Transportation Security Administration - Security Techniques

[Valandil]

Lots of hubbub in the news lately about the TSA - which has gone from metal detector screenings - to shoe removal, disallowing liquids, pat-downs, strip-searches and body scans.

Thoughts?

[Jonathan]

It's absolutely understandable and good that people stand up for their privacy and integrity. But privacy-wise I don't think the TSA security techniques are a big deal really.

As for the body scans, I think the media has blown it all out of proportion - conjuring up an opinion that body scans equals pornography. And people seem to swallow that too easily. But IMO, if one adapts an objective point of view, one will see that the body scan images are nowhere near in likeness to a nude pic. The dumbfounded stare you have in your passport photo is more 'dirty' than the scans will ever be.

Some of the alleged body scans that circulate on the net and in detail show specific body parts, are fake. Real body scans shouldn't be such a big blow to an individual's integrity.


Also, worth considering is the following fact:
Just like the pharmaceutical industry, nuclear plants etc. are bound by strict laws to employ the very latest experience and technology to make their products as safe as absolutely possible - airports and airlines are subjected to similar rules. I think it's worth thinking twice before bending those rules.

[Tessar]

Meh. I've been on a couple of flights, and will probably be on another one this summer if I go to another opera workshop, and I can honestly say that I don't care. I'd prefer that to getting randomly selected to be patted down, honestly. You may look at me, but not touch me.

I would rather we all suffer a tiny bit of a privacy invasion (it's not like they're reading your mind, or they can see that shameful tattoo on your... ) than get blown up in mid-air.

[inked]

Racial profiling would actually help since so many of the folks have been involved have been readily identifiable. But, hey, why do the obvious? That's politically incorrect. Any objections to peering through robes and veils to expose the same body parts regardless of ethnic origin or dress code, ya'll?

Personally, I don't fly anymore. But the ridiculousness of screening everyone when there is an identifiable group of perps, well, that's like raiding the local Sunday School to stop gang warfare.

[brownjenkins]

I think it's an enormous waste of time and money. It's like hiring a full-time food taster just on the off chance someone may have poisoned your meal. There are a million ways for terrorism to express itself, and the 9/11 variety could have been stopped with a little more attention to things like passports and travel visas.

I have no problem with the scans in theory. But in the end it's simply an admisson that we have lost. We can trust no one. Even our own citizens. We've let irrational fear, and the terrorists, dictate our lives.

[Earniel]

I sort of prefer body scans to body groping. I doubt that the security guards are still going to be turned on by naked silhouettes after they've seen a few million pass by their cameras every day. Although I have been hearing a lot of stories about the TSA and occasional abuse of power. That's not very comforting.

I had only flown once before 9-11 and only once after. The second time was rather stressful with all those regulations you had to take into account: Don't wear clothes with metal in them, forget about having a bottle of water handy, don't wear shoes that can't be taken off easily, and be sure to have your penknife packed in your other luggage or you'll lose it and possibly be denied entry on the plane. Rather ruins the experience. It's enough to ensure I won't be flying if I have the choice.

Originally Posted by inked

Racial profiling would actually help since so many of the folks have been involved have been readily identifiable. But, hey, why do the obvious? That's politically incorrect.

No, because it would be pointless. Racial profiling can only lead to a lot of nice, perfectly harmless -but unfortunately for them- eastern-looking Americans and non-Americans alike having their rights violated. What about innocent until proven guilty? Or is that outdated, these days?

[inked]

Earniel, "No, because it would be pointless. Racial profiling can only lead to a lot of nice, perfectly harmless -but unfortunately for them- eastern-looking Americans and non-Americans alike having their rights violated. What about innocent until proven guilty? Or is that outdated, these days?"

Thank you for making the point. There are lots of nice, perfectly harmless Americans who are being subjected to routine violations of civil rights for the mere politically correct impression that they are no identifiable risk factors to be considered. So, ALL are subjected to the indignity of this process to protect the illusion that there is not an identifiable risk group. Like you, I ask, "What about innocent until proven guilty? Or is that outdated, these days?" WE just have different groups in mind, apparently. Under the current provisions, ALL -including you and me- are GUILTY until proven innocent by body scans and pat downs. How very French! WE have to prove our innocence.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

For once, BJ and I agree: "But in the end it's simply an admiss(i)on that we have lost. We can trust no one. Even our own citizens. We've let irrational fear, and the terrorists, dictate our lives." While it is true that the rarum avis Americanus has bombed planes, it is correct that there are an identifiable group that have attacked America and Great Britain and numerous locations around the world, even their own kith and kin. The Unabomber is an historical example that you may recall of the rarum avis (though not on planes), and the response was criminal profiling without regard to race or appearance that lead to appropriate intervention. I do not recall the mail of every American being held at the Post Office for scanning with full body scans or gropes or those entering the PO.

