Slashdot article on TSA
 

The Slashdot article points to a full-length piece on MSNBC My Turn that I think just sums it all up:

The man who never broke a law in his life stretched out his arms, stared straight ahead and waited as the wand passed over him. I heard the beep as the wand passed his left wrist. Without asking permission, the screener pulled back my father's sleeve to reveal the $20 watch he had bought because it had big enough numbers to read without his glasses. That damn wand kept going. Down to my father's belt buckle where I heard another beep. Again, without a word, the screener yanked up my father's flannel shirt, slipped his hand down around the buckle and tugged on it. I watched helplessly, knowing that if I shouted out my increasing rage I'd humiliate my father even more. I could see Dad clench his jaw as the last tug on his belt nearly made him lose his balance. Did the screener really think my father might wreak havoc on a planeload of people?

I'm not blaming the airport screener. He was just doing as he's trained to do. And I haven't forgotten what a handful of maniacs did on American soil nearly three years ago—but come on! Is this our best answer?


--------------------
There are indeed members of Congress and ordinary citizens who have come up with much better answers: fully fund translation services within the intelligence community, triple funding for more intelligence officers overseas, et cetera. Rep. Jim Turner of the Committee for Homeland Security has released an extensive plan along these lines, and not a word of it requires humiliating vulnerable elderly people at checkpoints.

Short answer? YES.

Sheesh, when are people going to stop with the "well I wouldn't..." "well my father wouldn't..." "well a senator wouldn't..." Ok, we'll just make a list of you, your parents, and all the senators, and since none of you are a threat, we'll just let you skip the screening process altogether.

Seriously, though. The moment they start making exceptions for old people/children/priests/pregnant women/etc. is when that weakness will be recognized, and likely be chosen as a method to exploit. I, for one, am all for equal opportunity screening. If you want to be excempt, that's what the "trusted traveller" program is supposed to be for.

In my opinion, the "how dare they SSSS a child" or "how dare they SSSS that old man" whining is fairly ignorant.

Another emotional thread that distorts the truth. Well, why am I so surprised. The slashdot "article" clearly seeks to give an emotionally charged perspective ("burly airport screener" and "frail and faltering 78 year old"...oh please!) as opposed to an objective assessment of the screening process.

The challenge behind screening is to make no assumptions, especially with disabled or physically impaired people. What better way to sneak something past security than to play on sympathies people have for wheelchair bound passengers or nice little old ladies in tennis shoes? However, TSA policies allow for quite a bit of latitude and discretion when it comes to screening the elderly, persons with disabilities, young children and a wide range of people in special circumstances.

The problem may not be in the policy but in the screener's judgement or miscommunication between screener and passenger. One of the first things a screener needs to determine is if a passenger is able to stand up to undergo the screening process. This is usually done by asking the passenger directly. Problem is that some passengers are too proud to admit any physical limitations and may state that they can stand even though they really can't or shouldn't. That's why, as a rule of thumb, I instruct my screeners to keep passengers in the wheelchairs and screen them as if they can't stand up unless they insist on standing. Of course, the flip side to this is that an elderly person will then object to being treated like an invalid, and I've seen that happen as well.

It's very difficult to screen persons of these circumstances. Questions must be asked and many people are offended by them. For example, in most cases, these require a pat-down search as opposed to a hand wand search because the person either has a pacemaker or is too weak to stand for long periods of time. One of the first questions I ask is if there are any areas that are sensitive to the touch. I want to know before I ask a person to extend his arms and find out the hard way that his arthritic shoulder prevents him from doing so or that he has the gout and his foot is sensitive to the touch. It helps if the person accompanying the passenger with disabilities volunteers any information that will help us screen the individual without causing any discomfort or pain. However, many people feel that this is private and personal information, and that makes our job just a little bit tougher.

The answer is that we haven't lost common sense when it comes to screening. TSA bends over backwards to accomodate persons with disabilities, the elderly, children, people with working animals, people with religious sensitivities, and the many other sensitivities that characterize the politically-correct orientation of today's society.

The slashdot article is hyperbolic hogwash.

Bart, I understand your point that the TSA is attempting to reconcile its indecent searches with decent and humane behavior, but the plain truth is that the two are irreconcilable.

It is none of the government's business if I wear an implanted medical device, have trouble walking, have an intimate area piercing, etc. It is also none of the government's business if I am flying one way, or if there's metal in my shoes. Real threats can and must be identified far away from the airport gates, because aviation is not the only sector at risk. This indecent, inhumane, invasive, repulsive charade should end today.

Yes, Israeli airport security could learn a lot from us. Perhaps someday they will be as good as the TSA.

Oh, yeah, because people here would never b1tch if they had to go through Israeli-style security screening, right? ;)

The second you exclude a group you open an exploit. It is unfortunate for the elderly or young but it needs to be done. Items have been found in a child's Teddy Bear. What's to say that elderly person is actually elderly and not a disguise (it is an extreme though but possible).

