconsistent enforcement of whether things like nail clippers and Mach 3 razors are OK for carry-ons? That should be done away with for the majority of fliers.

[dawgfan]

It's best just to accept it and recognize that it's really not too bad. They don't really hinder airline travel on the whole.
What planet do you live on? On a micro level, it's a moderate hindrance and delay. On a macro level, it's had a major impact on travel time and thus productivity in our economy. And I'd bet that airlines feel like, on the whole, these travel restrictions and screenings have hurt their business and cut down on discretionary travel.

[Masked]

What's the threatened fine/prosecution for? I've googled three articles on this and nobody thinks that's relevant to report. I hate the news.

What I heard is that if you enter the secured area and begin screening, you have to complete the screening. The rationale was explained that they want to prevent someone from simply leaving if they are picked to have there bag searched, or a pat down, etc. (perhaps b/c something was seen on the scanner) and simply entering security again. Basically, the logic is that the rule is designed to prevent you from getting multiple chances to slip something through.

[JPhillips]

What planet do you live on? On a micro level, it's a moderate hindrance and delay. On a macro level, it's had a major impact on travel time and thus productivity in our economy. And I'd bet that airlines feel like, on the whole, these travel restrictions and screenings have hurt their business and cut down on discretionary travel.

The airlines may privately complain, but they don't want the hassle and liability of being in charge of security.

[Subby]

What's the threatened fine/prosecution for? I've googled three articles on this and nobody thinks that's relevant to report. I hate the news.
For leaving the secure area prior to the completion of a security scan.

[molson]

On a macro level, it's had a major impact on travel time and thus productivity in our economy.

What's the average screening time and what do you think should it be? Is there a connection between body scans and planes being late? I'm just not seeing this as a big deal. And I tend to believe that the majority of people who have run-ins with the TSA are assholes looking for a fight. It's not that hard to get through a security line. There's screwups with no-fly lists and equipment that's not really worth it, and TSA should pay their people more and be quicker to cut them lose if they suck. I just think that the real subtext here is problems with authority generally. People were definitely bitching about security in the 80s at airports, and they always will.

[Chubby]

Terrorists have consistently targeted airlines over the past few decades. Over and over again they have attempted and even carried out attacks that have killed a lot of people.

We learned on 9/11 that a plane can be used as a pretty big weapon. It can cause mass casualties in the wrong hands. I want to make sure the people getting on the plane have no way of turning that thing into a 3,000 pound missile.


They can even turn one invisibile like they did with the one that took out tower 7...

[molson]

For leaving the secure area prior to the completion of a security scan.

Interesting. So once you get into a security line it's a crime to leave it? I'd be curuious to find the federal code cite on that. Maybe I'll have a chance to look for it later.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

they need mri's as well. i've seen enough prison doc's to know you can fit a small armory in your poop tunnel.

[DaddyTorgo]

Interesting. So once you get into a security line it's a crime to leave it? I'd be curuious to find the federal code cite on that. Maybe I'll have a chance to look for it later.

Apparently it is...once you have the guy check your ID and boarding pass is probably when the definition of it starts realistically. It's logical enough I suppose - I have very little problem with that.

[PilotMan]

What planet do you live on? On a micro level, it's a moderate hindrance and delay. On a macro level, it's had a major impact on travel time and thus productivity in our economy. And I'd bet that airlines feel like, on the whole, these travel restrictions and screenings have hurt their business and cut down on discretionary travel.

Life goes on. Stoplights impact productivity and force traffic to be more restrictive, and hurt travel times, but I don't think anyone is going to advocate getting rid of them for the sake of personal freedom.

IMO, the airlines really have no stake in this at all. It is beyond their control, they can only react.

The fact is that the government provides for the safety of the general population. That extends to airports which are run by local cities. The cities themselves used to be in charge of the screening process but that level of security had too many holes and was not standardized. The reasonable solution to protect the citizenry was the creation of the TSA and it's goal of one level of security.

Now, I have no love of the TSA nor the bureaucracy that it created. I am neither friend nor enemy, we just are. We play the game, and we do what we need to do, and they do what they need to do, and we exist in each other's world as uncomfortable as that may be.

[dawgfan]

What's the average screening time and what do you think should it be?
Screening lines are long and slow not so much because you have to walk through a metal detector and put your carry-on luggage through the scanner - it's because you have to take off your shoes, take out your laptop, take your jacket off, take off your belt (in certain airports but not others).

