TSA's bomb-sniffing dogs
May 26, 2016, 8:07 am
#151
Join Date: May 2011
Programs: Delta Diamond Medallion 1MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, National Car Executive Elite
Posts: 550
Maybe, but I wouldn't be in favor of that.
Which 5% get the pat-down? Who decides who gets the pat-down, the TDC? Who decides when to press that button and when not to? Will it be truly random? How is "random" decided? By a machine? By a person chanting "eenie meenie minie moe?"
Which 20% get the NoS? What happens if someone who is chosen is physically unable or chooses to opt-out? Would you eliminate opt-outs?
Causeless pat-downs are exactly the kind of abusive carp that the 4th Amendment was designed to prevent.
Here's how I think it should be:
100% of people get an ETD swab. 100% of physically able people walk through the WTMD. Those who are not physically able to walk through the WTMD get requested to transfer to a plastic wheelchair and rolled through. Those unable to transfer will need to make special arrangements with TSA in advance of their travel to be escorted through the c/p and wanded with the HHMD. Which sucks, but it's better than being abused and embarrassed at the c/p. As usual, all carry-on items are scanned by x-ray.
The one new piece of equipment I'd like to see at all c/p's (aside from rail systems to automatically return tubs and free up leagions of tub-stacking TSOs) is a puffer portal on the carry-on scanner. Assuming they aren't already part of the scanner, that is. Simply doing a puffer ETD test of carry-ons as they pass through the scan tunnel would eliminate millions of ETD swab tests and speed things up immeasurably. Oh, and I'd like to see dividers built into the belt, so someone else's bag doesn't touch mine and cause cross-contamination.
No random. No percentage. No quotas. No one gets searched or delayed without articulable suspicion. Search methodology should have a clear, well-known, pre-defined path of escalation, and no search should be escalated without a genuine alarm at the previous level. No pat-downs should be performed by TSOs - if something is suspicious enough to warrant a physical search of a person's body, then it should be suspicious enough to refer to law enforcement. If it's not suspicious enough to report to law enforcement, than it's not suspicious enough to warrant a physical search.
Which 5% get the pat-down? Who decides who gets the pat-down, the TDC? Who decides when to press that button and when not to? Will it be truly random? How is "random" decided? By a machine? By a person chanting "eenie meenie minie moe?"
Which 20% get the NoS? What happens if someone who is chosen is physically unable or chooses to opt-out? Would you eliminate opt-outs?
Causeless pat-downs are exactly the kind of abusive carp that the 4th Amendment was designed to prevent.
Here's how I think it should be:
100% of people get an ETD swab. 100% of physically able people walk through the WTMD. Those who are not physically able to walk through the WTMD get requested to transfer to a plastic wheelchair and rolled through. Those unable to transfer will need to make special arrangements with TSA in advance of their travel to be escorted through the c/p and wanded with the HHMD. Which sucks, but it's better than being abused and embarrassed at the c/p. As usual, all carry-on items are scanned by x-ray.
The one new piece of equipment I'd like to see at all c/p's (aside from rail systems to automatically return tubs and free up leagions of tub-stacking TSOs) is a puffer portal on the carry-on scanner. Assuming they aren't already part of the scanner, that is. Simply doing a puffer ETD test of carry-ons as they pass through the scan tunnel would eliminate millions of ETD swab tests and speed things up immeasurably. Oh, and I'd like to see dividers built into the belt, so someone else's bag doesn't touch mine and cause cross-contamination.
No random. No percentage. No quotas. No one gets searched or delayed without articulable suspicion. Search methodology should have a clear, well-known, pre-defined path of escalation, and no search should be escalated without a genuine alarm at the previous level. No pat-downs should be performed by TSOs - if something is suspicious enough to warrant a physical search of a person's body, then it should be suspicious enough to refer to law enforcement. If it's not suspicious enough to report to law enforcement, than it's not suspicious enough to warrant a physical search.
May 27, 2016, 4:35 pm
#152
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
In general, I find agreement with your thoughts...with an exception about everyone having the ETD swab test. Having been the victim of two false "positive" results from that test (which is prone to contamination, prone to substituting a "test pad that fails so that the machine can be tested" for the pad used in my test, and inability to have the test repeated nor to avoid full-hands-on genital massaging when you fail), I have strong misgivings about that test being 100% used.
Of course, all of this is just whistling Dixie. None of it will ever happen.
May 28, 2016, 11:19 am
#153
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA - AA:PLT 2MM; Marriott:Plt; Hilton:Slv
Posts: 562
Saw one walking in SFO Terminal 3 AFTER security in the gate area. I mean what the hell is the point? Did you miss something at the screening point? I thought there were so few of these teams that you were going to use them AT the screening point, what a waste of resources.