GradGirl, you are correct on one point (and only one). Aviation is not the only sector of interest but because there is a barrier between the public side and air side it is easier to do the screening. Your suggestion to end screening is naive and dangerous. You can't give up one form of security to move on to another area.

First of all, everyone who boards an airplane in Israel gets screened. Some more than others, but each and every person who goes aboard an Israeli airplane is accounted for.

Second of all, comparing TSA screening with that of Israeli screening seems to suggest that TSA ought to adapt the Israeli style lock, stock and barrel. The weakness in that argument is that very few, if any, Americans really want to see TSA adapt the Israeli screening style. Look at the reaction to CAPPS II which is patterned after the Israeli model!

Third of all, are you suggesting that old people, children, people in wheelchairs, people with prosthetics, etc be exempt from screening purely out of sympathy for their circumstances? Do you truly believe that terrorists have the same respect towards people in these circumstances as you do?

Can't have it both ways. Convenience and security are designed (there goes that word again) to be at odds with each other.

Yes everyone gets "screened." But not ONCE, in my many travels to Israel, has my trip through the terminal been delayed due to a "secondary search," "wanding," or "random baggage check." The fact is, Israeli security profiles its passengers so well that it only spends extra time on those that require it and gives a cursory look to passengers who they consider to pose no threat.

Evidence? In a single trip from Israel to the United States, I passed through the TLV airport with a pocketknife on my keychain. Walking through the magnetometers, I kept my shoes on and belt on. I was not asked to take my laptop out of its case. (I was even offered the chance to buy a pocket knife during in-air duty-free.)

Back in the US, my shoes came off and I was wanded at the "checkpoint." My knife had to go back into a checked bag after INS/passport control so that I could continue to my final destination. Why the TSA thinks it's security measures are more effective than that of an Israeli airport is beyond me; it's totally absurd. Just this single day's experience is more than enough to convince me that the current protocol of screening passengers based "beeps" and an outdated computer profiling system is rediculous. It does more harm than good.

Well, well, well, I get accused of bordering on racist in another thread (TSA=ethnic group??? ...), yet here we have a TSA employee who drops some hints at the end of the paragraph that he is a bigot:

"TSA bends over backwards" -- give me a break. The TSA does the bare minimum required by law and public pressure.

Slashdot never did score very high on the journalism scale, but for them to misue their platform for BS like this just makes it worse.

Slashdot only promoted the article; it was published on the official news website of MSNBC. It is an opinion piece, so there's no need to call it BS; it's just an opinion article that you happen to disagree with.

Wrong! Trading liberty (which Bart dishonestly trivializes by calling it convenience) for security is a false dichotomy. We need to be safe and free. If the best security measure we can come up with for fifty billion dollars is harassment of the elderly and the rest of the flying public, then the DHS is in the grips of a truly mind-boggling "failure of the imagination".

Real security measures start way, way before the boarding gate. Once a plot gets to that point, any terrorist coalition could have waged much more extensive destruction while avoiding checkpoints altogether.

Absolutely not true. My screeners do go beyond what is required of them for persons who need assistance all the time.

Your statement is uncalled for and insulting. You come through a checkpoint and see a few minutes of what goes on at that checkpoint yet can make a generalization such as you did. Now thats ridiculous.

Don't blame me. I just posted the article (I know Slashdot is one step above the Weekly World News) but I figured that it would get a good discussion out of it.

Plus I disagree with Slushdot posting it, they should just stick with old technology and keeping teenagers up to date with microsoft news.

Screening is just one component of a multi-layered defense which does include intelligence from multiple sources. Using aircraft is still high on the terrorist wish list. To remove the screening for the sake of your convenience (which is exactly what the people on this forum are complaining about) is naive and dangerous. The sleeper cells do not need to contact a terrorist coalition thus making them harder to detect.

Let's come out and say what you really want. You want to walk through without anyone dare look at you, talk to you, stop you. Do you want them to bow or kneel? Since you came on this forum you have adopted the same exact rhetoric as other to the point I have to double check who is posting because it all written the same. Every post on this forum becomes a merry-go-round where it starts on subject, some of the usual suspects derail the subject to their own uses, someone tries to return the thread to the subject but it gets derailed again. Instead of having multiple threads there should be just one since every thread since they all wind up saying the same thing.

There hasn't been a clear passage in airports for decades nor will there ever be.

^

I think some people want a seperate "I am not a terrorist" line at the airport.

How dare you call Bart a liar!! He has done nothing here but give honest and intelligent information which yourself and many others here have done nothing but attempt to pick apart for your own gratification.

Thus your suggestion would be... audio and video monitoring of every square inch of US soil? Or do we need to do it internationally, as well? :)

And I assume since you think we should be doing this way before the boarding door, that you think things like CAPPS are a good solution, or is that too invasive?

That was my earlier point... this whole "why did I/my father/my child get SSSS'ed, I'm/he's/she's *obviously* not a threat" whining is just tedious.

"woo-hoo! we shut down CAPPS II!"