If full-body scanners can eliminate the need to do all of that, eliminate the stupid restriction on fluids (etc), are not a health risk and can be further engineered to make it extremely difficult for images to be leaked, then I'm all for them.

[Lathum]

Screening lines are long and slow not so much because you have to walk through a metal detector and put your carry-on luggage through the scanner - it's because you have to take off your shoes, take out your laptop, take your jacket off, take off your belt (in certain airports but not others).
.

The process really isn't that slow, you are acting as if it is a 2 hour process when really it is 30 minutes tops. You wait longer to get a table at a restaurant, yet you still go out to eat.

[DanGarion]

And that scenario will not happen again. Passengers and airline personnel were trained at the time to let hijackers take over.

The threat changed, the in-air response has changed. It had utterly nothing to do with front line security.

If you truly think this could never happen again you are wrong...

[dawgfan]

The process really isn't that slow, you are acting as if it is a 2 hour process when really it is 30 minutes tops. You wait longer to get a table at a restaurant, yet you still go out to eat.
I was a regular business flier from 2005 to 2009 in addition to vacation travel, so I had quite a bit of exposure to a variety of airports and security lines at various times.

Some of the time it was a breeze, like 5 minutes. A lot of the time it was more like 30 minutes. A few times it was closer to an hour.

Even at 30 minutes, that's lost productivity - leaving work to try to get to the airport 1.5-2 hours early just in case instead of 1 hour is a given, and time spent waiting in the security line is time I can't be spending doing work on my laptop.

Add up the volume of business travelers out there every day and the time they lose due to security and the need to get to airports earlier due to security lines, and that's a lot of time that is taken away from work productivity.

For vacation travelers, they have to decide if the hassle is worth it. I know plenty of older folks who are already not super comfortable with flying, but now you add in the need to remove their shoes, the need to find 3 oz or smaller containers for any fluid if they choose to carry-on (and there's financial incentive to do so now with all the bag fees) and the possible subjection to more intrusive searches, and some of these people say "screw it" and go drive somewhere instead, or just stay home. That's lost tourist revenue.

Again, look at the macro rather than focusing on the micro.

[TroyF]

I travel a lot. In a down month, I'll take one trip. On a busy month I'll take three. Since June, I've been through airports in Boston, Dallas, Kansas City, Tulsa, Memphis, Phoenix, Onario (CA), LAX, Las Vegas, Reno, Seattle, Spokane, Portland, Washington D.C. (Regan), Atlanta, Detroit and my home of Denver.

How many problems have I had through security out of all those trips? 2. In Memphis, a couple of TSA guys thought they were kings and made life hell for everyone going through the line. A completely miserable experience. In Denver, headed for an early morning flight, security didn't have enough people and it took 1.5 hours to get through the line. Thankfully I got there early, but that was a first class pain in the ass.

The rest of the time? Get through the line, take the shoes off, take the coat off, pull out my laptops (usually have one personal and one work laptop I travel with), pull off the belt. Go through the scanner or full body scanner depending on the airport. Put everything back on and away, head toward the gate.

Total time? It's rare the wait time has ever been over 20 minutes to get to the checkpoint. Once at the checkpoint, all of the stuff above happens in under 3 minutes. 5 on a really slow day.

I don't think about my personal rights much. I've had the hands on search about 3 times (always after going through security) and haven't felt personally violated at any time. All of this needed? I dunno, but it's nothing more than a minor inconvenience to me.

As for the macro opposed to the micro, what do you want to do? No amount of civil disobedience is going to change many of the security measures.

[molson]

I know plenty of older folks who are already not super comfortable with flying, but now you add in the need to remove their shoes, the need to find 3 oz or smaller containers for any fluid if they choose to carry-on (and there's financial incentive to do so now with all the bag fees) and the possible subjection to more intrusive searches, and some of these people say "screw it" and go drive somewhere instead, or just stay home. That's lost tourist revenue.


So you really think that the number of old people who don't want to take of their shoes is a bigger loss to the economy than the number of people who wouldn't feel safe to fly if you minimized security down to the metal detector (it seems like you have a problem with everything beyond that - and that's really the most time consuming thing). And that's not even to mention the hit airlines take when there is a terrorism situation.

[molson]

I know plenty of older folks who are already not super comfortable with flying, but now you add in the need to remove their shoes, the need to find 3 oz or smaller containers for any fluid if they choose to carry-on (and there's financial incentive to do so now with all the bag fees) and the possible subjection to more intrusive searches, and some of these people say "screw it" and go drive somewhere instead, or just stay home. That's lost tourist revenue.


So you really think that the number of old people who don't want to take of their shoes is a bigger loss to the economy than the number of people who wouldn't feel safe to fly if you minimized security down to the metal detector (it seems like you have a problem with everything beyond that - and that's really the most time consuming thing). And that's not even to mention the hit airlines take when there is a terrorist attack or attempted attack

[Blackadar]

The process really isn't that slow, you are acting as if it is a 2 hour process when really it is 30 minutes tops. You wait longer to get a table at a restaurant, yet you still go out to eat.

As an aside, I haven't waited 30 minutes at a restaurant in this decade.

30 minutes x # air travelers per day (1,500,000 or so) = 750,000 lost man-hours per day. Even if you take into account other factors (leisure, retirees, kids) etc., you're talking about a massive productivity drain.

As for the rest of it, none of the defenders of this have in any way addressed the 4th Amendment as it relates to a government agency essentially taking naked photos of you in a public place. This isn't a private enterprise (the airlines) requiring this - this is a governmental agency. Even though driving is a privilege, it still doesn't give the government to stop you and search your car without probable cause. How is this any different?

Furthermore, where does it cross the line for you? If the scanner breaks and the TSA is forced to go to an enhanced pat down for all passengers, are you comfortable with a male screener grabbing the crotch of your 12 year old daughter? What if the TSA started mandating that you had to wear a certain type of clothing so everyone was walking around in a smock? If they required strip searches, is that OK with you? If you're ok with this, how and where is the line drawn?

Finally, there are probably better and proven techniques that are much less intrusive. Read up on the Israeli technique and compare that against the US. Which is less intrusive? And which is more effective?

If you truly think this could never happen again you are wrong...

No, it couldn't happen again in the same way. If you think it can, I'd be very interested in hearing why you think that.

IMO, the next big attack will either be by private jet or it'll be against a cruise ship in international waters that left a US port. Or it'll be a suicide bomber who is standing in the crowded security line in an airport because that's where you have a group of bunched up people.

[PilotMan]

I don't see how the productivity argument holds much water as the US is tops in productivity in the world.

Security at airports is like a fixed overhead cost in a business. Yes, you could be more profitable if that rent was less, but it isn't and everyone else has to pay about the same so the actual loss in revenue is irrelevant.

You can point out how much time you are losing, but you can argue the same about watching TV or taking a dump. Monetizing every second of the day is useless. Just imagine if we were productive 24/7. Think of the lost productivity.

[PilotMan]

FWIW, the number of people who have to use the new machines or pat downs is minimal when you consider everyone who goes through security. I know they are becoming more prevalent, but right now it's few and far between.

[molson]

As an aside, I haven't waited 30 minutes at a restaurant in this decade.

30 minutes x # air travelers per day (1,500,000 or so) = 750,000 lost man-hours per day. Even if you take into account other factors (leisure, retirees, kids) etc., you're talking about a massive productivity drain.



I'd love to see a cite for your 30 minute average, and obviously SOME kind of security is necessary, right? If we give up on explosive detection altogether and just go to straight metal detectors, you're only saving a small amount of time. When you just had carry-on scanning/metal-detectors, you had a lot of idiots who couldn't get through the metal detectors. Everybody's checking their pockets, taking off their belt, going through again and again. Today, people are more prepared, and I doubt the average time in a security line is any longer than it was 15 years ago.



As for the rest of it, none of the defenders of this have in any way addressed the 4th Amendment as it relates to a government agency essentially taking naked photos of you in a public place. This isn't a private enterprise (the airlines) requiring this - this is a governmental agency. Even though driving is a privilege, it still doesn't give the government to stop you and search your car without probable cause. How is this any different?



I've addressed it, there's no 4th amendment issue here, and this is entirely different. A search at an airline is not as intrusive as either the house or the car search, the government interest is far more compelling. (and the officers have more leeway to stop/search your car than you think, just because the courts have recognized that a car is different because it's mobile, and because you're out on a public road). Nobody is challenging this issue in the appellate courts (who deal with 4th amendment search and seizure traffic stop cases every day), because it's a non-issue.



