LuvAirFrance

Digital anal check, just as predicted.

ScatterX

Clear question.

Although this was not directed at me, I will provide you a clear answer. The risk of terrorism in the US, flying domestically, DOES NOT warrant the wholesale or random invasive frisking of Americans. The risk to our lives is not worth the loss of our freedoms.

Even if you believe the threat is sufficiently high to justify this level of rigor, it is still inappropriate. TSA claims this is the only effective method. Fine, then apply this procedure to EVERY person entering into the secure area (every baggage handler, TSO, LEO, pilot, FA, GA, custodian, VIP, Congressman, Secretary of State, etc., etc., etc.---EVERYONE). If the threat is real, this should be done all the time, no exceptions, no opt outs, no nothing. Obviously, since the TSA cannot defend doing this, it's unreasonable for everyone and, therefore, it is unreasonable. This procedure should only be used in cases with reasonable suspicion. And by reasonable suspicion, I mean the practitioner must, in each and every case, be able to defend the reason each person was selected for a frisk, strip search, etc. and have that reason supported and documented by a supervisor who authorizes the invasive search. In theory, the TSO should have to defend an invasive search of a person the same way a LEO has to defend an invasive search of a person's house (minus the time for a warrant). Sounds kinda Constitutional, doesn't it?

ls17031

I think it has become clear that nothing anyone says to a LEO in that context will ever be "in confidence" again.

LuvAirFrance

I definitely will answer that I don't think patdowns of EVERY nonscanned passenger is worth doing at all. Just as I don't think stopping EVERY CAR ON THE HIGHWAY to find one drunk driver is worth doing at all. TSA is the same as putting checkpoints on every road and highway and searching EVERY VEHICLE to insure catching a POSSIBLE threat to society. Can you imagine what that would do to life and the governments' budgets? It is a massive BOONDOGGLE and still doesn't really accomplish the advertised purpose.

So yeh, I have no problem painting the whole thing as too costly in money and swollen government power for the actual security it will give. "As long as we're safe", is to me like saying "Hail Mary full of grace". It is just people's way of comforting themselves, unrelated to actual safety at all.

Caradoc

According to one regular poster here, the screeners are indeed looking for objects as small as 3/16" x 1/2", and further claims that looking for such objects "requires a lot of pressure" be applied to women's breasts and men's testicles.

nachtnebel

"requires a lot of pressure" be applied to... men's testicles. "

sounds like a rerun of Sopranos.

that or TSA is bent on supplying a new generation of Castrati to the Vatican.

Affection

Who are they kidding? I can hide something of that size in my mouth. Still wouldn't endanger an aircraft.

...and anyone who places "a lot of pressure" on my testicles will receive a lot of pressure on their face.

--Jon

BubbaLoop

I've made this point many times before, but I'll make it again. Pat downs are definitely a poor security measure. All imaging or patting/rubbing techniques fall into the tampon paradox. Either they detect a tampon (and are therefore very invasive) or they don't (and are therefore useless, because they won't stop a determined terrorist). Even if they detect a tampon, they can't tell the difference between a tampon and a threat to aviation, creating more of a problem than a solution.

ETD makes sense, metal detectors (WTMD and wands, now extinct) make sense. WBI and patting do not. The threat is minimal. Use measures that make sense and don't delay us or invade our privacy.

sbagdon

When it comes to security (any kind, including physical, computer, etc), either it's all, some, or none. For the person trying to get something past security (again, any kind), it's a question of resignation vs. fear. If security applies to all, then you resign yourself that it won't work. If security applies to some, then you fear you might get caught, yet find ways to deal with that fear (risk mitigation, alternative methods, etc).

I'm presuming that the TSA has no chance or hope of preventing all incidents of a class of action, all they can do is bring enough fear of detection to drive energy elsewhere.

The question for us (the pax) is that if you can't guarantee "perfect security", then where do you draw the line on what you are willing to give up for what security is possible.

Global_Hi_Flyer

It's NOT going to stop.

Consider this: since Pistole took over the pronouncements from the agency have changed. Where before it was keeping weapons and explosives ("WEI") off of planes, it's now about "stopping contraband". That's a relatively subtle change, but it is important. Contraband includes drugs. Note that all of the "successes" that the agency has had with these machines has been about stopping drugs.