How dare you expect logic and honesty here! :D

Bart and the TSA people here are excellent representatives of their agency. I only wish that they can spread their good attitude towards other coworkers. We should be dealing with issues regarding the Agency, not their staff.

I agree but when you have a passenger with a hugh chip on their shoulders that is waiting for the screener to say anything (even good morning) they are ready to jump down the screener's throat I can understand why screeners act the way they do. I don't condone it, but understand it.

Preach on!!! I try to keep my screeners in a positive mode, but as TSAMGR said, you will have a passenger who wants nothing more than to insult a screener for his own personal satisfaction. I've become able to shrug it off and go on, but for others it does become a bit difficult to shake it off and be pleasant to the next passenger in line. It doesn't happen here too often, but when it does it disrupts the entire mood here.

I agree, Mr. Furious. I am very glad that people like Bart and TSAMGR are here and I am grateful that they have the helpful attitudes they do toward the issues FF'ers raise.

What Bart said is something many others have tried to say here: that objections to screening are really about convenience. I would gladly endure more inconvenience if it meant I kept my dignity, liberty, belongings, and clothing intact. Instead I am stripped of the above a bit at a time by this insane urge to physical search anything that moves, but only in one tiny corner of our daily lives. Because I'm a FF, it affects me more than most and so I complain more than most. To say that I am writing letters to Congress, trying to organize protests, complaining regularly in writing to TSA authorities, spending my free time on FT trying to get others fired up for activism on this issue - all for convenience, again(?) - has got to be deliberately dishonest.

I think being asked to remove parts of my clothing in public is shameful. I think having my breasts touched by government agents is sickening. I think people are put in danger of sexual abuse by checkpoint practices. I think the infirm are in danger of physical harm. I think medical privacy is in shambles when people are explaining their devices, drugs, and medical conditions to uniformed government officers. I think searching people's belongings is a crude and ineffectual response to the threat of international terrorism. I think I shouldn't have to discuss or reveal my travel habits within the U.S. to government agents, absent any suspicion of me personally. None of these concerns has even a passing relation with convenience. Liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty, with privacy thrown in for good measure.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's talk about tradeoffs between liberty and security.

Hi ChrisAtlanta,

Could you buy audio and video monitoring for the same price tag? I wouldn't think so, but let's talk. Depends upon the details.

Here are the suggestions I've been talking about, in a press release and 90-page report from Jim Turner, ranking member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Actually, it is very much our business as well as the business of the others on the plane. How do we know that a pax alarmed the mag because of their shoes or belt or the countless other tiny pieces of metal they insist is the culprit like bras and wedding rings? Because they say so? How do we know there's not a gun strapped to their thigh or a knife in their sock? What about the person waving their medical card in our face and saying they have a metal knee therefore they shouldn't be screened? We have to clarify that the metal is indeed their knee and not a weapon.

• Double the size of U.S. Special Operations Forces;
Agreed
• Increase the number of FBI agents by 50%;
Agreed
• Create a Director of National Intelligence;
Agreed
• Monitor every mile of the U.S. border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week;
Agreed
• Secure all unprotected nuclear material world-wide and destroy all chemical weapons by 2010;
Agreed
• Screen 100% of all cargo containers entering America for nuclear materials;
Agreed
• A “Marshall Plan” for the Middle East to create a middle class and a regional common market;
Disagree, we need to take care of our own people first.
• $10 billion global alliance for improving education for Arab children;
Disagree, we need to take care of our own people first.
• Hire and train an additional 500 Arabic speakers at the State Department over the next 3 years;
Agreed
• Double the number of exchange program visitors from the Arab-Muslim world;
Disagree, we have enough problems keeping track of the people here.
• Increase the Peace Corps to 25,000 volunteers;
Agreed but not for just the Middle East
• Create a U.S. Reconstruction Corps ready to deploy to post-conflict zones;
Disagree, we need to take care of our own people first.
• Triple funding for U.S. democratization efforts world-wide; and
Got us in trouble already
• Promote one year of national service for all young Americans.
Agreed

Some people's knees are weapons.

No one is ever forced to disclose any medical condition.

You are entitled to that opinion. But, you should realize that 30+ years' worth of court precedent, federal law, and political reality are stacked against you.

You, yourself, are under no obligation to disclose your travel plans or habits to the government unless you are stopped, detained, or arrested. However, there is no legal privacy right as to information kept by airlines. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but as of now your individual rights are not being infringed.

I'm always willing to discuss this topic. My opinion is that the current screening process, combined with more stringent rules as to prohibited on-board items, is an improvement over the same pre 9-11. It is not *perfect*, but an improvement. And, I view screening not as an infringement on my liberty, but as a protection of my right to move about the country without criminal interference.

I would think not as well... I guess my point was that surefire, flaweless intelligence is probably not within the pricetag or invasiveness that we're willing to tolerate.

Interesting reading, thanks. I browsed the press release, and many of the points sound good to me (others not so much). Don't have time to read the full report now, but definitely interested in reading it later, though.

However do you not think that proper passenger screening is a requirement?

^ Thank you