"Random" screening at YYZ
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 8
"Random" screening at YYZ
I recently traveled through YYZ Terminal 1 heading transatlantic and observed a CATSA agent conducting random swabs of passengers in the security line, prior to the actual screening. No big deal, except that he was ONLY pulling out men! I observed him for a good 15 minutes and counted twenty men and zero women pulled aside for "random screening". How random is it if 50% of the population is left out? Is it not unconstitutional?
#2
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Programs: AC*SE MM, Hilton Gold, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat Amb
Posts: 3,439
15 minutes is too small a sample! I was there last Wednesday night. Since I used the priority line, I only observed him swabbing one passenger's stuff but it was a female.
#3
Join Date: Sep 2005
Programs: AC MM E50 , Former SPG, now Marriott LT Plat
Posts: 6,258
That happens at all the security checkpoints ( domestic and transborder as well), and
is as random as can be when one person makes a subjective decision as to whom to swab. I have seen women swabbed as well as men ( and myself).
It does not appear to be as random as " every 7th person". The priority lane also seems
to be picked on less than the regular line.
is as random as can be when one person makes a subjective decision as to whom to swab. I have seen women swabbed as well as men ( and myself).
It does not appear to be as random as " every 7th person". The priority lane also seems
to be picked on less than the regular line.
#4
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 393
MrsCA was chosen earlier this year and the swab came back positive for something or other. The agent and supervisor were puzzled and didn't know what to do. Apparently she was the first person that had tested positive in all the time the two of them were doing this. A more senior person came over and asked my wife what she did before coming to the airport (it was an early morning flight). She went over her routine and they think that when she did the washing that morning something in the detergent or softener or whatever caused the false positive. She was sent on her way without any further ado except for swabbing her purse. I wonder if it would have been as quickly resolved if it was Homeland Security rather Toronto people. That was the last time she went near a washing machine in the 24 hours before our flights.
#5
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Programs: United MileagePlus Silver, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 8,798
When it comes to security the notion that "everyone is equally dangerous" is ridiculous theatre.
Stop swabbing grannies, boys playing with batman toys, women pushing strollers and concentrate on males like me.
Apologies to all as this thread now gets bumped to checkpoint policy debates.
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 8
What you're saying is ridiculous. It won't take a Muslim extremist more than five minutes to figure out that female agents can be used successfully. I saw men who were obviously not dangerous - white men, Hindu men, Jewish men wearing yarmulkes - all pulled aside for random screening, so why not extend this random screening to women as well? Don't forget that it was a Muslim *woman* who killed an American schoolteacher in Dubai. Men or women, they are equally dangerous.
#7
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 306
You observed for 15 minutes and now are trying to extrapolate hard data for your small sample size. You have been told by others than they have seen the opposite of what you have described, but yet you keep drawing at straws. Just let it go, unless you are willing you to go to YYZ for about a month and 12 hours a day and provide a much larger sample size.
#8
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YEG - No Particular Loyalty Anymore
Posts: 3,610
More kabuki theatre by the clown show that we have become....
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,573
I've been swabbed there, tested positive for something, had to have a secondary screening of the bag (everything out and checked). No idea what set it off. I've also been randomly selected for secondary bag checks by an agent, so it certainly isn't a case of men only - I don't know what guidelines they are given to ensure they are random, maybe that agent on Sundays in December picks men during 01-30 mins, and women 31-00 mins? That would be a fairly 'random' way of doing it. Maybe on Tuesdays he picks people with gold jewelry / watches for the first half hour and silver jewelry / watches for the second half hour. It's very hard for people to really pick people randomly, so maybe they have little checks / balances to help them make determinations that are not predictable to those who want to act maliciously. Or, alternatively, maybe they had a credible threat about a male passenger so there was nothing random about it. As for "I saw men who were obviously not dangerous " what utter garbage, you cannot possibly make such a determination from looks, and I am glad that security personal don't make the same assumptions.
#10
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: YEG
Programs: Aeroplan, Westjet Rewards
Posts: 322
That happens at all the security checkpoints ( domestic and transborder as well), and
is as random as can be when one person makes a subjective decision as to whom to swab. I have seen women swabbed as well as men ( and myself).
It does not appear to be as random as " every 7th person". The priority lane also seems
to be picked on less than the regular line.
is as random as can be when one person makes a subjective decision as to whom to swab. I have seen women swabbed as well as men ( and myself).
It does not appear to be as random as " every 7th person". The priority lane also seems
to be picked on less than the regular line.
I am female, answered yes, got swabbed and was prioritized to the front afterwards. I have no idea who else was being checked because I wasn't paying attention but got the distinct impression they were trying to avoid delaying families.
#11
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,665
The swabs go into a gas cromatograph-mass spectrometer that gives the molecular weight of things that are volatile enough to enter. I would assume if the weight is close to that of a substance that is explosive or a potential component, or a drug, it is noted. Then the question is whether it is present and in what quantity. A good article is here:
http://theconversation.com/the-scien...trometry-35201
http://theconversation.com/the-scien...trometry-35201
#12
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NB, Canada
Programs: Fairmont, Amex MR, Marriott
Posts: 2,531
The swabs go into a gas cromatograph-mass spectrometer that gives the molecular weight of things that are volatile enough to enter. I would assume if the weight is close to that of a substance that is explosive or a potential component, or a drug, it is noted. Then the question is whether it is present and in what quantity. A good article is here:
http://theconversation.com/the-scien...trometry-35201
http://theconversation.com/the-scien...trometry-35201
If you do get swabbed you move to the front of the line. That was taught to me when travelling with a late twenties brown male who had been 'randomly' screened a few times before
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,573
The last two times I have been swabbed at YYZ it has been after me and my bags have been through the metal detector / xray, so had absolutely no advantage, as otherwise I was clear to just keep walking.
#14
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Programs: United MileagePlus Silver, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 8,798
It's this kind of politically correct thinking that causes us to waste millions on 'security.'
You choose who is most likely to be a security risk and target them. The Israelis have this down to a science. Sorry if it offends people, but that's the way it should be.
Actually, I'm not sorry if that offends people.
You choose who is most likely to be a security risk and target them. The Israelis have this down to a science. Sorry if it offends people, but that's the way it should be.
Actually, I'm not sorry if that offends people.
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,573
It's this kind of politically correct thinking that causes us to waste millions on 'security.'
You choose who is most likely to be a security risk and target them. The Israelis have this down to a science. Sorry if it offends people, but that's the way it should be.
Actually, I'm not sorry if that offends people.
You choose who is most likely to be a security risk and target them. The Israelis have this down to a science. Sorry if it offends people, but that's the way it should be.
Actually, I'm not sorry if that offends people.
The second airport security are told to think women / old people / children as zero risk is the second those airports become less safe.
To add, Israel already had a pretty accurate profile of who they considered a risk - male, muslim, arab - in today's world, especially in a country like Canada or the US where there are many potential threat vectors, you cannot work on such narrow assumptions - or you will miss things.