May 28, 2016, 5:31 pm
#154
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 16,901
Saw one walking in SFO Terminal 3 AFTER security in the gate area. I mean what the hell is the point? Did you miss something at the screening point? I thought there were so few of these teams that you were going to use them AT the screening point, what a waste of resources.
May 28, 2016, 11:43 pm
#155
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: STL
Posts: 1,546
Saw one walking in SFO Terminal 3 AFTER security in the gate area. I mean what the hell is the point? Did you miss something at the screening point? I thought there were so few of these teams that you were going to use them AT the screening point, what a waste of resources.
May 31, 2016, 6:34 pm
#156
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Saw one walking in SFO Terminal 3 AFTER security in the gate area. I mean what the hell is the point? Did you miss something at the screening point? I thought there were so few of these teams that you were going to use them AT the screening point, what a waste of resources.
Security sweeps are done in all areas of the airport, even in the areas well prior to and outside the checkpoints such as parking lots, skycap areas, internal offices, baggage handling areas, and other SID Areas. The team might have been doing training, proficiency testing, or actual patrol.
Jun 1, 2016, 6:08 am
#157
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Not at all. It seems you have a misunderstanding of how the teams are used. Yes, there are a limited number of teams but there has never been the intention nor expectation that they will spend "significant" amounts amounts of time at checkpoints. In addition, only a relatively few teams are trained in passenger screening.
Security sweeps are done in all areas of the airport, even in the areas well prior to and outside the checkpoints such as parking lots, skycap areas, internal offices, baggage handling areas, and other SID Areas. The team might have been doing training, proficiency testing, or actual patrol.
Security sweeps are done in all areas of the airport, even in the areas well prior to and outside the checkpoints such as parking lots, skycap areas, internal offices, baggage handling areas, and other SID Areas. The team might have been doing training, proficiency testing, or actual patrol.
Can you describe how the canine passenger screening teams make the lines move faster if pax still have to remove their shoes and their bags still have to go through x-ray?
Unless I have completely missed it, no one has provided an answer. Even AskTSA has stopped claiming that canine teams speed up screening.
Jun 1, 2016, 8:59 am
#158
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
You seem to be quit knowledgeable about the workings of the dog teams.
Can you describe how the canine passenger screening teams make the lines move faster if pax still have to remove their shoes and their bags still have to go through x-ray?
Unless I have completely missed it, no one has provided an answer. Even AskTSA has stopped claiming that canine teams speed up screening.
Can you describe how the canine passenger screening teams make the lines move faster if pax still have to remove their shoes and their bags still have to go through x-ray?
Unless I have completely missed it, no one has provided an answer. Even AskTSA has stopped claiming that canine teams speed up screening.
Canine screening speeds up the process when it is used in place of a more time-consuming screening process. That's all, nothing else.
If used in addition to the more time-consuming processes, then obviously canine screening doesn't speed things up, it slows them down.
This is blatantly obvious, and I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim the contrary, i.e. that canine screening speeds things up if added to the process, as opposed to replacing an existing part of the process. Have you? If so, please link to it so we can all go to that place and set the mistaken person straight.
Jun 1, 2016, 9:29 am
#159
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
I've posted this a couple of times before, but here's the answer:
Canine screening speeds up the process when it is used in place of a more time-consuming screening process. That's all, nothing else.
If used in addition to the more time-consuming processes, then obviously canine screening doesn't speed things up, it slows them down.
This is blatantly obvious, and I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim the contrary, i.e. that canine screening speeds things up if added to the process, as opposed to replacing an existing part of the process. Have you? If so, please link to it so we can all go to that place and set the mistaken person straight.
Canine screening speeds up the process when it is used in place of a more time-consuming screening process. That's all, nothing else.
If used in addition to the more time-consuming processes, then obviously canine screening doesn't speed things up, it slows them down.
This is blatantly obvious, and I don't believe I have ever seen anyone claim the contrary, i.e. that canine screening speeds things up if added to the process, as opposed to replacing an existing part of the process. Have you? If so, please link to it so we can all go to that place and set the mistaken person straight.
I'm looking for someone who is knowledgeable about this, not that you're not knowledgeable WillCAD, someone connected to TSA to definitively state exactly how a dog sniffing passengers speeds up screening. They can't do that because they know it's all for show.
The TSA's official line will be something to the effect of "wait times have dropped considerably recently at ORD (or EWR or ATL) so the dogs do, in fact, speed up the screening process." Of course, they fail to acknowledge that the lines were created artificially by management, but that's another story.
