The pat-down is better than the machine. If my privacy is going to be invaded, I want to look the person doing it in the eyes. If I'm going to be embarassed, I want the agent embarassed too. The pat-downs are inconvenient. Systematized invasions of our most private things should be inconvenient. TSA agents are going to face a torrent of complaints alleging abuse, molestation, &c. Good. The whole program is abusive.
What scares me is the faceless machine nobody cares about silently collecting naked pictures of every citizen, managed by people nobody will ever see who can never be held accountable for anything. You can't simply flip a switch and capture high fidelity copies of a pat-down search. You can with the machines.
Incidentally: contrary to popular opinion, security agents, law enforcement, border control, &c all very much do care when complaints are filed on them. Their M.O. is that nobody takes the time to file those complaints. They're counting on people not bothering with the pat-down because the machine seems more convenient, and they're counting on not dealing with a flood of complaints. I plan on filing a complaint at the first hint of an off-color comment about what they're doing. "Better get new gloves, Fred!" --- "I'd like your name and your supervisor's name, now."
I feel like we need a script to recite when demanding a patdown that explains to all the people around us why the porno machines and the whole process is so objectionable. And request to have the patdown out in the open so people can see what you're willing to put up with to avoid going through the scanner.
If I were to fly for some reason, I think what I would seriously consider doing is taking the machine, but as I got to it announcing, "fine, you want to see me naked?" and just taking off all my clothes, and then stepping into the scanner.
> I plan on filing a complaint at the first hint of an off-color comment about what they're doing. "Better get new gloves, Fred!" --- "I'd like your name and your supervisor's name, now."
This sounds like a good idea. Maybe I'll do this, too. I don't fly often, but this stuff really, really bothers me.
I'd rather not have my privacy invaded, but you make a fair point.
This is one of the few reasons I'm currently (actively) trying to stay away from the US. As far as it's in my power, I refuse to be presumed guilty, and go through such an offensive and ridiculous process.
Interesting. And you're right. If the inconvenience that authority imposes is less than filing complaints (in the long run), then I'm not going to bother. Inconvenience does not equal injustice, however, and I do not personally find pat downs unjust. My doctor checks for testicular cancer, so a professional (professional in the sense that the person is doing what s/he is doing for a living) who give my dick a pat to make sure it's not as hard as a gun does not faze me.
So I'm just wondering, what if you're a parent flying with children? I don't have kids, so I don't know what the rules are for TSA screening of them.
To me, it sounds like as a parent you either have the choice of letting some anonymous person in another room take naked pictures of your kids, or you have to let some strange man/woman touch and grope your children until they meet 'resistance'.
In the meantime, metal detectors are in place but it seems like there's some move to phase these out. And when I have kids, if some government minimum wage flunky thinks they're going to grope my daughter or son, my wife will be posting bail for me soon thereafter.
The situation with TSA is becoming more farcical by the week.
I keep waiting for some grownup to stand up and put some limits on what's acceptable for them to do, but then I realize that there basically is no limit. Nobody wants to be the person that stops this runaway train.
It's enough to make me seriously consider whether I want to use commercial air travel again.
The pat down vs. backscatter machine issue is interesting because it opens up so many avenues for nonviolent resistance (most of which would be far more effective if you got a bunch of people together to do it all at once at one major airport):
1. If your kids go through the machine, loudly accuse the TSA of child pornography. If your kids go through the patdown, loudly accuse the TSA of child molestation. (If you have a suitably eccentric or sympathetic local law enforcement head, like a county sheriff, this might be the way to go, but there's probably some sort of federal immunity against actual prosecution.)
2. Upon entering security, strip completely naked.
3. Opt for the pat down and take a dive, claiming the screener hurt your testicles.
4. Opt for the pat down; pretend to enjoy it.
Note that, like most forms of nonviolent resistance, many of these can get you arrested or at least stop you from making your flight. Getting arrested to make a point is a proud tradition, however. And unlike a mere protest, these kinds of actions can sabotage the TSA or potentially cripple air travel if you get a large enough coordinated protest.
It's hard to put into words how insane these are. Is the TSA merely a jobs program? Are the devices just corporate welfare? Is there an actual concerted effort by the inner party (who ride in carriages--private jets) to psychologically subjugate the middle class? Are policy makers actually under the impression that these are good rather than evil/ridiculous/unAmerican/insane? (???) Really? I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. No physical threats possible = no terrorism. Problem solved.