Read up on the Israeli technique and compare that against the US. Which is less intrusive? And which is more effective?



There's definitely things we could learn from the Israel system but it's not any faster, and people would definitely be bitching about it here. It's mostly based on profiling (you actually get an entrance inteview before they let you on the airport property - how would Americans feel about that?). Heavily armed guards watch you as you walk around. Once you get into the airport -another personal interview. There's like 4 or 5 stages of security, they don't take shit from anyone, and if you look like a dirty Muslim terrorist, they're kicking your ass out of there. That system is very efficient, but I don't know if it's going to fly here. A lot of Americans have this sense of entitlement and are just going to start bitching with TSA employees if they think something isn't fair. Israeli security wouldn't deal with that at all, you'd just be out the door. I'd love to see that blogger go to an Israeli airport with a camera and try to document his experience being uncooperative.

[DanGarion]

No, it couldn't happen again in the same way. If you think it can, I'd be very interested in hearing why you think that.


My main reason I think it could is because before it did happen people thought the same thing, that nothing like that could happen... But what do I know.

[dawgfan]

So you really think that the number of old people who don't want to take of their shoes is a bigger loss to the economy than the number of people who wouldn't feel safe to fly if you minimized security down to the metal detector (it seems like you have a problem with everything beyond that - and that's really the most time consuming thing). And that's not even to mention the hit airlines take when there is a terrorism situation.
There are always going to be paranoid people that worry about everything. That said, how many people really feel more secure because we have to have 3 oz or smaller containers of any kind of liquid, or having to have our shoes scanned, or taking out our laptops from within their bags, or having certain TSA checkpoints deciding nail clippers are not allowed?

And if airlines really were worried that a drawback in the amount of screening measures might scare some passengers off, put together a series of public safety announcements via TV ads to assure the public that security isn't being compromised by cutting back on some of the more ridiculous searches and prohibitions being applied to all travelers.

[DanGarion]

You want to know a massive productivity drain, traffic.

[PilotMan]

That said, how many people really feel more secure because we have to have 3 oz or smaller containers of any kind of liquid, or having to have our shoes scanned, or taking out our laptops from within their bags, or having certain TSA checkpoints deciding nail clippers are not allowed?

And if airlines really were worried that a drawback in the amount of screening measures might scare some passengers off, put together a series of public safety announcements via TV ads to assure the public that security isn't being compromised by cutting back on some of the more ridiculous searches and prohibitions being applied to all travelers.

I can't say more, but if you knew some of the information that I am privy to, you wouldn't see those things as ridiculous or arbitrary. Frankly, I would like my place of business to be as secure as possible.

[Greyroofoo]

Ya know with all these productivity drains (airport security, traffic, fantasy football, facebook, twitter etc...) it's a wonder that we're productive at all!

[lighthousekeeper]

I don't see how the productivity argument holds much water as the US is tops in productivity in the world.

Security at airports is like a fixed overhead cost in a business. Yes, you could be more profitable if that rent was less, but it isn't and everyone else has to pay about the same so the actual loss in revenue is irrelevant.

Monetizing every second of the day is useless.

good thing you're a pilot, because you'd make a crappy business owner.

[Blackadar]

I'd love to see a cite for your 30 minute average, and obviously SOME kind of security is necessary, right? If we give up on explosive detection altogether and just go to straight metal detectors, you're only saving a small amount of time. When you just had carry-on scanning/metal-detectors, you had a lot of idiots who couldn't get through the metal detectors. Everybody's checking their pockets, taking off their belt, going through again and again. Today, people are more prepared, and I doubt the average time in a security line is any longer than it was 15 years ago.

You'd almost certainly be incorrect that the average time in security is the same. I don't think there are any stats on this, but anyone who flew pre-9/11 pretty much walked up to the security screening and walked through. I haven't been able to do that at a major airport this year and I've flown about 50,000 miles.

FYI, it wasn't my 30 minutes. It was Lathums. I'd estimate probably 15-20 on average at any major US airport, though those 1 hour waits sure do ramp up the overall average.

I've addressed it, there's no 4th amendment issue here, and this is entirely different. A search at an airline is not as intrusive as either the house or the car search, the government interest is far more compelling. (and the officers have more leeway to stop/search your car than you think, just because the courts have recognized that a car is different because it's mobile, and because you're out on a public road). Nobody is challenging this issue in the appellate courts (who deal with 4th amendment search and seizure traffic stop cases every day), because it's a non-issue.