Actually, AskTSA has stopped claiming that the dogs speed up the process after they were asked several times how that worked.
Jun 1, 2016, 10:02 am
#160
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
I know that and of course, you know that, but the TSA apparently refuses to address the question.
I'm looking for someone who is knowledgeable about this, not that you're not knowledgeable WillCAD, someone connected to TSA to definitively state exactly how a dog sniffing passengers speeds up screening. They can't do that because they know it's all for show.
The TSA's official line will be something to the effect of "wait times have dropped considerably recently at ORD (or EWR or ATL) so the dogs do, in fact, speed up the screening process." Of course, they fail to acknowledge that the lines were created artificially by management, but that's another story.
Actually, AskTSA has stopped claiming that the dogs speed up the process after they were asked several times how that worked.
I'm looking for someone who is knowledgeable about this, not that you're not knowledgeable WillCAD, someone connected to TSA to definitively state exactly how a dog sniffing passengers speeds up screening. They can't do that because they know it's all for show.
The TSA's official line will be something to the effect of "wait times have dropped considerably recently at ORD (or EWR or ATL) so the dogs do, in fact, speed up the screening process." Of course, they fail to acknowledge that the lines were created artificially by management, but that's another story.
Actually, AskTSA has stopped claiming that the dogs speed up the process after they were asked several times how that worked.
Instead of harping on the issue of time-savings, which we all know is a non-issue because canine screening only speeds up the process if used as a replacement, not a supplement, perhaps you should concentrate on something more substantive, like the relative costs, efficacy, and potential negatives of canine screening.
Personally, I'm in favor of canine screening, in conjunction with ETD swabs and WTMD, as a replacement for the NoS, liquids restrictions, ans shoe carnival. I understand that there are some potential negatives, costs, and efficacy issues involved with canine screening, but I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Jun 1, 2016, 10:14 am
#161
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
You're beating a dead horse in a rather blatant attempt at trolling. It's a misleading question that sets up a straw-man argument, which is not an effective way of debating any issue.
Instead of harping on the issue of time-savings, which we all know is a non-issue because canine screening only speeds up the process if used as a replacement, not a supplement, perhaps you should concentrate on something more substantive, like the relative costs, efficacy, and potential negatives of canine screening.
Personally, I'm in favor of canine screening, in conjunction with ETD swabs and WTMD, as a replacement for the NoS, liquids restrictions, ans shoe carnival. I understand that there are some potential negatives, costs, and efficacy issues involved with canine screening, but I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Instead of harping on the issue of time-savings, which we all know is a non-issue because canine screening only speeds up the process if used as a replacement, not a supplement, perhaps you should concentrate on something more substantive, like the relative costs, efficacy, and potential negatives of canine screening.
Personally, I'm in favor of canine screening, in conjunction with ETD swabs and WTMD, as a replacement for the NoS, liquids restrictions, ans shoe carnival. I understand that there are some potential negatives, costs, and efficacy issues involved with canine screening, but I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Jun 1, 2016, 10:16 am
#162
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,700
I suspect the dogs will be used to patrol the landside areas, not to speed up the lines. They will be another 'layer of security' and will be TSA's answer to concerns about the long lines TSA has deliberately created. With the dogs circulating a jammed landside area, there is no risk (!) of a Brussels-like attack.
Perhaps the dogs would be better deployed in baggage handling, an area where TSA has really cut heads. If suspicious bags pass the dogs, there should be very few legitimate reasons for cutting a lock and rifling a bag's contents.
Perhaps the dogs would be better deployed in baggage handling, an area where TSA has really cut heads. If suspicious bags pass the dogs, there should be very few legitimate reasons for cutting a lock and rifling a bag's contents.
Jun 1, 2016, 11:39 am
#163
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,114
It makes sense to me that if the explosive detecting dogs only add a layer that screening speed does not speed up. TSA has claimed that these dogs are used to shuffle the unwashed to the Pre Check lines but that would only give a modest shortening of screening time.
A good deal of the TSA Screening Backup is caused solely by TSA's insistence of checking ID's and making people take off shoes, belts, and outer clothing. Nothing can speed that process up unless the process is changed.
Maybe TSA should be using these dogs in the airport workers shops and offices. That is where the real threat lies.
A good deal of the TSA Screening Backup is caused solely by TSA's insistence of checking ID's and making people take off shoes, belts, and outer clothing. Nothing can speed that process up unless the process is changed.
Maybe TSA should be using these dogs in the airport workers shops and offices. That is where the real threat lies.
Jun 1, 2016, 12:17 pm
#165
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
