Full Body Scans

[Smokinokie]

The "enhanced patdown" has been used for the past few months, not the past few weeks. Not that that shifts the responsibility at all. For some odd reason it took this long for the opposition to build up a head of steam, as it were.

I think everything beyond the X-Ray, the WTMD, and explosives trace detection machines are stupid. I've been opposing the TSA ever since rank stupidity the "shoes off" debacle. At the time Richard Reid pulled his Maxwell Smart-esque stunt, TSA was testing out the explosives trace detection portals (aka puffer machines), but for some reason decided that it was best to X-Ray shoes instead of having you wear them through the machine, despite the supposed threat being explosives in shoes.

For a long time, the "shoes off" policy only technically extended to shoes with soles greater than 2 inches in thickness, so I just didn't wear thick-soled shoes to the airport and told 'em where to stuff it if they tried to get me to take them off, despite it almost always resulting in an unwarranted secondary screening. Since they got rid of that exception, I've only flown once, to a destination not reachable by land transportation. I refuse to put up with their crap.

Yes, I am/was the one making them change their gloves and keep my carry-ons in my sight and follow every other procedure they've got to a T and filing a complaint if/when they don't. It's their fault our relationship got off to a rocky start back in 2001 when they took something from me which wasn't on the list of banned items and called the cops on me when I questioned that decision and asked to see the airport FSD. Since that time, I have been pleasant, but exceedingly strict. You can thank me for all those times you've seen me taking the patdown and making it take as long as possible, thus preventing you from having to be subject to it under the "we're out of people to secondary, so let's 'randomly' select the next person in line so we look busy" policy.

This seriously sucks. At it's best, it's security theater. At it's worst, it's billions spent on security procedures and equipment that can be foiled with a small container concealed in a body cavity. I would take the scanner over the grope session any day.

Remember this?

To get his bomb into this room, Abdullah Asieri, one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted men, avoided detection by two sets of airport security including metal detectors and palace security. He spent 30 hours in the close company of the prince's own secret service agents - all without anyone suspecting a thing.
How did he do it?
Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.

[Conan71]

I simply refuse to fly until they change the practice.  I refuse, as a free American, to be treated like an inmate in an airport.

TSA is a perfect example of how badly our government can love up anything.  I kept getting more and more agitated reading the narrative of the San Diego incident as supervisor after supervisor was called to deal with the passenger.  How many layers of administration are really needed for every bureaucracy?

[Gaspar]

On my last family trip, In Tulsa my father-in-law (a 68 year old bald white guy with a cane) was chosen for the full pat & scan.  His prosthetic hip was of great concern to the staff, as was the band and elastic on his golf hat.  His cane was disassembled and he was forced to give up the roll of Roll-Aids in his pocket.  He thought the whole ordeal was hilarious.

My 5 year old daughter, to her delight, also got the attention of the TSA agent with the "magic wand."   I however was allowed to pass with my overgrown scruffy beard, sweats and sandals.  My wife breezed through only because the TSA agents involved, have never seen her angry.

The amount of energy exerted in screening people who do not meet any of the historical profile for involvement in terrorism is incredible.   Equally incredible is energy that goes into NOT screening people who do meet an established profile for terrorist activity.
Millions of hours of manpower devoted to random activity.  Billions of dollars devoted to intentional inefficiency.

What if we looked at it from a clinical standpoint, ignored all other factors except those that have been proven to contribute to terrorist activity, asked questions that only pertain to the identification of possible terrorists, and took action that relied on human interaction rather than random selection?

Unlike other countries, we are forbidden from using race or religion as factors in profiling.  Unfortunately, race and, in many cases, religion are very obvious, and this causes us a dilemma, because if we opt to screen someone on the basis of their actions alone, and that person happens to be of a particular race, we may be viewed, sued, or reprimanded for racial profiling.  The ultimate outcome of this is that our agents specifically target those who do not meet racial or religious profiles matching those statistically associated with terrorism.

Over the years, unfortunately, we have had opportunity to build some fairly strong data on the PROFILE of a suicide terrorist.  Most of the descriptions offer some striking psychological/behavioral similarities.  Incorporating these profiles makes identification of terrorists statistically more probable.

Here's the scenario. Three terrorists enter the airport with the intension of blowing themselves up in an airplane. The TSA agent observes 27 random men in 3 minutes, and 8 of those men have no carry-on luggage and acting very nervous, 4 of those 8 men are of Arab decent, and 2 of those 4 are wearing taqiyahs and no jewelry, our TSA agent would most likely only screen 3 random people, and the random selection process would have a very low probability of identifying the 3 guys with the C4 up their butts.

This is our problem.  We may lose lives, but at least no one is offended.  We are looking for bombs when we should be looking for bombers.

I'm waiting for the annual TSA nail clipper sale, each one costs us about $1,000.

[Smokinokie]

As I said, it's security theater at it's finest.

The solutions they implement are worthless. Looking at it as a signal to noise ratio, it's even more ridiculous. Instead of concentrating on the signal (bombers) they are looking at the noise and completely ignoring everything else.