Well, if the courts haven't addressed it, then you can't say it's not an issue. To me, taking naked photos of me or feeling my junk is pretty damn intrusive.


There's definitely things we could learn from the Israel system but it's not any faster, and people would definitely be bitching about it here. It's mostly based on profiling (you actually get an entrance inteview before they let you on the airport property - how would Americans feel about that?). Heavily armed guards watch you as you walk around. Once you get into the airport -another personal interview. There's like 4 or 5 stages of security, they don't take shit from anyone, and if you look like a dirty Muslim terrorist, they're kicking your ass out of there. That system is very efficient, but I don't know if it's going to fly here. A lot of Americans have this sense of entitlement and are just going to start bitching with TSA employees if they think something isn't fair. Israeli security wouldn't deal with that at all, you'd just be out the door.

Yeah, that entrance interview consists of exactly two questions. "How are you doing" and "where are you going". Having flown in and out of Israel a couple of years ago, I found their system far less intrusive and much faster than ours. There are quite a few levels of security, but it's amazing how little you're impacted by those levels.


My main reason I think it could is because before it did happen people thought the same thing, that nothing like that could happen... But what do I know.

In fact, many people thought things like that could happen. It was written about in a number of books, presented as a real danger to both the Clinton and Bush administrations prior to 9/11 and so forth. Tom Clancy had the dramatic denouement of his bestselling novel a plane crashing into the White House!

Furthermore, passengers were specifically taught to not fight a hijacking attempt. It was SOP - let the hijackers do their thing and it'll all get resolved peacefully. There are countless examples of this and a few of 'em were even made into TV movies. Now, the passenger mindset is entirely different. The psychology has entirely changed.

So, in this day in age, with passengers prepared to defend themselves, with reinforced pilot doors that stay locked, with air marshals aboard many planes...do you still think 5 men armed with only box cutters could realistically hijack a USA passenger plane?

[molson]

Yeah, that entrance interview consists of exactly two questions. "How are you doing" and "where are you going". Having flown in and out of Israel a couple of years ago, I found their system far less intrusive and much faster than ours. There are quite a few levels of security, but it's amazing how little you're impacted by those levels.


It's definitely quick and efficient if you're white/jewish/otherwise don't fit the profiles. Focussing on people individually has a lot of merit when it comes to security. I just can't see that happening here though. Whatever screening process we use, it has to be the same for wheelchair-bound grandma as it is for young Arab male.

I don't know why this post has an exclamiation point. I didn't put it there on purpose.

[Blackadar]

It's definitely quick and efficient if you're white/jewish/otherwise don't fit the profiles. Focussing on people individually has a lot of merit when it comes to security. I just can't see that happening here though. Whatever screening process we use, it has to be the same for wheelchair-bound grandma as it is for young Arab male.

I don't know why this post has an exclamiation point. I didn't put it there on purpose.

No doubt there is an fair element of profiling, but not every young Arab male is going to be singled out for questioning. It's far, far more subtle than that. They're looking for subtle physical reactions to the questions - much the same things that police/FBI interrogators do. Things like pupil dilation, breathing patterns, eye flicker, nervousness, getting flushed, rapid speech, etc. They're trained to look for certain physical signs and then recommend additional screening from there. It's pretty fascinating stuff regarding pattern recognition.

No doubt that there is more intensive questioning if you start to fall outside the patterns, but it's damn effective stuff...far more effective than our system. It's how the Israelis caught a 32 year old Irish woman who was carrying Semtex.

And that wheelchair-bound grandma? It's been long known that wheelchairs would be one of the best ways to smuggle in a firearm by building the components into the frame of the chair itself. ;)

[dawgfan]

I can't say more, but if you knew some of the information that I am privy to, you wouldn't see those things as ridiculous or arbitrary. Frankly, I would like my place of business to be as secure as possible.
Information that says that more than a tiniest fraction of the flying public are potential saboteurs? Because that's my issue with all of this - we're all subject to a certain level of intrusion and inconvenience regardless of the fact that nearly all of us are not reasonable suspects.

[Lathum]

Information that says that more than a tiniest fraction of the flying public are potential saboteurs? Because that's my issue with all of this - we're all subject to a certain level of intrusion and inconvenience regardless of the fact that nearly all of us are not reasonable suspects.

