FWAAA

Maybe because very few (if any - and probably none) of the 280 million American citizens are terrorists?

That and the fact that your agency is only concerned with sharp and pointy objects (as well as the longtime-outlawed guns and knives) - and is doing nothing to really identify and stop honest to god terrorists.

But what can we expect from an agency that operates on the premise that "everyone is a potential terrorist"?

tmspa

It's not the "very few" part that bothers me about your post, it's the "probably none". Need I mention Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kazinski (sp?) ? Domestic or not, it's still terrorism, right?

essxjay

I think your argument is pretty spurious, tmspa.

Let's define the hoardes you refer to. Approx. 2-4% of the flying population generate somewhere between 25- and 40-percent of commercial airline revenue. This market segment is likely to be the frequent business traveler (or perhaps an avid leisure traveler ). It's highly unlikely their purpose for flying is anything nefarious, so why subject them to the same scrunity as a non-frequent flier on a one-way F or C ticket purchased with someone else's credity card?

Sound like profiling? You bet. And I'm quite in favor of it. This would be one step in the right direction away from the current "everything-including-the-kitchen-sink" approach, which is over-the-top expensive, inefficient and a gigantic time-waster.

Sounds like 'too bad for the innocent infrequent traveler' right? Well, let 'em have their cake since they're the ones who asked for this current screening nonsense, but don't expect me to choke it down without a fight.

And by fight I don't mean being confrontational at the checkpoint just for principle's sake. I think that's a waste of time. There are more appropriate times and ways of taking action to affect change ... stay tuned.

FWAAA

You got me there.

And exactly what is the TSA doing about the next McVeigh or Unabomber besides scrutinizing their nail clippers and taking away their pointy scissors and small pocketknives?

Just last week I once again had to put up with an idiot screener (MIA - E) who wanted to confiscate my nail clippers because they contain a nail file - that's the fifth time since the TSA took over at the very same checkpoint that I have argued the same point.

She rummaged thru my carryon for about five minutes before settling on the nail clippers. She said I could go quicker if I just "relinquished" my nail clippers.

To hell with her. What a stupid moron.

I called for a supervisor and demanded that the screeners get some remedial training in what's permitted and what's prohibited. At least the supervisor apologized for the idiocy. And just like every other time, I got to keep the nail clippers.

And I have no doubt that I will have to appeal their confiscation next time thru the same checkpoint.

That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with your agency.

No amount of Sirs, Ma'ams, Pleases and Thank Yous is going to change that. Politeness isn't what I seek - I want professionals who are as well acquainted with the rules as I am. Is that asking too much??

sowalsky

I watched someone go apesh*t when they pulled aside his 80-year-old grandmother for wanding. On another occasion, I watched a four-year-old get wanded. An advertisement for time put it the best:
(or something like that).

They already have, and the result which we have now is indeed disastrous. Either do it the right way (e.g. Japan, Israel) or don't do it all. You may be fooling some people, but you p*ss off everyone else.

tmspa

I can't speak for ever airport and won't attempt to. This is clearly a case of a screener who doesn't know what their doing. The team I lead and the two other teams that work at our checkpoint are excellent! They make common sense decisions about what can go through security and what can't. There is a prohibited list and a SOP, but some things don't fall into these categories. I have faith that my folks will make the right decision every time!

Spiff

There should be NO secondary harassment w/o probable cause - period! No trusted traveler program is needed. Everyone walks thru the magnetometer and puts their stuff through the x-ray. After that, the only people who should be further scrutinized are those who do not pass both of these checks.

We should not have to belong to the trusted traveler club just to put a stop to these insane harassments that should never have begun in the first place!!!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 01-22-2003).]

tazi

I completely agree! What really gets me is last time I was pulled aside for additional wanding, my bags were left alone .... very alone . I never set off the metal detector but they felt a need to wand me anyway. This is so friggin' stupid!

essxjay, I was referring to some of the information I found in one of the articles linked to for the microchip. To me that just seems one step away from the government being able to monitor your every movement.

anonplz

It's funny, because you see how this proposal is disingenuous (I just HATE that word... I think I'll start using the word antidisestablishmentarianism in protest). Kind of like saying, "don't like security checks? become a trusted traveler" which is in itself an even MORE instrusive security check, but "you only have to do it once - see how good we are?"

essxjay

I hope you know that I happen to agree with you completely. But you also are privy to the details of what I went through last week, and if it happens again I won't fly that day -- I'll sue (regardless of the outcome). Thus, my expression of MY willingness to voluntarily be IDed for TTP purposes. I'm sick of haggling just to set foot on a d@mned a/c.