Your mileage may vary again, but do think about it.

The last time I flew was just after 9/11/2011. I was with my then under 12 years of age three children. Because we looked like the type, we were subjected to the usual screening and then my 3 children had their Barney and Transformer back packs x-rayed (a second time!) and subjected to chemical "sniffers" to rule out the enormous likelihood that they were concealing bombs. So, before it was ever popular and like today, I had the experience of what you detest. Consequently, I have had long to think about it. The reality is that subjecting everone to equal indignity does not change the fact of whom is doing the terrorising or change the likelihood of an attack by those identifiable peoples. Directed screening does not create a subclass of individuals unworthy of protections, undirected screening makes all individuals the subclass of terrorists. Bosh and tosh to "innocent to proven guilty" - all in the name of political correctness and terrorists working in concert.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

So, ALL are subjected to the indignity of this process to protect the illusion that there is not an identifiable risk group.

Did I say anywhere I prefered the idea of everyone having to get thoroughly screened in this manner? Nope.

But I don't think singling out a group based merely on 'looking foreign' is any better. Humanity has tried that a few times in history. It didn't always end that pretty...

The actual illusion here is that terrorists are only part of a single ethnic group.

[Huorn]

I hardly fly anymore. Going through the airport has gotten to be such a headache with all the security measures in place. It takes so looong, from checking your bags in to actually getting to the plane. My main beef with all this is all the red tape and wait times that innocent people have to go through to fly.

[Insidious Rex]

Scan away. I could care less if someone gets some thrill at looking at the fuzzy indeterminate ghost image of my junk. Scan me and let me get to my plane thanks. I fly 4 or 5 times a year. Im not looking for hassles nor do I have some silly sense of humility when it comes to a body scan. These people who are complaining are ridiculous. Same folks who would scream bloody murder when the TSA backs down to their cries and some nut gets on board with an explosive.

Inked, Al Quaeda is thanking you for the helpful racist propaganda. They will happily send through all their non-arab looking terrorists knowing they get a free pass to walk on planes with bombs strapped to their jocks because of people like you who only want to hassle them A-rabs... Have you never heard of Jose Padilla? Adam Gadahn? Not to mention Timothy McVee? Want to give them all a pass because they arent arab looking? Blue eyes blond hair? Please walk this way sir. You dont need to wait in that line with the brown people... *snicker* And please help yourself to champagne and caviar! Can we help you with that ticking backpack at all??

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I sort of prefer body scans to body groping.

Aww, that's no fun.

No, because it would be pointless. Racial profiling can only lead to a lot of nice, perfectly harmless -but unfortunately for them- eastern-looking Americans and non-Americans alike having their rights violated.

Now, I know you didn't mean this, but I just feel the need to say that looking a certain way is not unfortunate, it should not be seen as a negative thing. The only negativity is in people's reactions.

[The last sane person]

Having been both scanned, groped AND strip-searched before, I prefer the scans. That guy who patted me down last time was enjoying himself WAY too much. That and I don't think these "random" selections are all that random. I always see some darkie get picked, if it isn't me myself. I've yet to see one whitebread citizen get the "friendly hands" treatment, and I travel a LOT thanks to my new job.

:shrug: it's not like anyone can actually do anything about it. The patriot act, and these security measures will ever remain with us, and continue to grow.

[The last sane person]

Originally Posted by inked

Racial profiling would actually help since so many of the folks have been involved have been readily identifiable. But, hey, why do the obvious? That's politically incorrect. Any objections to peering through robes and veils to expose the same body parts regardless of ethnic origin or dress code, ya'll?

Hmm... Last I checked, the guys who crashed into the twin towers were wearing either polo shirts, Nike jerseys, blue jeans and tennis shoes. I don't remember video footage of any of them wearing their bedsheets and dishtowels aboard the planes. Nor do I remember Richard Ried having the typical big schnoz and black hair and enviable tanned skin all those damn ethnic people have. Could've used a shave though. I agree on that part.

[inked]

Hmm, I said racial profiling not the abusive terms in the last post. But, hey, however you think!

True, the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh were not contemporary with the current racial profile for likely bombers. True and unrelated.

I'm guessing that the hotspots for British intelligence and American intelligence regarding which ethnic groups are likely to be sources of bombs might be a bit more precise than airport screenings, but I doubt the polo shirt disguise would work if the screening were properly applied.

And, of course, A Q is delighted with my support for directed screening. It would open an avenue. However, they are more delighted with general screening since it statistically reduces the chance that one of their operatives will actually be id'd amongst the herd. Herd immunity for them and false security for du.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Aww, that's no fun.

What, applied for a job with the TSA recently, have you?

Now, I know you didn't mean this, but I just feel the need to say that looking a certain way is not unfortunate, it should not be seen as a negative thing. The only negativity is in people's reactions.

Of course it is not a negative thing to look different, and I certainly did not intend to imply such a thing. Perhaps I should have put unfortunate in brackets. But one can't exactly call it lucky to be singled out merely on ethnic resemblance.

[Nerdanel]

i think it's rather interesting that we choose to focus on racial profiling. why not gender-profiling? or belief-profiling? ok, it's difficult to know if a person is religious or not, so that might not be the most practical thing to do.. but it's often easier to judge gender. it seems to me (i'm happy to be proven wrong) that almost all so-called terrorists who threaten the west are men. religious men. wouldn't that be a good group to target?

i know this might seem like a silly question, but i think it's worth pondering what groups we want to discriminate. sure, it's easy to look at a person and say, you look different than i do, and those damned terrorists look different from me as well. maybe it's too easy? if we could, would we be ok with profiling people based on whether they're religious or not?

'cause let's be fair: there is already racial profiling in these situations. my husband and his family (who are "lucky" to speak english in a very american accent) have been "randomly" selected far too many times for it to be random. and they're not even religious..

[inked]

I don't think we have to cal it racial profiling at all. Call it statistical profiling, which would be accurate, and it might incidentally involve certain "racial" groups but as Nerdanel points out, might incorporate "religious" groups across national/ethnic/racial lines.

The money isn't on seventh decade ostomy bag patients by a long shot. But they get "equal" accusation of criminality.

[GrayMouser]

One problem with profiling "religious" groups is that it's hard to tell someone's religion by looking at them e.g. the pair of Egyptian Coptic Christians who went to protest against the not-Ground Zero not-Mosque on behalf of their oppressed brethren in Egypt, and had to be rescued by the NYPD from the protesting mob who were ready to atack them on the general grounds of being towelheads.

Much of Africa is Muslim; can the average TSA inspector tell the difference between a Fusani and a Yoruba? how about an Armenian and an Azerbaijani? a Bangla Deshi and a Calcuttan? an Indonesian and a Timorese?

So it basically comes down to "if you ain't white, you ain't right" - ignoring the John Walkers and David Hicks out there.

[Draken]

Originally Posted by inked

And, of course, A Q is delighted with my support for directed screening. It would open an avenue. However, they are more delighted with general screening since it statistically reduces the chance that one of their operatives will actually be id'd amongst the herd. Herd immunity for them and false security for du.

Let me get this straight - screening every single person makes it LIKELIER that a terrorist will get through? That's an interesting assertion.

Directed screening, I would have thought, would give a far falser sense of security. Let's say every terrorist act to date was committed by beard wearing 20-somethings from Somewheria. Directed screening will help the queues move quicker and make us feel safe from Somewherian militancy, but any terrorist organisation with half a brain will start recruiting 40-something clean-shaven Ruritanians instead. If we're looking at Islamic fundamentalism as the key factor, there are plenty of pale skinned muslims - apart from Western converts, there are, for instance, Bosnian muslims, muslims from the Caucasus (who look... well... caucasian), fair-skinned Berbers, etc. Hard to see how screening for religion could be done. Offer everyone in the queue a bacon butty, maybe? Would weed out the vegetarians, at least....

That said, current airport security screening is verging on the paranoid, and as an aside, irradiating people with ionising radiation is never a bright idea, no matter how safe you THINK it is.

Perhaps the way to go is to employ suitably glamorous airport security staff and let the passengers pick who screens them. A Scarlett Johansen-lookalike in a tight uniform is welcome to frisk me as mujch as she likes....

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Draken

irradiating people with ionising radiation is never a bright idea, no matter how safe you THINK it is.

It's true that you shouldn't x-ray people needlessly. However:

1. It is only luggage that gets x-rayed. Metal detectors, body scans etc. do not utilise ionising radiation.
2. Passengers get their fair share of cosmic radiation in any case whilst up in the air. In comparison, an x-ray screening would contribute very little radiation.