The leadership of DHS has figured out that they can use "legal" administrative searches to conduct searches for drugs, money, pornography, etc. that would not be legal searches any other way. Just call it "necessary for security" or "they have similar characteristics to explosives" and you can essentially do anything you want. In other words, TSA can "legally" conduct a dragnet for people and objects.

That is why this will never stop. (Aside from the money to the manufacturers).

Some of the astute posters here realized this when Pistole was appointed. The prophecy is coming true.

From today's Washington Post: Link

doober

Actually, G_H_F, it's been about stopping contraband for quite some time, well before Bierfeldt. I'm not going hunting for it now but a document was released by the TSA in which it admitted hunting for contraband, including drugs and funds over $10,000. I'm sure another one of our members can find that document post haste.

RichardKenner

There are bomb components that are.

Clearly. It was probably an order of magnitude too small to do that. It would be like Bojinka: it would have killed the bomber and killed or seriously injured nearby passengers, might have made a big enough hole in the aircraft skin to cause loss of pressurization, but wouldn't threaten the controllability of the aircraft.

But the point remains: the stated purpose of the pat-down is to find small non-metallic objects. If you're not going to fnid them, then why do the pat-down at all? In other words, it's the same sort of argument that says that using AIT will cause issues with resolving anomalies: the problem with the pat-down is that it's either too intrusive or useless. So why do it at all? But I haven't heard people making that point, which is why I am.

The document in question said that such things, if seen, must be reported to LEO: it didn't say to look for it. There have been a number of court cases where it was determined that a TSA was looking for something that wasn't a hazard to aviation and each of those times, the evidence was excluded and the defendent was acquitted. So the TSA can't do this whether they want to or not (and my own personal belief is that they don't want to).

But that doesn't answer the question!

Are you advocating:

(1) Pat-downs that omit certain areas of the body; or
(2) Pat-downs only in cases where there's clear suspicion of a threat (e.g., HHMD alarm or a visible and suspicious bulge).

BubbaLoop

Richard,

Just to make this 100% clear: Yes, I believe pat downs should not be part of standard airport security measures.

Caradoc

In other words, the TSA isn't trying to fight "terrorists" any more, but exists solely as an excuse to perform the most invasive searches they can get away with.

Marijuana, drugs stitched inside underwear, and ceramic knives concealed in shirt pockets do not represent a credible threat to any flight - so why is the TSA sticking their fingers into people's crotches looking for those items?

ScatterX

I thought my answer below was pretty clear. You are close with #2, but it's not reasonable to strip search grandpa simply because the HHMD goes off on the metal plate in his head (nor to cut his head open or to stick your finger in his butt [note for any TSA brainiacs who might be fishing for the next really stupid idea]).

I'll say it again... invasive techniques should ONLY be used in cases where there is reasonable suspicion (for example, someone who has some combination of things like setting off the WTMD, visible bulge, acting odd, and refusing to answer any questions that would explain why the WTMD went off). Setting off the WTMD is reason to ask questions to figure out why, not to immediately start a groping session. Same methodology for random ETD. If if hits, start asking questions and hand search everything. If you get suspicious behavior, go farther. Don't start with the Full Monty. The current system of "wanting to fly is suspicious" IS NOT reasonable.

(My add in bold).

TSA fails to find large disassembled test guns something like 80% of the time in the x-ray. What reasonable person would think a bad guy would put it on his body in a place that it would be easily felt given the TSA's obvious inability to find tiny components using the x-ray and the ease of hiding small object inside "other locations" on the body? This, IMO, is an extremely unlikely threat to begin with and an extremely unlikely scenario to boot. The TSA, on the other hand, not only believes this is a real threat, but that countering it is necessary, and that they are effective in doing so (basic requirements to justify the invasion of our privacy as "reasonable").

Spending billions of dollars to implement procedures that don't work to address either extremely unlikely or comparatively insignificant risks is a gross waste of time and money. That TSA would so willingly sacrifice our liberties to do this is disgusting. That "we the sheeple" so willingly go along with it for the temporary feeling of security is very very sad.

Anyone ever have and then measure a THO after their breast rub? TSA may not be looking for objects of this size, but trying to create them.


(Sorry, just couldn't resist)