Laptop Security Lane :)
 

So I arrive at LAX at oh-dawn-hundred this morning w/ my list of things checked off/learned from my fellow travelers & TSA to avoid secondary:

* Put shoes w/ shanks in tote; put on cute little Luhthansa First slippers to walk through magno but avoid dirty floor - check!

* Wear minimal jewelry - check!

* Wear underwire bra (w/ lace & very few hooks) - check!

Watch person manning the belt/machine move every single person's every single piece of luggage/bins/laptop back/forth back/forth every single time - get dizzy (hmm, didn't plan on that part, but go forth knowing my heart & body is pure).

Go through magno thing - no beep - woo-hoo! Check!

Notice lady in front of me gets secondary - for her laptop (she didn't set off magno thingy).

Then they say to me 'is this your laptop' yes - ok, we have to go through secondary. What?

Don't you know I'm wearing cute little slippers, hardly any jewelry & an underwire bra that Bart & TSAMgr say won't set off the machine? I did everything right - why do I have secondary? Geesh - I can't win. So off we go to swab the computer; it's clean.

But while I'm waiting for her to do that I watch the line I came through & the next 3 people all got secondary - for their laptops! So 5 out of 5 for secondary for laptop & no magno alarm - is this something new?

PS - the other lines went much faster; i always get the slow line (i figured the person who was doing the back/forth thing was new, btw, if there's not a new laptop policy)

PSS - the registered traveller person who was in front of me when passing 1st id check, then ended up 5 people behind me in the elite line cuz he stopped for the iris scan (tee-hee).

Ok, off to flight & overseas biz trip. Take care. Cheers. Sharon

Two different issues, Sharon. You did as we suggested and didn't have to be hand-wanded. Congratulations!

I would assume that if you're going to be stopped for any kind of secondary screening, you'd prefer it be on your property rather than a hand-wand. Could be wrong on that, but that seems to be the common complaint in here.

Sounds to me that LAX is emphasizing increased random screening of electronics with explosive detection devices. After what just happened this past weekend there, I can't really blame them. It's always been SOP; it just might not have been strictly enforced on other occasions.

Hope you enjoy Europe!

The term secondary relates to the person facing the dreaded wand of doom. What you had was the laptop swipe. It should have only taken less than a minute.

Had an electronic device been intentionally detonated at LAX last weekend, then your statement above would make some sense.

But since the only thing that happened was that a couple of old C cells exploded inside a flashlight, your statement is a nonsequiter.

Skiadock,

The back and forth motion with the X-ray is a automatic thing with some x-ray equipment. It depends on how close you place your bags together if it does it or not.

I'm sorry, but I have to rush to the TSA's defense here. It is important to be more diligent even if what you are being diligent about bears only a superficial relationship to the problem. It makes people feel safer, and deflects criticism that could undermine that feeling of safety. In short, behaving like that is mission-critical.

How's the view from way up there?

The LAX FSD probably did some sort of review on current procedures in the wake of two security incidents that occured at his airport this past weekend. Of course, I'm speculating because the first thing I would do in such instances is find out if these incidents could have been prevented, if current procedures are adequate and if any changes are required to improve the security posture. No doubt such a review would reveal that ETD counts are relatively low compared to passenger flow which would indicate that random screening is probably not being done or at least not as frequently.

The point you miss is that random ETD screening is a requirement in the SOP. That means that it doesn't matter whether or not the flashlight incident occured, once the FSD discovered that screeners weren't performing random ETD screening of electronics and other items as specified in the SOP, he had to close that gap because he just had two back-to-back security incidents that drew all sorts of national attention. Again, speculating here, but I think that FSD is going to tighten up on procedures across the board to prevent a third incident from occuring.

Is there a direct correlation between exploding flashlight batteries and the new emphasis to enforce already existing security procedures? No. It's an indirect effect resulting from findings and observations made incidental to an effort to find out what happened. If you go back and read what I posted, you will note that I said it didn't surprise me that the FSD directed that screeners tighten down on procedures, random screening of electronics being one of them, in the wake of this weekend's incidents. You will note that I did not say that this was to prevent another flashlight from blowing up.

This is a typical reaction in any organization. I hope we don't go overboard, but I do agree that there are some procedures that need tightening up every now and then.

:confused:

Being diligent but only having a superficial relationship to the problem? Making people 'feel' safer and deflecting criticism?

These reasons alone don't justify increased security screening of passengers. If they do justify it, then that is basically an admission that the entire process is a charade to being with.

That is my take on it. It's up to everyone reading whether they agree with my assessment or not.

So to confirm, it is not "proper" terminology to refer to an ETD swipe of a laptop as "secondary screening?" Is it the same for an ETD swipe (not physical search) of a bag?

I've have numerous screeners refer to these procedures by saying something about "I'm going to do a secondary . . ." The first few times it bugged me because I thought I was going to get the "wand of doom" :) , but now I just ask "secondary on my laptop/bag or on me?" Just a nitpick of terminology if it's not correct, but still mildly interesting.

Personally I would not object to them doing an ETD check on all carry-on bags. It's effective, fast, and extremely non-intrusive. (I don't particularly like the false-positive protocol, but that's a separate issue.)

studentff,

Secondary applies to both hand wanding and bag checks. It's a follow up procedure to either A) WTMD or B) X-ray. Just keep asking what it is there going to do and don't assume the worst.

The current ETD machine takes about 1 min per item for the selection, swabbing, and sample test. Multiply that by all the carryon baggage and the lines will be out into the parking lot. Also, I don't think each lane has it's own ETD machine at each airport, does it? Ouch...

Agree completely on the delay and equipment availibility issue, although I don't think it would have to take one minute per item if it were streamlined and there was enough equipment. The test itself seems to take a few seconds; it's the details of confirming who the object belongs to, waiting for the pax to re-shoe and collect their other stuff, moving everybody to a separate station, etc. that seems to take a minute.

I would imagine that in the future, with high volumes reducing the cost, they could build puff-of-air ETD into the carry-on x-ray. They'd probably have to scrub down the whole system after each alarm to get rid of the traces, but that's just a detail.

Mainly I'm just saying that I consider ETD an effective form of security that does not intrude on actual or perceived privacy rights, unlike so many other techniques that are either or both of ineffective or intrusive.

screenerx, thanks for the clarification on the definitions of "secondary."

but it inconveniences me, therefore i hate it and it is wrong.

kidding... :)

SEA only ESD's my Apple Powerbook. When I take my HP zd7000 (a 17" wide monster), they just wish me a pleasant flight. Make of that what you will... ;)