But of course, terrorism isn't actually a problem and never was.
I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside.
Well you've still got the bomb-on-plane problem, which is what the latest three rounds of security increases have been in response to -- there was the shoe bomber, and then the liquid-mixture plot, and then the underpants bomber.
You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were increasingly shitty bombs. Why were they increasingly shitty bombs? Because they've been progressively closing loopholes. The underpants bomber might have been successful if he were shoe bomber number two, but he wasn't, because the bomb-in-shoe loophole has been closed.
People like to use the words "security theater" a lot because it makes them feel clever, and yes, the TSA like any government department has its own particular forms of insanity. But there's actual security accomplished there too. In the 1980s it was possible to sneak a 747-destroying bomb into a plane in a suitcase... now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts.
Also, communications shutoff between the cockpit and outside is crazy. What happens when there's a medical emergency onboard? Let 'em die because the pilots aren't allowed to know about anything that happens in the passenger cabin?
I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside.
Another 9/11 scenario is going to be near impossible to pull off. Pre-9/11 hijackings often left the passengers with some hope of living through the situation so they would be docile and controllable. Post-9/11 passengers will not be docile and the hijackers will have to effectively control the entire plane with force.
There is still run of the mill blow up the airplane style terrorism to watch out for, but that was around before 9/11 and will be around for long time after.
Not exactly. Recall prior to the hijacking being done by brute force on the pilots, most airline terrorism was bombs on planes. If we don't have any security what-so-ever, people could just bring hand grenades onto airplanes and I am 100% certain you could crash them that way.
There is a safe middle ground here, and metal detectors were definitely in it. Full body scans? Not so much.
It has nothing to do with jobs programs/corporate welfare. Remember there were security people before the TSA (just not as many) and the TSA was created in the post-9/11 panic.
This, like most aviation security, is just security-theater. The American people were scared and so elected officials, realizing they couldn't realistically secure aviation, come up with a bunch of "procedures" that's supposed to make the general public feel more comfortable. In the end, it's about votes.
I am wondering how long it is before people who like to get felt up are using this as there way to get their jollies.
I'm also wondering how long it before someone sues the TSA for improperly touching them (too long, suggestively, etc.) or for injuring them (moving too fast and bumping the resistance).
Edit: I hadn't even considered that maybe people who like to feel others up with sign up to work for the TSA
It has been nearly 12 years since I've visited the US. I was hoping to go there in 2003 but unfortunately the TSA and DHS put a stop to that. I've made a conscious decision that I do not want to go to the United States if I'm going to be treated that way. As beautiful and wonderful the country and it's people are, it boils down to a choice. Either you're happy being subject to what in anywhere else would qualify as sexual assault or taking pornographic pictures, or you don't go. I choose not to go.
Should all of this end I would love to go to New York, San Francisco, LA and the many other wonderful places in the USA, but until then I'm not happy to go. The only thing that would get me there would be specific unavoidable business.
However, I would like to thank the TSA and DHS for the opportunities I have had to visit all over Canada (another great North American country with great people) and I'm hoping to hit the Carribean and Mexico next year.
It's a definite loss for me that I may never return to the US, but I have to make a stand somewhere.
I pretty much feel the same as you, I would like to go to America but to me it's just not worth going through an American airport. The alternative ive come up with is to fly to Canada or Mexico and then drive into America where (as far as I know) there aren't these scanners.
For kicks, a little while ago, I refused one of these machines (you can't really cause a "ruckus" too often when flying for work).
The guy just shrugged, gave me a quick pat down and let me through. I'd say about 30% of the people took the same option and received the same treatment. Same every time since I've that I've been through.
But the last time one guy made a big deal of how invasive the machine was (not rude, just loud about his refusal) and got the works (well, a rough pat down and then taken to one side). Obviously, this is a different case, he was just joking around with them. But I imagine this could easily have been a different story if one of the TSA officers couldn't handle a bit of humour (all too common, sadly).
Just saying.
These machines are a real problem for our privacy/society. But all the "horror" stories (not so much this one) we are seeing are mostly the result of people making a fuss, and getting rough treatment.
We should just refuse these, politely and quietly, and at such a volume all they can do is what they have done previously; give us a pat down.
Fortunately it looks like the UK air services are "rebelling" somewhat against "draconian security measures". It's not 100% certain what they are talking about, but I got the impression this covered resisting the spread of these machines in the UK.
The dangerous thing about security theatre is that it distracts resources and personnel away from the things that would actually improve security, in the interests of PR and cosmetics based on inconveniencing the non-terrorists.
As the author points out, detailed background checks would be far more effective than either looking at or touching people's privates.
the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.
I don't think this is true. The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear, the killing is only a byproduct. The reason hijackings and bombs on planes are so effective is that many people already fear planetrips. You're caught in a tin can that intuitively should drop to the ground instead of flying through the air ten kilometers above the ground with no way of getting out. The thought of a crazy guy with a bomb in his pants just waiting to detonate it makes the experience absolutely terrifying to a lot of people. They'll think about it every time the get on a plane even though the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is close to zero.
How far out to sea does one have to be for the TSA to not have jurisdiction? Has anyone thought of an airline that ferrys passengers out to a ship off the coast and the airplanes take off from there?
How much does an aircraft carrier cost? It seems this would be extremely expensive, but then, airplanes themselves are extremely expensive so it kind of comes with the territory. But I wonder if we're talking orders of magnitude higher costs.
Not sure how crazy of an idea this is; it came to mind and I figured I'd throw it out there. :)
Ordinary aircraft aren't compatible with carriers--you need a tailhook to land, at the very least. You need significantly more talented pilots to land on carriers. You need billions of dollars in aircraft carriers. (The most extravagant navy in the world has about 12. How many carriers do you need to make an airline out of it?) The shock of catapult-assisted takeoff is not for everyone; the passengers would need to be in decent health. Add all of this to the fact that airlines are only marginally profitable in the first place, and it's just completely infeasible.
If you just don't fly commercial, it's a non-issue, even at regular airports (see recent news blurb about Steve Jobs in Japan with throwing stars).
Nobody goes through TSA to get on a private plane.
It makes me wonder how many members of Congress and senior TSA leadership actually have to go through the same processes us plebes do...
I think the length of runway required to get a 747 off the ground would make this prohibitive (as if the cost of an aircraft carrier didn't already). Nimitz class carriers are just over 1,000 ft in length. A quick Google search reveals that a 747 needs about 6x that for safe takeoff/landing.
An aircraft carrier would be extremely expensive, and as other commenters point out, has logistical issues. For your money, you might do better to build a pontoon raft out of some of the Ghost Fleet freighter ships: http://tinyurl.com/lof685
Presumably someone (Coast Guard/border patrol/TSA/etc.) would have the authority to inspect the ferries and passengers headed to these offshore airports even if they didn't have jurisdiction over the airport itself.
Now that the feds have the legal right to grope everyone's testicles and vagina without a warrant, this is a pretty good job for pedophiles and perverts to take. If you are a pedophile or pervert, where else do you have not just the legal right but the obligation to grope the sexual parts of the general public and be called a hero for doing so.
The whole thing seems highly creepy. I suspect that the advanced pat downs will eventually be removed and there will be no option but to go through the machine, because the prospect of some member of airport staff doing advanced pat downs on children has obviously dodgy implications which could attract lawsuits and some very unpleasant job applicants.
As the article says, a determined terrorist will get through either of these procedures anyhow.
I always opt-out of the back-scatter machine, and none of the TSA officers at SFO or BOS have ever seemed to think it anything out of the ordinary. The impression I've gotten is that they see the two methods (pat-down and back-scatter) as relatively interchangeable, though the former is obviously more inconvenient for them.
If you want to upset the guard and if your ego can handle it, flirt with the security. As he pats you down, a little grunt and a roll of the shoulders as if involuntary. If you can manage it, a big smile and a wink when he finishes it so that his colleagues can see.
Getting angry or offended will cause them to get aggressive in response, and they have procedures in place to deal with that. They almost certainly don't have a procedure in place for making them feel like they've just taken part in a little gay fondling.
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
What scares me is the faceless machine nobody cares about silently collecting naked pictures of every citizen, managed by people nobody will ever see who can never be held accountable for anything. You can't simply flip a switch and capture high fidelity copies of a pat-down search. You can with the machines.
Incidentally: contrary to popular opinion, security agents, law enforcement, border control, &c all very much do care when complaints are filed on them. Their M.O. is that nobody takes the time to file those complaints. They're counting on people not bothering with the pat-down because the machine seems more convenient, and they're counting on not dealing with a flood of complaints. I plan on filing a complaint at the first hint of an off-color comment about what they're doing. "Better get new gloves, Fred!" --- "I'd like your name and your supervisor's name, now."
[+] [-] bdimcheff|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcromartie|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steveklabnik|15 years ago|reply
This sounds like a good idea. Maybe I'll do this, too. I don't fly often, but this stuff really, really bothers me.
[+] [-] mfukar|15 years ago|reply
This is one of the few reasons I'm currently (actively) trying to stay away from the US. As far as it's in my power, I refuse to be presumed guilty, and go through such an offensive and ridiculous process.
[+] [-] etruong42|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DifE-Q|15 years ago|reply
DHS, TSA, all the major U.S. airlines, along with their state and federal Reps and let them know what we thinks of this.
If we all do this...perhaps our voices will help turn the tide of this stupidity.
[+] [-] geuis|15 years ago|reply
To me, it sounds like as a parent you either have the choice of letting some anonymous person in another room take naked pictures of your kids, or you have to let some strange man/woman touch and grope your children until they meet 'resistance'.
In the meantime, metal detectors are in place but it seems like there's some move to phase these out. And when I have kids, if some government minimum wage flunky thinks they're going to grope my daughter or son, my wife will be posting bail for me soon thereafter.
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|15 years ago|reply
I keep waiting for some grownup to stand up and put some limits on what's acceptable for them to do, but then I realize that there basically is no limit. Nobody wants to be the person that stops this runaway train.
It's enough to make me seriously consider whether I want to use commercial air travel again.
[+] [-] philwelch|15 years ago|reply
1. If your kids go through the machine, loudly accuse the TSA of child pornography. If your kids go through the patdown, loudly accuse the TSA of child molestation. (If you have a suitably eccentric or sympathetic local law enforcement head, like a county sheriff, this might be the way to go, but there's probably some sort of federal immunity against actual prosecution.)
2. Upon entering security, strip completely naked.
3. Opt for the pat down and take a dive, claiming the screener hurt your testicles.
4. Opt for the pat down; pretend to enjoy it.
Note that, like most forms of nonviolent resistance, many of these can get you arrested or at least stop you from making your flight. Getting arrested to make a point is a proud tradition, however. And unlike a mere protest, these kinds of actions can sabotage the TSA or potentially cripple air travel if you get a large enough coordinated protest.
[+] [-] mynameishere|15 years ago|reply
But of course, terrorism isn't actually a problem and never was.
[+] [-] hugh3|15 years ago|reply
Well you've still got the bomb-on-plane problem, which is what the latest three rounds of security increases have been in response to -- there was the shoe bomber, and then the liquid-mixture plot, and then the underpants bomber.
You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were increasingly shitty bombs. Why were they increasingly shitty bombs? Because they've been progressively closing loopholes. The underpants bomber might have been successful if he were shoe bomber number two, but he wasn't, because the bomb-in-shoe loophole has been closed.
People like to use the words "security theater" a lot because it makes them feel clever, and yes, the TSA like any government department has its own particular forms of insanity. But there's actual security accomplished there too. In the 1980s it was possible to sneak a 747-destroying bomb into a plane in a suitcase... now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts.
Also, communications shutoff between the cockpit and outside is crazy. What happens when there's a medical emergency onboard? Let 'em die because the pilots aren't allowed to know about anything that happens in the passenger cabin?
[+] [-] matwood|15 years ago|reply
Another 9/11 scenario is going to be near impossible to pull off. Pre-9/11 hijackings often left the passengers with some hope of living through the situation so they would be docile and controllable. Post-9/11 passengers will not be docile and the hijackers will have to effectively control the entire plane with force.
There is still run of the mill blow up the airplane style terrorism to watch out for, but that was around before 9/11 and will be around for long time after.
[+] [-] krschultz|15 years ago|reply
There is a safe middle ground here, and metal detectors were definitely in it. Full body scans? Not so much.
[+] [-] marclove|15 years ago|reply
This, like most aviation security, is just security-theater. The American people were scared and so elected officials, realizing they couldn't realistically secure aviation, come up with a bunch of "procedures" that's supposed to make the general public feel more comfortable. In the end, it's about votes.
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdvolz|15 years ago|reply
I'm also wondering how long it before someone sues the TSA for improperly touching them (too long, suggestively, etc.) or for injuring them (moving too fast and bumping the resistance).