So you are OK with someones civil liberties being violated as long as it isn't yours.

[DanGarion]

So, in this day in age, with passengers prepared to defend themselves, with reinforced pilot doors that stay locked, with air marshals aboard many planes...do you still think 5 men armed with only box cutters could realistically hijack a USA passenger plane?

It depends do they each have 3 oz. of liquid on them?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd love to see that blogger go to an Israeli airport with a camera and try to document his experience being uncooperative.

So would I, now that you mention it. Might even pay a few bucks to watch that on PPV.

[dawgfan]

So you are OK with someones civil liberties being violated as long as it isn't yours.
I'm OK with searches that have a probable cause. I have a problem with the default assumption that everyone flying is a possible terrorist.

[Lathum]

I'm OK with searches that have a probable cause. I have a problem with the default assumption that everyone flying is a possible terrorist.

and what is your criteria for determining probable cause that is cheaper and faster than what we have now?

[Tigercat]

I'm OK with searches that have a probable cause. I have a problem with the default assumption that everyone flying is a possible terrorist.

I am unaware of any government security in the US, Canada, Europe, ect that works only on profile, or that assumes that certain people aren't a threat and just lets that group of people past. Even pre 9/11 security didn't work like that. Hell, even lax security doesn't work like that. Lax random screening assumes that everyone is a possible threat.

What you are suggesting is just flat out bad security. And an invitation for a seemingly ordinary person with an axe to grind against God knows who to do something horrific.

[dawgfan]

I am unaware of any government security in the US, Canada, Europe, ect that works only on profile, or that assumes that certain people aren't a threat and just lets that group of people past. Even pre 9/11 security didn't work like that. Hell, even lax security doesn't work like that. Lax random screening assumes that everyone is a possible threat.

What you are suggesting is just flat out bad security. And an invitation for a seemingly ordinary person with an axe to grind against God knows who to do something horrific.
I'm suggesting rolling standard security back to pre 9/11, not more than that. As for profiling or other means, take a look at what Israeli airport security is like:

http://www.huliq.com/10061/john-tyner-might-israels-airport-security-better-us

[Tigercat]

That tiered level of security at every airport and the training needed to implement it would cost more than we spend now at TSA. And without saying too much, I will say that you would be surprised how much of that TSA already does. The general public just doesn't notice it because it is not as visible. There are whole career branches in the TSA that deal with security measures that most of the public doesn't realize exists.

[DaddyTorgo]

That tiered level of security at every airport and the training needed to implement it would cost more than we spend now at TSA. And without saying too much, I will say that you would be surprised how much of that TSA already does. The general public just doesn't notice it because it is not as visible. There are whole career branches in the TSA that deal with security measures that most of the public doesn't realize exists.

Cool!

[jeff061]

Yeah. All we the public see is them checking shoes and banning toner cartridges the day after...

[Tigercat]

The most obvious and visible example:
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/bdo/index.shtm

(Linking to a public page rather than risk saying things I shouldn't!)

[Alan T]

I didn't see this posted in this thread, if it was I apologize!

hxxp://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans

Seems pretty on topic for this discussion at least!


Anyhow, I fly out on Saturday night. I'll let you all know if my hyperactive three year old gets me arrested for not standing still in the security line :)

[molson]

The most obvious and visible example:
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/bdo/index.shtm

(Linking to a public page rather than risk saying things I shouldn't!)

Interesting. It could be a coincidence, but this weekend, I was in Vegas with a friend, and at the airport, she somehow got her cell phone stuck in the liner of her coat. We just couldn't get it out. I eventually had to use my keys to rip a part of the coat, to reach in and get the phone. Later on, inside the gate, after we parted ways, she was pulled aside for some kind of extra security. I wonder if someone was watching the whole coat liner thing and found it suspicious, like we were exchanging/drugs/contraband. I'd like to think they were watching people that closely, and using some kind of Israeli-style profile techniques.

[JediKooter]

I would like to see higher hiring standards at the TSA. Minimum of a bachelors degree required to even be considered for the job and that degree has to be somewhat related to the job as well.

