Over the holidays, I was home with the family in southern Ohio watching the news of the incident on Christmas Day unfold amidst a surreal smattering of garland and wrapping paper. As you can imagine, I got lots of questions from friends and family (including my crazy uncle) back home, as well as right here on the blog, and I'll be covering a few of those topics now that I'm back in the blog team cockpit.One of the biggest misperceptions I found was that people thought that TSA conducts screening in Amsterdam and in other places around the world. Not so. We only screen passengers at airports in the United States and U.S. Territories. Each country has their own screening workforce - some are government, some are private sector, some are even military.
While each country has sovereignty over their aviation systems and controls the level of security measures at their airports, over 190 countries worldwide—including the United States—use the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) standards and recommended practices for civil aviation security as their baseline. In the United States, TSA has built even further on these standards with security initiatives like Behavior Detection Officers and Advanced Imaging Technology. The United States also sets additional security standards on top of ICAO's for U.S.-bound flights coming into or through the United States from international airports. If those standards aren't met, the U.S. can deny entry to a specific flight, airline, or flights from a specific airport.
On Dec. 25, TSA took swift action immediately following the incident to strengthen those standards even further at airports across the country and around the world—enhancing screening for individuals flying to the United States and deploying additional airport law enforcement, air marshals and explosives detection canine teams, among other security measures. Because effective aviation security must begin beyond our borders, and as a result of extraordinary cooperation from our global aviation partners, TSA is mandating that every individual flying into the U.S. from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening. TSA’s new directive also increases the use of enhanced screening technologies and mandates threat-based and random screening for passengers on U.S. bound international flights. This means the majority of ALL international travelers will go through enhanced screening under this new security directive.
Moving forward, we will continue to work with our airline and international partners to ensure they meet both international and TSA security standards. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday outlined five recommendations—part of her report to the President on aviation screening, technology and procedures—for actions to protect air travel from terrorism. These include a wide range of enhancements, from modified criteria and process used to create terrorist watch lists to partnering with the Department of Energy to develop better technologies to deploying far more advanced imaging technology and Federal Air Marshals throughout the aviation system. It also includes continued work with international partners to strengthen international security measures and standards for aviation security. Secretary Napolitano announced she will travel to Spain later this month to meet with her international counterparts in the first of a series of global meetings intended to bring about broad consensus on new international aviation security standards and procedures. We are looking to enhance global aviation security standards, increase information collection and sharing and improve and deploy more detection technology.
So, while we have our Transportation Security Officers screening passengers and bags in the United States, we are also committed to strengthening coordination with international partners to implement stronger and more effective measures to protect U.S.-bound flights, with a goal of keeping people safe when they fly.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
139 comments:
Bob,
Can you please explain how you plan to resolve WBI images in the underwear area? Are you going to visually inspect all sanitary napkins and adult diapers?
I am happy to see the agency begin finally looking at a few characteristics that seem to link many of the most recent terrorist acts, i.e. where the terrorist brain child is from. We can thank the ACLU and a wishy-washy Congress for slowing this common sense idea down for so long.
Now, about those body imagers: Folks, grow up and stop assuming you know the Constitution. There is no "right to privacy" in the constitution. For those conspiracy theorist and black helicopter folks who think the TSA and their officers are secretly recording or sharing their images- I repeat, grow up. They don't have time to store your image and realistically, why would they want to. Even if you're as special as you think you are, the officer watching those screens will never see you and "NO", they're not running talking about you after you are gone. There conversation is far more likely to be the same you hear at any factory or office. I believe the courts have already ruled that the images are not an unconstitutional search, especially given that the image is not retained so that weak argument is also out.
Please, if you don't want them to look at your silly, naked, cartoon image then take a bus and let me and my family board the plane knowing we're safer than we were before.
> There is no "right to privacy" in the
> constitution.
I agree...the constitution is incomplete and needs to be fixed.
You want everyone else to grow up... well adults sometimes disagree. Like, I disagree with a policy that doesn't work.
My definition of "work" would be stopping terrorists from operating. My definition of "work" is NOT simply raising the bar on what they tried last time so they have to change tactics.
ANY measure that simply moves these extremely rare events from air planes to movie theaters is simply, not working.
These events are too rare and too easy to adapt to different situations (like hitting theaters, trains, open markets etc) to be worth trying to imagine scenarios for the future and protect against them... even if those scenarios are "what they did last time".
Thats just the end of the story for me. You are asking me to give up my privacy for... a pipe dream of puppy dogs and safety blankets.
Thanks, but no thanks. I am not happy at all about being forced to buy what you are selling me.
Let me know when your talking about beefing up first responders, or starting anti-jihadi educational programs or...well... things that have a chance in hell of actually working rather than just putting on a good show.
-Steve
Bob, given that the WBI does not detect explosives (nor do x-rays), just how is WBI going to make air travel safer? Please give a straight answer because were pretty tired of the song and dance coming from our government officials.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this story: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother. Could we learn from Israel on airport security?
Anonymous said:
Please, if you don't want them to look at your silly, naked, cartoon image then take a bus and let me and my family board the plane knowing we're safer than we were before.
***********************
Drudge had a front view of a woman up for a little while. You could tell she wore pants, see her belt, see what style of underwear she wore, and see that if she was wearing a bra that it showed pretty much what she would look like if she had removed her top.
It left little to the imagination. Would that make you feel safer if it were your 13 yr old daughter?