Another way that I look at it is I'm thumbing my nose at you-know-who by playing one bureacracy off another.

Cynical? Yep. If they're going to waste my tax money then I'll just play the system to my best advantage, which means not wasting my time being touched in private places without cause.

[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 01-22-2003).]

essxjay

Let's see here:

Voluntarily supplying the number to my (already-issued) passport, my (already-on-file) thumbprint; my (already-issued) state driver's license info; and info from my FF program VS. having my breasts felt by a stranger?

No contest there on the "which is more invasive" count.

Occupationalhazard

I don't. List or no list, the last thing the list says (on the TSA site) is that the screeners can confiscate things if they feel like it, even if its on the "okay to carry on" list....which is how my corkscrew (corkscrews are on the "okay" list) wound up in the Big Pile Of Confiscated Stuff at JFK.

I could give a sh*t about the corkscrew--after looking it up on the TSA site, I figured I should still take one I didn't mind losing--but why *have* the list if it is useless?

What is to prevent the *same* thing from happening with the "Trusted Traveler" program (uh...except the Travelers wouldn't get confiscated, I presume...) Undoubtedly, there will be a caveat where the TSA dewds on duty get to f*ck with you anyway, b/c you look "suspicious", or b/c they are having a bad day, or it's time for a Make Up Call for the PC Crowd.

Watch it happen.

Regards,

O/H

anonplz

I understand you're still angry, essxjay, about your incident. I hope that when time has passed and you can reflect on the issue with a more jaundiced eye, you can recognize a couple things:

1. Some flyers don't have passports (in fact, isn't it like 90% of Americans do not have them?);
2. Some flyers don't have thumbprints on file (I don't - why would I?);
3. Some flyers don't have driver's licenses;
4. Some flyers don't participate in FF programs (I don't participate in every program); and
5. Being molested without your consent by the TSA is illegal, and you can call the police (see the thread about Penn's experience at Las Vegas).

Finally, the choice is not between giving all four of those pieces of information OR being physically molested. It's a choice about traveling unhindered by government authorities, which people like Spiff believe is an American citizen's fundamental right, and burdening them with providing additional information other than a paid ticket in exchange for travel without hassle is an arrogant overstepping of their Constitutional powers. I don't necessarily agree with him about that, especially because there is still a risk from terrorist attacks, but in "normal" times, his point is 100% valid, it seems to me.

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 01-22-2003).]

FWAAA

How will we know when "normal times" have returned? Won't we always be at risk of more terrorist attacks? You don't really think that Mr Ridge will someday announce that "Terrorist Threats are a thing of the past," do you?

essxjay

anonplz,

I've stressed the point six ways from Sunday:

I would _voluntarily_ do what I mentioned in previous posts b/c I can and want to. It's just the extent of what I would be willling to do for a proposed TTP.

If others choose not to get a passport, fine. If others choose not to get a driver's license or their state's ID card, that is certainly their perogative. And, frankly, fingerprinting is more common than you might think. It's required for anyone working at a bank (teller or CEO, regardless), when taking the Bar exam (and LSAT for that matter ) and for hundreds of other reasons. You'd be surpised in how many contexts it's required.

I'm under no illusions any more about my privacy so I guess that's why I have no qualms about applying for TTP status despite the fact that it should be necessary in the first place.

(Going a little OMNI here ...) As many on FT know, I worked for a newspaper for over 16 years, until just last May. You'd be amazed at how much info is available on y'alls. We subscribed to DMV databases, property tax databases, criminal records databases, SSI info, telephone data (incl. supposedly unlisted numbers), you name it. And it's not terribly expensive to acquire this data. And it was available to _anyone_ in our newsroom as part of the utility menu under the PC's START menu, copyaide to Executive editor.

Chilling, eh? I could found out volumes about a prospective date if had wanted to. (Never did, BTW, as I felt it was not ethical to do so for non-news purposes.)

</omni>

It's not so much that I'm angry any more; I'm galvanized to make change. As I stated before, I would never deem it appropriate to vent my anger at the person doing the wanding, though you can bet my displeasure is broadcast rather lucidly by my body langauge and facial expression.