TSA Security: A Different Take

16Nov/1012

TSA Security: A Different Take

For some reason, I seem to be the only one who isn't overly concerned about the TSA search procedures. Do I think they're perfect? No. Do I think they'll catch everything? No. Do I think there are some morons who will take it too far and frisk a 3 year old? Obviously. But I think those morons can be dealt with.

Over the past two years, I've flown an average of once every two months. My last two trips, I had the pleasure of being selected to utilize the back scatter machine (my work with law enforcement and border patrol have made me somewhat familiar with this technology already). The second time, I was wearing a knee brace under my jeans, and it triggered a pat down. My pat down was pretty tame, compared with the stories coming out; and I certainly wouldn't want my 10 year old daughter subjected to the sort of pat down drawing the ire of so many.

Just like so many other times, though, I have to wonder just how often these enhanced pat downs are being performed. According to the folks at the airport where the "don't touch my junk" video was recorded, they've done four since the new program started in late October. Before passing judgment, I'd like to see just what triggered those pat downs.

Let's dispense with this whole fourth amendment nonsense, too. You're not forced to buy a plane ticket. I'm not aware of any law or amendment that gives us the right to be in a specific location without being searched.

We can argue about its efficacy, however. I really don't think it's a good idea to frisk a three year old girl; interview her parents first. If something comes up fishy in the interview, by all means give the whole family a bit of extra attention. I'm also on board with the idea that random searches are a waste of time.

For the most part, I echo Ed's sentiments at Hotair. See this post at Forbes about an intriguing theory on disbanding the TSA. My first thought is that it would have made sense in an age when the passengers were the targets; but when the passengers are merely collateral damage on a weapon with a different target, I'm skeptical of allowing airlines to have different levels of security.

I do like going in the El Al direction, however.

Adam Wells

Living life at 84 mph and 7000 feet. All I ask is that you don't block traffic, act like a professional, and don't act all surprised when your actions have consequences. Oh, and don't complain about the refs; trust me, they don't care if your team wins or not.

Tagged as: Junk, TSA Leave a comment

Comments (12) Trackbacks (1) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

enoch_root
November 16th, 2010 - 10:56

my chief problem with it – pedophiles and pevres aside – has to do with the fact that we are wasting so much time and money when we don’t have to. We do so so as not to offend. If your argument is that desperate times call for desperate measures – then by all means, we should be actively profiling.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Mitchell
November 16th, 2010 - 11:45

Setting aside any security concerns, you’re really okay with stepping into a machine that will bombard you with x-rays when we really have no data on whether the dose you receive is “safe” (for whatever “safe” means)? These devices have received less scrutiny than what your dentist uses to check your teeth for cavities, and let me point out that when he uses that thing both he and you are covered in lead aprons. I am not so sanguine about receiving x-rays of an untested nature on a regular basis.

And that is an entirely different issue than that my government says that I have my choice of being irradiated or sexually assaulted as a condition of needing to travel 2182 miles back home to see my wife and children.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
SarahW
November 16th, 2010 - 11:57

The security measures are too weak to justify their intensely invasive nature. Genital grabs or views of one’s naked form captured by means of ionizing radiation are not justified for routine travel if applied universally.

There is a 2007 ruling (which did not contemplate such searches) that says you are subject to fine if you decide on the spot you would rather not be groped or scanned by the particular salivating cretins or surly indimidators present on the scene to bar your entry to your flight.

I think the 9th circuit erred then, but even that ruling never contemplated attempted universal application of ionizing radiation revealing naked forms, or genital and breast examinations of the ordinary traveler.

Detaining someone for cause is another matter, but ordinary “non-suspect” travelers should be permitted to leave the secure area and the airport without penalty after refusing the exam at that time, on that day.

This is also a huge deal because of the resources it steals resourced from efforts that might actually increase security, and because of the created, unforced error, of a method of diversion and distraction for real terrorists to exploit; when ten agents are hovered around grandma because she doesn’t want to be touched in front of people, using the line advances with nobody getting screened with so much as a stink-eye as they pass through to the secure area. Tell me how that terribly predictable and obvious weak spot in security protects anyone but persons determined to put on a SHOW of “unbiased” security procedures.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
SarahW
November 16th, 2010 - 11:58

using = usually

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
SDN
November 16th, 2010 - 12:13

snaqwells, the problem isn’t just over the invasive and ineffective screenings.