[Conan71]

Gaspar, your post brought to mind someone being interviewed on the radio while I was driving from OKC to Tulsa this morning.  He said the whole TSA model is a failure as they are screening based on "history" rather than thinking about future potential targets for terrorists like blowing up busy shopping malls during the holiday season.  Just what I want to think about: getting groped going into Victoria's Secret.  Wait, that might not suck....

I really do not see that 9/11 warranted the creation of a whole new agency when existing screeing could have been modified based on what we learned were the failures of security on the 9/11 flights.

[Hoss]

Gaspar, your post brought to mind someone being interviewed on the radio while I was driving from OKC to Tulsa this morning.  He said the whole TSA model is a failure as they are screening based on "history" rather than thinking about future potential targets for terrorists like blowing up busy shopping malls during the holiday season.  Just what I want to think about: getting groped going into Victoria's Secret.  Wait, that might not suck....

I really do not see that 9/11 warranted the creation of a whole new agency when existing screeing could have been modified based on what we learned were the failures of security on the 9/11 flights.

I know I'm going to get lambasted here for referencing everyone's favorite lefty screecher Olbermann, but he did have a gentlemen on late during his show last night (a former El Al security executive) who essentially said the same exact things as you allude.

And it would matter...was it mall security groping, or the VS models.  Gives me the creeps, because now when I think of mall security I think of Paul Blart on a Segway....ick.

[Townsend]

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/18/131427580/airports-weigh-congressman-s-call-to-ditch-tsa?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Airports Weigh Congressman's Call To Ditch TSA

In a climate of Internet campaigns to shun airport pat-downs and veteran pilots suing over their treatment by government screeners, some airports are considering another way to show dissatisfaction: ditching TSA agents altogether.

Federal law allows airports to opt for screeners from the private sector instead. The push is being led by a powerful Florida congressman who's a longtime critic of the Transportation Security Administration and counts among his campaign contributors some of the companies who might take the TSA's place.

[Ed W]

Olberman interviewed the former chief of security for El Al. an airline that's faced terrorist threats for far longer than we have.  One thing they do is to interview every person before they board.  He said that security personnel approach passengers as they wait in line at the ticket counter.  Anyone suspicious gets secondary screening, but he didn't specify what that entailed.

Now, it's tempting to say this could lead to racial profiling, but at the same time it may be a better approach than our gadget-based one. 

[guido911]

Olberman interviewed the former chief of security for El Al. an airline that's faced terrorist threats for far longer than we have.  One thing they do is to interview every person before they board.  He said that security personnel approach passengers as they wait in line at the ticket counter.  Anyone suspicious gets secondary screening, but he didn't specify what that entailed.

Now, it's tempting to say this could lead to racial profiling, but at the same time it may be a better approach than our gadget-based one. 

I saw part of that interview while channel surfing last night. I was shocked that such information would come out on that show. Here his video of Peter Johnson & Ann Coulter arguing over the issue. Johnson had an interesting take on Israel's handling of security. Towards the end, though, the whole thing spirals into mindless filibustering and shouting (and it wasn't Coulter).

http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/hannity-video-2

[Ed W]

I saw part of that interview while channel surfing last night. I was shocked that such information would come out on that show. Here his video of Peter Johnson & Ann Coulter arguing over the issue. Johnson had an interesting take on Israel's handling of security. Towards the end, though, the whole thing spirals into mindless filibustering and shouting (and it wasn't Coulter).

http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/hannity-video-2

Shocked?  The El Al chief didn't have good command of English, but I didn't hear anything shocking, Guido.  I think  he meant to say that Yemen was a "backward" country, but he said Yemen was retarded.  I found that inappropriately funny, but then again, it was very early in the morning.

[guido911]

Shocked?  The El Al chief didn't have good command of English, but I didn't hear anything shocking, Guido.  I think  he meant to say that Yemen was a "backward" country, but he said Yemen was retarded.  I found that inappropriately funny, but then again, it was very early in the morning.

No no no. I was shocked to hear information that I agree with on Olbermann's show.

[custosnox]

well trained bomb sniffing dogs would eliminate a lot of this.  Was actually watching a story on one that can follow the trail of any known explosive even hours after the person carrying it passed by and track them through crowded streets.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Remember that is was box knives used on 9/11.  Whatever is looked for must be comprehensive for everything that has been tried so far, plus whatever might be used.

These x-rays ain't gonna catch it, though, at least no better that what has been done.  And sexual molestation won't either.

I think we could learn a lot from the Israeli's on this subject.  They have been much more serious than we for a much longer time.  But I guess that would intrude on our aversion to any kind of foreign influence on our country.

[custosnox]

the box-knifes worked on 9/11 only because no one could fathom that they would fly the planes into a building.  Before than a highjacking pretty much meant landing in another country and waiting to be released.  It didn't make since to risk a knife cut.  Now anyone trying the same thing would be swarmed by everyone on the plane, as evidenced by the plane that went down in PA.  Of course by then the terrorist already had control of the plane by the time the passengers figured out. 

[nathanm]

I saw part of that interview while channel surfing last night. I was shocked that such information would come out on that show.

Why? The only good security is the sort that works even if your adversary knows all the details. Much like cryptography, actually.