Edit: I hadn't even considered that maybe people who like to feel others up with sign up to work for the TSA
[+] [-] dougb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nollidge|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swolchok|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hvs|15 years ago|reply
I'm not the one who has to touch some else's testicles. You want screen me? Then you have to do the dirty work.
[+] [-] _b8r0|15 years ago|reply
Should all of this end I would love to go to New York, San Francisco, LA and the many other wonderful places in the USA, but until then I'm not happy to go. The only thing that would get me there would be specific unavoidable business.
However, I would like to thank the TSA and DHS for the opportunities I have had to visit all over Canada (another great North American country with great people) and I'm hoping to hit the Carribean and Mexico next year.
It's a definite loss for me that I may never return to the US, but I have to make a stand somewhere.
[+] [-] TamDenholm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aarongough|15 years ago|reply
The next time I make that trip I will be paying extra to ensure a direct flight from Toronto to Australia.
I will also be avoiding any other sort of travel to the US. It's not much in terms of a protest, but it's better than nothing...
[+] [-] runjake|15 years ago|reply
If this article is true, it's a highly-disturbing downfall for American civil liberties.
[+] [-] ErrantX|15 years ago|reply
The guy just shrugged, gave me a quick pat down and let me through. I'd say about 30% of the people took the same option and received the same treatment. Same every time since I've that I've been through.
But the last time one guy made a big deal of how invasive the machine was (not rude, just loud about his refusal) and got the works (well, a rough pat down and then taken to one side). Obviously, this is a different case, he was just joking around with them. But I imagine this could easily have been a different story if one of the TSA officers couldn't handle a bit of humour (all too common, sadly).
Just saying.
These machines are a real problem for our privacy/society. But all the "horror" stories (not so much this one) we are seeing are mostly the result of people making a fuss, and getting rough treatment.
We should just refuse these, politely and quietly, and at such a volume all they can do is what they have done previously; give us a pat down.
Fortunately it looks like the UK air services are "rebelling" somewhat against "draconian security measures". It's not 100% certain what they are talking about, but I got the impression this covered resisting the spread of these machines in the UK.
Which makes a change :)
[+] [-] jedwhite|15 years ago|reply
As the author points out, detailed background checks would be far more effective than either looking at or touching people's privates.
[+] [-] io|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mixmax|15 years ago|reply
I don't think this is true. The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear, the killing is only a byproduct. The reason hijackings and bombs on planes are so effective is that many people already fear planetrips. You're caught in a tin can that intuitively should drop to the ground instead of flying through the air ten kilometers above the ground with no way of getting out. The thought of a crazy guy with a bomb in his pants just waiting to detonate it makes the experience absolutely terrifying to a lot of people. They'll think about it every time the get on a plane even though the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is close to zero.
[+] [-] meelash|15 years ago|reply
How much does an aircraft carrier cost? It seems this would be extremely expensive, but then, airplanes themselves are extremely expensive so it kind of comes with the territory. But I wonder if we're talking orders of magnitude higher costs.
Not sure how crazy of an idea this is; it came to mind and I figured I'd throw it out there. :)
[+] [-] philwelch|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] count|15 years ago|reply
Nobody goes through TSA to get on a private plane. It makes me wonder how many members of Congress and senior TSA leadership actually have to go through the same processes us plebes do...
[+] [-] Aqua_Geek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dstorrs|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkurz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tocomment|15 years ago|reply
If you made a static rig that's only purpose was being a runway, I think it might be possible.
[+] [-] dkasper|15 years ago|reply
One of many problems is that a lot of places are not near an ocean, so that rules out an aircraft carrier :)
[+] [-] arst|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vivtek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bugsy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corin_|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ckinnan|15 years ago|reply
They have an incident report page:
http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/
[+] [-] motters|15 years ago|reply
As the article says, a determined terrorist will get through either of these procedures anyhow.
[+] [-] bittermang|15 years ago|reply
Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.
[+] [-] epochwolf|15 years ago|reply
I was under the impression it was his testicles.
From the article: 'That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."
[+] [-] drags|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nagrom|15 years ago|reply
Getting angry or offended will cause them to get aggressive in response, and they have procedures in place to deal with that. They almost certainly don't have a procedure in place for making them feel like they've just taken part in a little gay fondling.