Second, I'd like to see some actual consistency from airport to airport when going through the security line. Kind of like if I go to a McDonalds in Florida, I know that a Big Mac is going to taste exactly the same as the Big Mac I got in California. Example: I wear hat 99% of the time and if it's day time, I wear sunglasses. When I go inside, I usually put the sunglasses on my hat so I don't lose them. One airport will have me take the hat off before going through the metal detector, another airport will have me put my sunglasses through the xray machine and another will just completely ignore the fact that I have a hat on and another will ask me to take my hat off after I've gone through the metal detector and show them the inside of my hat. If this is done to keep people off guard, I'm fine with that. HOWEVER, what I am NOT fine with is the fucking attitude I get from the TSA screeners when I don't automagically know which one they want me to do. Which leads me to believe that each airport has its own set of rules instead of just mixing it up to keep people guessing.

[CU Tiger]

Bachelors Degrees?
Didn't you see the salary posted previously. I imagine its tough to find folks with diplomas!

What loses me is, are we concerned with the destruction of a single plane and its passengers, or the use of a plane to harm many others.

As others have suggested if the intent is to kill a large number of people on a single craft cruise ships should be a major target Id think. Also I can imagine a scenario that was alluded to where 5 passengers have 3oz of liquid each or whatever. But you aren't sailing that cruise ship into times square, and you will never again take over a plane with a box cutter.

[JediKooter]

Bachelors Degrees?

Yes, most definitely. Something that is as important as keeping terrorists away from and off of planes, should not be relegated to just anyone that can fill out a job application. It's just that my standards for something as important as that are a bit high.

Didn't you see the salary posted previously. I imagine its tough to find folks with diplomas!

I didn't see the salaries and I admit that I am painting with a wide brush, but, given the current quality of TSA employees, I can't imagine it being very high. You get what you pay for. I do admit there's some that do seem to be doing a good job, but, they are the exception and not the rule. I don't think I would be too far off the mark if I said the TSA talent pool is rather shallow.

What loses me is, are we concerned with the destruction of a single plane and its passengers, or the use of a plane to harm many others.

As others have suggested if the intent is to kill a large number of people on a single craft cruise ships should be a major target Id think. Also I can imagine a scenario that was alluded to where 5 passengers have 3oz of liquid each or whatever. But you aren't sailing that cruise ship into times square, and you will never again take over a plane with a box cutter.

My opinion is, planes and other modes of mass transportation are the least of our concerns. The poisoning of our water or food supplies or the manipulation of the stock market are bigger concerns in my opinion. While things like crashing a plane into something or blowing up a cruise liner result in shock and horror, their long term affects aren't as lasting as an economic, biological, or chemical attack, which would be much more crippling to everyone.

I don't disagree with you, I just think that there's too much attention spent on reactionary measures instead of proactive measures. The chickens have already left the coop and closing the coops doors (TSA security measures) doesn't really do much to help at this point. Had there been better coordination between the various agencies, there's probably a good chance those 19 hijackers never would have been in the US. The problem isn't the passengers, the problem is the bureaucracy and the political infighting that goes on between agencies.

[Tigercat]

30k for a Government job isn't that bad. It is a low mid-range (GS-5) pay area. Lots of people leave jobs that pay a lot more to get guaranteed benefits and the job security/mobility combo it offers. And besides, that is the rock bottom pay level for TSA anyway.

Bachelor degree requirement isn't a bad idea, police departments are starting to institute that requirement more and more as well. You might be surprised who is working the 23k-30k jobs in the Federal government though. At both the park service and at TSA I know plenty of people with Master's(I could almost count myself) and Doctorates(Park Service, not TSA) working those jobs.

[JediKooter]

30k for a Government job isn't that bad. It is a low mid-range (GS-5) pay area. Lots of people leave jobs that pay a lot more to get guaranteed benefits and the job security/mobility combo it offers. And besides, that is the rock bottom pay level for TSA anyway.

Bachelor degree requirement isn't a bad idea, police departments are starting to institute that requirement more and more as well. You might be surprised who is working the 23k-30k jobs in the Federal government though. At both the park service and at TSA I know plenty of people with Master's(I could almost count myself) and Doctorates(Park Service, not TSA) working those jobs.

For the purpose of disclosure, I do not have a degree other than my high school diploma. I have tons of college credits (probably enough for almost 2 degrees), but, no degree. However, I work in an industry that doesn't involve public safety or national security.

