The Real McCoy

In reading this forum, it seems that some people are just repeatedly singled out and A** raped in full public view everytime they move with 3 miles of any airport in the United States.

Other, like me, have basically never had any difficulties with security.

Why is that? Are some people just more sensitive to security screenings than others? Do some people bring scrutiny on themselves by their words, actions or travel habits? Do some people just naturally "look suspicious" and peak the interest of TSA?

I don't travel as much as some folks, but I've probably had 25 roundtrip flights, with connection, in the past year. The only time I've gotten SSSS is when I purchased one-way tickets. I thought it was a foolish selection criteria, but the actual screening wasn't really a big deal.

I've never been selected for additional screening when the metal detector didn't alarm. Sometime when it did alarm it was my own fault for being forgetful (or still asleep for a 6:00 am flight) and leaving a cellphone in my pocket or something stupid like that. In those cases, TSA allowed me to remove the offending item and walk through the detector again... no secondary.

Why have others had such horrible experiences - repeatedly - while I never have?

GUWonder

I've personally never been bothered by the aviation security show since it doesn't impact me for most all my travels. (A few guys barking orders at an airport checkpoint isn't going to unnerve me; it's just a minor annoyance like any other loud public annoyance.) That said, some of our "security measures" remind me of those now-defunct, stupid school excercises that told children to practice how to "duck under a desk if a nuclear strike happens".

What I do object to is others being harassed and expensive, wasteful, ineffective and/or counterproductive "security" attempts which exist as window dressing CYA (read as "the dog and pony security show").

Bart

Looking at it from the other side, I see three basic reasons:

1. Frustration in general. People don't want to be inconvenienced. This is especially true among the frequent flyers who feel that they ought to be given some sort of special consideration since they've established themselves as non-threats over the period of time that they've frequently travelled. While they do understand the fundamental concept behind security, they believe there ought to be some sort of exception applied to them to at least exempt them from the more intrusive aspects of security. Contributing to, and legitimizing their frustration, are the inconsistent applications of the exact same screening policy at different airports. Same pair of shoes can be worn through the WTMD at one airport and "recommended" they be removed at another.

2. Determined ignorance of security. This isn't meant as an offensive remark. There are some people who just don't get it. I'm talking about people who have no clue about security whatsoever. The difference between this group and the previous one is that they can't be reasoned with. Everything is a conspiracy to them and they simply refuse to even try to understand why things are the way they are. They also tend to be racist...on both sides. Had a black woman who actually complained to me because I did not provide a black female screener to wand her. She felt she was being singled out because she was black, and she felt that all of this was some sort of government conspiracy to keep black people in their place....whatever the hell that means. Fortunately, this is a very small number of people.

3. Whiners and complainers. These are the folks who just love to complain. Deep down they probably understand why security is the way it is, but they will complain nonetheless. You can spot these people when you greet them in the morning by commenting on what a beautiful day it is, and they respond with, "it's probably going to rain."

driscj

You're more right than you know! The New Yorker has had a couple fascinating articles recently about US security philosophy.

One was one an analyst that developed the 'civil defense' policy in the '60's and the other was last week about the public transit system security in NYC.

The Civil Defense stuff (bomb shelters in building basements, signs up showing where the shelters were, and duck-and-cover) weren't in any way meant to actually protect the public if there was an attack. It was all "for show" to the Soviets that the US was serious about nuclear war that we would drill our civillian population, that the US was planning for 'after the war'. If there was a war, the civil defense people knew that duck and cover wouldn't save one life, but that wasn't the point. It was detente.

In the article about NYC last week, the NYC folks readily admit some of the security teams they send out to be *very* visible aren't responding to any specific threats. Nor do they think they'll 'engage' the enemy in those displays. They just hope to create the impression to potential terrorists that the atmosphere to executing an attack is bad and that they better not try anything here. The article is worth reading for what the NYC cops think about DHS (a few good NY-style salty lines ).

The shoe carnival joins duck-and-cover as a way the gov't uses the public (manipulate seems a bit too harsh) as a tool to carry out larger policy on a higher level.

Since we didn't blow each other up in the '60's or 70's and it was very machiavellian, it may have actually worked.

GUWonder

Duck and cover didn't do a whole lot. All that was needed were a bunch of nukes and do as the Chinese now do: have a few loose cannons in government employment make statements about how they would react (or want others to think they will react). Of course that works better at the state-to-state level than when dealing with state-to-people or people-to-people conflict. The reasons for that are many -- and I could also go into a whole discussion about the "Hercules-team" approach -- but I'd rather not.

LessO2

Well, I'm glad you've had nothing but a 100% positive experience with the TSA.