Oh, and yes, some of us are forced to buy plane tickets; no fly, no living.

It’s that the group causing the problems is already demanding a religious exemption, and will probably get it.

It’s the utter contempt openly displayed by the TSA supervisor in this case, and the TSA blogger who basically says “If you want to fly, you’re at our mercy. Why don’t you come and wave signs outside TSA HQ, and we’ll fart in your general direction again.”

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Bob Reed
November 16th, 2010 - 12:16

Well, it wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t exempting the very group most likely to be involved in terrorist acts from scrutiny

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=22864

Sounds to me like the whole “profiling” thing is working backwards…

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
snaqwells
November 16th, 2010 - 12:41

A few thoughts in response:
1. Even if your job requires you to fly, it’s still not forced. My job requires me to fly, but I could always choose to quit (there are ramifications, but the choice is there).
2. I agree, the ability to opt out should be there. The stated purpose of intel gathering is just stupid; as is the fear that they could have a bomb. The point of the security gates is to prevent bombs from getting beyond them; there’s no such issue up to that point.
3. The idea of prosecuting Chicken Little here is just absurd and counter-productive. Talk about a PR nightmare.
4. If one group gets a religious exemption, all should.
5. I agree the debate should be about the efficacy of this program. I don’t think it’s particularly effective. It may catch the stupid terrorists; but chances are they were caught before getting to the airport.
6. As for safety concerns; I’m not concerned. It seems one gets 100 times the exposure simply riding in an airplane for three hours.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
sarahw
November 16th, 2010 - 13:30

the radiation dose, if exactly as advertised, is low but not risk free, ESP for certain vulnerable persons and frequent flyers. pilots, for example, would be adding many fool to their cumulative exposure to radiation.

in general, if you have a chance to a avoid ensure to ionizing radiation, you should.

And that’s if the dose is at advertised levels. Machine error, operating error, and errors in calibration could raise the dose multifold. hospitals with carefully maintained equipment and trained operators are not immune to this problem, and the TSA probably moreso.

If you have any kind of precanerous lesion on the skin, or a personal or family history of any kind of skin cancer, you should avoid it if you can.

There is no “safe” level of radiation, just safer than some others. I don’t want to overstate the risk, for many it is de minimis. but it is still an u eccesary exposure, serving not effective security purpose.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
sarahw
November 16th, 2010 - 13:31

iPad has an auto spelling correct which is very willful

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
snaqwells
November 16th, 2010 - 14:00

I agree with your final point (not about the iPad), in that I don’t really see what significant security benefit is gained. First of all, these machines are expensive, so I would be highly skeptical of any cost benefit analysis that cleared their use.
My guess is the TSA thought (if they thought at all) that it would enhance public perception of air traffic safety. Afterall, a good percentage of the security measures implemented were added to make us all feel better.

To me, it’s like background checks on youth sports referees; makes us feel warm and fuzzy but doesn’t actually keep the kid safe. I think the TSA is just surprised there’s no warm-fuzzy coming from this project.

And for the record, they can touch my junk but I want dinner first.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Diondrum
November 16th, 2010 - 19:22

“Let’s dispense with this whole fourth amendment nonsense, too. You’re not forced to buy a plane ticket. I’m not aware of any law or amendment that gives us the right to be in a specific location without being searched.”

I can’t decide which Janet that passage reminds me of more, Reno or Napolitano.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
snaqwells
November 16th, 2010 - 21:58

Sorry, I don’t buy that. There’s nothing in the constitution that gives you the right to enjoy the perks of air travel without inconvenience. The fact is, metal detectors are a mild form of search, so that bread has been toasted already. We’re already arguing over degrees.
As for public places, there are plenty of those where access is restricted to those who have been either searched or vetted. Courthouses are but one example.
They aren’t searching your home, or even your car. They’re searching what is heading into their restricted area, and that’s it.
If I wanted, I could probably open a restaurant with the same requirements, and your only recourse would be to eat elsewhere.

That said, the inability to opt out, even at the last minute, is a problem that could possibly have 4th amendment implications. Full disclosure: I ain’t no attorney.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )