dimramon

When going through the WTMD at DEN this afternoon, the beeper went off.
I wasn't told anything except for to "step aside, and make sure my pockets were empty".
I was then asked to go through the scanner. I stated I couldn't go through the scanner for medical reasons.
I was then told to take off my shoes and belt. I asked if I was not allowed to go through the metal detector since, for medical reasons, I couldn't do the scanner. I was told I couldn't and I had to take off my shoes and belt - unless I could provide medical reasons to keep on the shoes.

I was then taken to the back of the line and patted down. I asked the clerk were the metal detector alarmed, since I was wearing the same outfit the week before when going through security. He said it did not, and it was a random check.

I was wondering if the correct procedure was followed?

It irks me, because a few months ago, the randomizer went off when the vendor in front of me went through, and I was "selected" instead. When I protested at that time, I was told I was selected because the won't screen vendors...

Randyk47

The vendor thing sucks and ought not to be that way but the rest sounds pretty standard.

exerda

Yeah--the vendors should be subject to the same level of checkpoint scrutiny as pax. After all, vendors can be corrupted...

Actually, the whole "random" thing is stupid on its face, but it is what it is.

gingersnaps

So much for screenering for the inside threat.

Boggie Dog

All airport workers should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as passengers. Certain employee groups have direct unsupervised access to the aircraft and could easily introduce some form of contraband.

If a screening procedure is effective then why does TSA need randomness? Are they telling everyone that the procedure is in fact not effective?

cestmoi123

The vendor issue aside, this sort of random response is exactly the right way to do it. Screening is all about raising the risk for someone who actually wants to do harm, which minimizing the negative impact on the vast vast vast majority of people who don't.

So, if we go back to 9/10/01 screening (metal detector, shoes on, as many liquids as you want, etc.), but randomly assign people to an extra layer (NoS or patdown) of screening, it raises the risk profile to someone who wants to smuggle something through (since they won't know for sure if they have to prepare for WTMD or NoS) while reducing the overall burden dramatically.

chollie

If there is a background check so rigorous and so reliable that airport employees and TSOs can be granted virtual unchallenged access to the sterile area for months or years at a time based on that one background check, why aren't pax allowed the same privileges if they have undergone the same background check?

If the background checks are insufficient to clear an ordinary pax and random gropes are necessary, then why aren't airport workers and TSOs subjected to the same 'random' checks?

I don't know the actual numbers, but I suspect a far larger percentage of airport workers and TSOs have been caught and prosecuted for taking advantage of their privileges (smuggling drugs and guns, stealing) than pax.

That's particularly chilling when you realize that TSA will go out of its way to cover up for its own employees and airport workers working in conjunction with them while throwing the book at a pax for something as trivial as being unlucky enough to encounter a TSO with a chip on his/her shoulder.

Boggie Dog

Airport workers are subject to random screening, at least that is what TSA claims. The question is does it really happen and to what degree?

chollie

I've read that at some airports there are quotas for 'random' screening. I wonder if those quotas include comprehensive (empty pockets, full grope, swabbing) screening for a certain percentage of TSOs and a similar percentage for airport workers.

I'm sure it's up to the local FSD to decide whether or not to do random screenings, as well as how comprehensive or frequent or unannounced such screenings will be.

Boggie Dog

No idea and you know that TSA will not divulge any information on how insiders are screened.

I bet any insider screening is extremely limited in scope.

tanja

That will be day in history when TSA confesses they did hire the wrong people.
So of cause they will not screen them. It is like saying that they were/are wrong.

exerda

The problem is that 9/11 involved many people. So what if random screening stopped one or two of them? The rest still made it through, and presumably the ones caught wouldn't have spilled the beans right away, either.

I know the principle says that randomness adds an extra element, but it's one which IMHO is fairly easily defeated as well.

chollie

Devil's advocate (sort of):

Some will say that the fear of a random 'full meal deal' search will cause a bad guy to get tense and start displaying signs that a BDO or spotnik will pick up on.

Others will counter that 1) our own special forces folks are trained to avoid 'tells' in stressful situations and 2) TSA has no intention of trying to ramp up BDO surveillance enough to make it likely that the hypothetical bad guy exposed by this stress will get seen and caught.

I haven't seen any actual reliable studies to demonstrate that this is more than speculation (or wishful marketing on the part of people who stand to make $$ off unproven 'science').

LoganTSO

They are. I was doing employee screening up until this November on a 10 hour shift. I did more pat downs on employees than I've ever done on pax.

Boggie Dog

What % of employees were screened during any period?