That being said and playing the 'if I was in charge' game...I would slash the amount of people that work for the TSA, require a degree that is related to the field or close to it, rely more on technology (electronic & animals), raise the salaries to a minimum of 45-50K a year and require that the agents be rotated after a certain amount of time at one place, much like the military. People with Masters and Doctorates would be the ones in management and would be paid more because of that.

I'm not surprised at all. I know a few people that work for the government and some have advanced degrees and are not making nearly as much as they would if they were working for a corporation, but, they like what they do. It may sound like I'm belittling people who do not make a lot of money or have a degree, but, I'm not. I see it no different than being a doctor and the requirements they have to go through in order to work. It's THAT important that they have the training and education. I just don't see it currently with the TSA. I don't quite know how to put it, but, I want that TSA agent to be there because that individual is the right piece to the puzzle, not because they have the ability to fill out an application.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have a problem with the default assumption that everyone flying is a possible terrorist.

Newsflash: they are.

And the painful naivety of denying that illustrates one of the biggest security challenges of all.

[dawgfan]

Newsflash: they are.

And the painful naivety of denying that illustrates one of the biggest security challenges of all.
Poor terminology on my part I guess - the vast, vast majority of fliers, probably 99.99% are not likely terrorist suspects.

[JediKooter]

Computer virus Stuxnet a 'game changer,' DHS official tells Senate - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/11/17/stuxnet.virus/index.html?hpt=T2)

This is the stuff that is more dangerous than someone refusing to go through a body scanning machine.

[Matthean]

(http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573)Bah! Site looks like a The Onion wanna be site, so link removed.

[panerd]

Computer virus Stuxnet a 'game changer,' DHS official tells Senate - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/11/17/stuxnet.virus/index.html?hpt=T2)

This is the stuff that is more dangerous than someone refusing to go through a body scanning machine.

SHUT DOWN THE INTERWEBZ!!!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Underclothes That Display The 4th Amendment When X-Rayed by TSA (http://laughingsquid.com/underclothes-that-display-the-4th-amendment-when-x-rayed-by-tsa/)

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/4th-amendment-20101129-095804.jpg

[Marc Vaughan]

Underclothes That Display The 4th Amendment When X-Rayed by TSA

That is damned cool I have to admit :D

[fantom1979]

That is pretty funny. I wonder if the TSA has seen anything like this yet.

[Passacaglia]

Shoot, right now, I'd be happy if someone touched my junk through my clothes.

Hmmmm....I wonder if they'd be mad if I just kept going through the security check.

Jedi, is this you?

Man arrested after ejaculating during TSA pat-down : Dead Serious News (http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573)

Man arrested after ejaculating during TSA pat-down

A 47 year old gay man was arrested at San Francisco International Airport after ejaculating while being patted down by a male TSA agent. Percy Cummings, an interior designer from San Francisco, is being held without bail after the alleged incident, charged with sexually assaulting a Federal agent.
According to Cummings’ partner, Sergio Armani, Cummings has “multiple piercings on his manhood” which were detected during a full body scan. As a result, Cummings was pulled aside for a pat-down. Armani stated that the unidentified TSA agent spent “an inordinate amount of time groping” Cummings, who had apparently become sexually aroused. Cummings, who has a history of sexual dysfunction, ejaculated while the TSA agent’s hand was feeling the piercings. The TSA agent, according to several witnesses, promptly called for back up. Cummings was thrown to the ground and handcuffed.
A TSA spokesperson declined to comment on this specific case, but said that anyone ejaculating during a pat-down would be subject to arrest.

[jeff061]

Lol.

Still though, I'm not following how any of this is his fault?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

fake

[jeff061]

Heh, assumed so.

Clicking elsewhere on that sight confirms it.

[Tigercat]

The machines that are in use in most airports with new machines may not see that tshirt.

One of many misconceptions is that there is only one type of new imaging technology being used throughout the country and that it uses X-rays. There are two types, AIT machines and backscatter machines. AIT are the ones that are massively being rolled out. They use a form of radio wave technology, not X-rays. Backscatters are used in a few of our major US airports (and maybe a few small ones I don't know about?) and do use a form of X-ray technology.

[jeff061]

I was aware there were 2. Am not aware of why that matters. Beyond one of them(forget which) seeming to garner more health related concerns.

[JediKooter]

Jedi, is this you?

Man arrested after ejaculating during TSA pat-down : Dead Serious News (http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573)

I'm not gay and I'm not 47. :)