Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Gaping hole in process after random selection

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Gaping hole in process after random selection

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 22, 2015 | 4:14 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: Recovering long-time AC SE100K (currently E50K), Accor Gold, Marriott Gold, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 1,033
Gaping hole in process after random selection

Yesterday I used the TSA Pre-Check lane at a major U.S. airport, and as I went through the metal detector, the "random beep" went off. Fine. I'm pointed to the millimeter wave scanner, and I politely indicate I'm opting out. The agent hollers "Female Opt Out!" about a dozen times while I patiently wait. He periodically apologizes for the delay.

Meanwhile, my bags are sitting on the conveyor belt on the other side of security, having gone through the x-ray machine. I see two problems.

1. Any idiot could grab my bags. Goodbye wallet, goodbye ID. Not TSA's problem, so I understand why they don't really care about this.

2. Bigger problem. If I really were trying to conceal anything, anyone who was traveling with me but wasn't selected for random screening could just grab my bags and head to the gate. Once I clear my secondary screening (which would now be easier and quicker, since there are no bags to inspect!), we would just reconnect at the gate and I'd have all my stuff back, minus the obligation to have it go through the secondary screening by TSA.

I haven't actually tried this, but it strikes me as a big gaping hole in the security process. What am I missing?
CanuckFlyer is offline  
Old Jun 22, 2015 | 4:26 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 50
If they didn't call a bag check on your bags they are considered cleared.
rolling_stone is offline  
Old Jun 22, 2015 | 4:32 pm
  #3  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,253
The bags have been inspected so there is no more risk in someone else grabbing them and boarding than if you grab them and board.

I don't think there's a real concern here.
Often1 is offline  
Old Jun 22, 2015 | 5:06 pm
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: Recovering long-time AC SE100K (currently E50K), Accor Gold, Marriott Gold, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 1,033
I respectfully disagree.

Every time I've been randomly selected, I have been asked to identify my bags and they are brought by the agent to the secondary screening area.

If I fail the swab test (which I often do because I'm not going to stop wearing lotions that contain glycerine every time I fly), then my bags are manually inspected. And during that manual inspection, everything is swabbed and checked.

So I still think there's a problem here. If my bags were considered cleared, then TSA wouldn't be manually inspecting them when I fail a swab test. But given current procedures, one can easily avoid having their bags manually inspected upon random screening with the simple cooperation of a travel buddy.
CanuckFlyer is offline  
Old Jun 22, 2015 | 8:43 pm
  #5  
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
20 Countries Visited
1M
40 Nights
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 72,572
Not to mention how poor the TSA's failure rate is at catching prohibited items. So no, the fact that they came through the x-ray doesn't mean they're safe at all...
exerda is offline  
Old Jun 22, 2015 | 9:34 pm
  #6  
1M
40 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 5,015
TSA and gapping hole are synonymous.

1) When I have to opt out or get a random I watch my bags like a hawk. If TSO complains about me moving out the area they ask me to wait in I remind them I keeping my possessions secure. Once when my bags were going out of my sight I asked a one stripper to get them for me (they did). The TSO in charge was miffed.

2) If you really wanted to conceal something you would just keister it. The TSA ain't gonna find anything where the sun don't shine. That is the gapping hole.
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Old Jun 22, 2015 | 11:10 pm
  #7  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
40 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,543
Why opt out of the MMW scanners? They're not the old cancer boxes and they don't display images, either.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Jun 23, 2015 | 6:08 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: ONT/FRA
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 878
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
Why opt out of the MMW scanners? They're not the old cancer boxes and they don't display images, either.
Why? Because they work so poorly that they regularly generate false positives. You get a patdown if you have a positive.

So, if I'm getting a patdown anyway, why go through the machine first?
BSBD is offline  
Old Jun 23, 2015 | 8:38 am
  #9  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: Recovering long-time AC SE100K (currently E50K), Accor Gold, Marriott Gold, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 1,033
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
Why opt out of the MMW scanners? They're not the old cancer boxes and they don't display images, either.
Without getting into details about my own personal medical history, I'll tell you this. The millimeter wave scanners emit nonionizing radiation that is not believed to produce DNA damage that would lead to cancer. However, they use a form of electromagnetic radiation in a spectral region that can produce thermal effects, that is, heat. It's believed that the exposure we're talking about here doesn't actually heat tissue, but no one has determined the long-term effects of exposure (if any). Since it's easy for me to opt out, I do.

I take lots of other known and unknown risks in my life. This one I skip. Happy to live in a world where I get to make that choice for myself, and you get to make that choice for yourself.
CanuckFlyer is offline  
Old Jun 23, 2015 | 4:03 pm
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
40 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,543
Originally Posted by BSBD
Why? Because they work so poorly that they regularly generate false positives. You get a patdown if you have a positive.

So, if I'm getting a patdown anyway, why go through the machine first?
Even when it false positives you get less of a pat-down than if you opt out.

Originally Posted by CanuckFlyer
Without getting into details about my own personal medical history, I'll tell you this. The millimeter wave scanners emit nonionizing radiation that is not believed to produce DNA damage that would lead to cancer. However, they use a form of electromagnetic radiation in a spectral region that can produce thermal effects, that is, heat. It's believed that the exposure we're talking about here doesn't actually heat tissue, but no one has determined the long-term effects of exposure (if any). Since it's easy for me to opt out, I do.

I take lots of other known and unknown risks in my life. This one I skip. Happy to live in a world where I get to make that choice for myself, and you get to make that choice for yourself.
There's no reason to think this poses any hazard. It's certainly far less than you get from a cell phone.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Jun 23, 2015 | 4:39 pm
  #11  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,954
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
Even when it false positives you get less of a pat-down than if you opt out.



There's no reason to think this poses any hazard. It's certainly far less than you get from a cell phone.
Far less than you get from a cell phone?

Evidence to support that claim?
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Jun 23, 2015 | 5:16 pm
  #12  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: Recovering long-time AC SE100K (currently E50K), Accor Gold, Marriott Gold, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 1,033
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
There's no reason to think this poses any hazard. It's certainly far less than you get from a cell phone.
Seriously, dude, not going to debate this with you. You make your decisions about which scanners to go through, and I'll make mine.
CanuckFlyer is offline  
Old Jun 24, 2015 | 8:37 pm
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
40 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,543
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Far less than you get from a cell phone?

Evidence to support that claim?
Consider the range.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2015 | 1:50 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
40 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,543
Originally Posted by CanuckFlyer
2. Bigger problem. If I really were trying to conceal anything, anyone who was traveling with me but wasn't selected for random screening could just grab my bags and head to the gate. Once I clear my secondary screening (which would now be easier and quicker, since there are no bags to inspect!), we would just reconnect at the gate and I'd have all my stuff back, minus the obligation to have it go through the secondary screening by TSA.
The same thing applies even without an opt-out. In the airport I usually handle most or even all of the luggage. She tends to be transporting things that confuse the x-ray operator and get inspections--I always grab the bags that didn't alarm so they only end up searching whatever bag alarmed, not the rest of our stuff.
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2015 | 3:20 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: ONT/FRA
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 878
Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
Even when it false positives you get less of a pat-down than if you opt out.
My experience says that's not always true.
BSBD is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.