The issues many have posted here, save Bart's hyperbole, have to do with the TSA going against their own SOP. Read some of the threads again and see what some people have experienced. No, some are not earth-shattering, but when an agency that wants to thrive itself on PR and sell security and courtesy and when it goes against those mantras, are we supposed to hide in the corners and say nothing?

eyecue

Personality
Appearance
Power

Security
Means
Everyone's
Assessed
Rigorously

There are sheeple and there are those that stand up and complain about everything. If you want to draw attention to yourself, do so at your own risk.

People can look like they deserve more attention by the way they dress, act and talk.

Some screeners enforce things just to mess with people.

LessO2

Does that answer your question, The Real McCoy?

GradGirl

Great question, Real McCoy. I can't prove it of course, but I firmly believe that the reason I'm consistently singled out is that I'm a young, petite, and very curvy female. It would be nice to think there aren't ulterior motives behind the fact that male screeners select me to be touched and humiliated within their (the male screeners') line of sight, but let's be realistic. On the street I get catcalled and whistled at, and in the airport I get secondarily searched.

I absolutely do not dress provocatively and I am extremely shy about strangers touching me. Am I really so unusual in that? I think that being forced to endure total strangers touching our bodies in sensitive places has a much deeper psychological impact on women than it does on most men. Not to mention the fact that men's private areas are not supposed to be touched during screening, but women's private areas (over, under, and in between breasts) are fair game if the wand beeps.

I try not to let these guys get their jollies, by insisting that my search be conducted in a private area. I feel all subjective and secretive criteria for secondary search should be ended, to eliminate the possibility of folks abusing their positions of power. If you beep or if you get a flag, that's one thing, but letting a man in a uniform dictate that *you* are the one he wants searched, without giving any reason, is just asking for trouble.

bocastephen

And you have to ask "why?" with the TSA populated with attitudes like this?

No one complained about security - screenings or marshalls, before 9/11. Given the TSA cannot offer any evidence of improved security, only inconvenience and frustration, a return to the same screening procedures of pre-9/11 would yield the same risk with far less aggravation and you would see far fewer posts (if any) in this forum complaining about passenger screening. If you want to improve security, get better bag and cargo screening systems and better technology in place to process passengers faster, with less instrusive checks and hassle. The TSA isn't going to do it with their staff, secondaries or the shoe carnival, that's for sure. Then you can also ask where the billions of dollars are that the TSA spent.

The Real McCoy

See, that's what I don't understand! Where the heck are these "selective" searches occurring? In all the flights I've taken since 9/11, I swear to god I've never seen anyone get selected for additional screening unless (a) their boarding pass was SSSS, (b) they failed to comply with the "rules" - such as removing jackets before going through the detector, (c) they were physically unable or unwilling to walk through the detector or (d) the detector alarmed when they walked through it.

I guess my travels may just be unique, but I am flabbergasted whenever I hear the claim on this forum that someone was "selected for secondary for absolutely no reason whatsoever". I've just never seen a TSA person just "randomly" select someone as they're going through security to get additional scrutiny.

So again, I ask, where is this happening?

GUWonder

DTW, where one TSAer was known for setting off the WTMD and/or being a selectively poor calculator of shoe sole thickness depending on who was walking through.

EWR where attractive females in midriff-baring spandex-type clothes got the handheld stick rubbed along their exposed skin.

LessO2

You and eyecue must know each other, because you both seem to have the problem of having blinders on and thinking that everything is green and pristine in your world. Then it was eyecue's wife that went through SAT and experienced some rude screeners.

People have posted their own experiences, yet it is your decision to chide them or not believe them, then later post the "where is this happening?" posts.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

red456

From the Washington Post: Screeners also may choose passengers at random for additional screening, no matter what they are wearing.

From a screener posting on another website: "If metal on your body caused the WTMD to alarm or you are selected for "Continuous Screening", this is lingo for random selection of passengers, then welcome to the wonderful world of hand wanding."

The Real McCoy

I'm not trying to "chide" anyone. I'm just trying to understand.

Perhaps I am misreading the posts in this forum, but it sounds to me like many here feel that there is a pervasive and systemic problem with the TSA. If the problem was pervasive and systemic, then I would have thought I would have witnessed it with the amount of travelling I do. I haven't.

Like any large employer, there are probably a few "bad apples" in the TSA barrel. And its not surprising that with the number of frequent flyers on FlyerTalk, that some FTers have encountered some of those "bad apples". But to take a few isolated experiences and portray them as systemic and pervasive problems is disingenuous.

It's my belief that there have been a few individual employees of the TSA who have over-stepped their authority to get whatever "cheap thrills" they may get out of it. However, it is also my belief that there have been a few individual FT Safety & Security posters who have over-dramatized (or perhaps even fabricated) certain encounters with TSA to get whatever "cheap thrills" they may get out of it.

Certainly you would agree that's likely.