If you wear an ostomy bag would you like that displayed? If you wear a catheter would you like that displayed? If you wear adult diapers would you like that displayed?
Those machines do no detect explosives.
I believe that it is time for better threat assessment from both TSA and the anti-TSA bloggers here. I read through the comments on this site from time to time and I am constantly reading about people who don’t like TSA screening, don’t like to be touched, and don’t like TSA WBI machines. Problem is, the non-TSA security experts say that if the guy with the bomb in his pants had been patted down, or screened using a WBI, or given extra screening, he would not have been able to smuggle the bomb onto the plane.
Some of TSA’s policies are absolutely ridicules and don’t provide true security (cannot carry a two inch knife but you can carry four inch scissors). Some of the anti-TSA attitude to bury ones head in the sand instead of understanding that people around the world want to kill Americans is equally ridicules (not enough Americans have died in terrorist’s attacks to make security statistically important). We need to find a balance between the two mindsets in which the American people are reasonably protected from the thousands of people who want us to die.
I don’t mind when TSA does extra screening on me. If they do, and they have, I know they are doing it to other passengers and my flight WILL BE SAFER.
Anyone who voluntarily submits to a strip search, virtual or otherwise, just to board a plane is a coward. You have a greater risk commuting in your car everyday then you do flying. If you're that terrified that you feel the need to strip, stay home!
Bob, give it up. Go home. TSA and its blog are pathetic. When people wanted answers you were nowhere to be found.
"Please, if you don't want them to look at your silly, naked, cartoon image then take a bus and let me and my family board the plane knowing we're safer than we were before."
No, you're not, since the strip-search, like most of TSA's security theatre, does nothing to make anyone safer.
For anybody who thinks they are safer because of WBI, I have a bridge that I can sell to you real cheap.
NOTHING the TSA does makes your flight any safer.
The argument against body scans seems to revolve around whether some screener will use body scans for perverse purposes. After just spending a week at a beach resort, it seems that those with good-looking bodies are anxious to show off as much as possible. What's the big deal about grainy, black and white, unposed images?
Anonymous, you really need to go back to your high school civics class as you clearly don't understand the Constitution (a bit ironic you calling others out on that). The Constitution is not a limit on the people's rights, but it is a limit on the government.
Let's take a look at the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. Found at Cornell Law School's online legal library.
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Founding Fathers knew that they couldn't enumerate everything, nor could they conceive of every possible thing in the future. So they erred on the side of protecting the people's rights and limiting the government - the right thing to do.
If the courts have already ruled that the images are not an illegal search, then please provide a ruling.
Let's keep in mind that no technology is perfect and the WBI does NOT detect explosives. It relies on the human operator to identify them. And given TSA's ability to identify things in the x-ray now, they'll likely do just as poorly with this.
You are already safe on a plane. Even with TSA and it's ineptitude, air travel is still the safest mode of travel. Read the study here to see your odds of dying in a terrorist incident on a plane. It's 1 in 10,408,947. In layman's terms, "This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning." Consequently, your odds of getting struck by lightning are 1 in 500,000 and your odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 12,300.
Can you honestly tell me that we should be going this crazy over something where you over 20 TIMES more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a plane crash? By your logic, in the interest of safety, we should all be wearing lightning rods.
Security should be based on facts, not emotions. Your argument is based on emotion and is weak. If you want something that would detect explosives, get the puffers working properly. Those actually detect explosives and would have detected this bomb.
Now, back to Bob's posting, can you please tell us why DHS is making recommendations to foreign nations when it's clear that DHS and TSA can't secure a paper bag? Considering the fiasco's we've had over the last couple weeks with the terminal dumps at Newark and Bakersfield (that dangerous honey!), security cameras not working (good think Continental had ones working for TSA to look at!) and fighter jets escorting planes (what were they really going to do - shoot down the plane before a "bomber" would blow it up instead), is DHS REALLY the one that should be advising other nations on security?
Please.
TSA may not have been the ones doing the screening, but the people in AMS were following TSA standards and using TSA sanctioned spotters and STILL wasn't detected. Let's remember that if security doesn't meet TSA standards that airlines won't be permitted to land in the US. You can try to blame it on the Dutch all you want, but it's TSA's standards that failed here. Or is it TSA's practice now to throw its partners under the bus and disavow knowledge for doing what TSA asked them to do?
You guys are the last people who should be lecturing the world on airport security.
Al
I am very happy with the incident and its outcome so the people who were whining for their privacy and "constitutional rights" can stop complaining. I really like this article, take a look: http://tinyurl.com/yf8m59a
Freedom is not free. Get in the line and do the scan so we are all safe. the terrorists can blow up themselves to kill Americans and you just refuse to give up your little privacy? Shame on you!
Anonymous, please give us a citation for the court ruling you "believe" has been made:
"I believe the courts have already ruled that the images are not an unconstitutional search, especially given that the image is not retained so that weak argument is also out."
Thank you.
"Now, about those body imagers: Folks, grow up and stop assuming you know the Constitution. There is no "right to privacy" in the constitution. "
The constitution is not intended to limit the rights of the people to those specific provisions contained therein; rather it's supposed to limit the powers of the government (10th Amendment).
Why does TSA always wait for something to happen before strengthing security? We know where the vulnerabilities are; do we really have to wait for somebody to try and exploit them first?
"Please, if you don't want them to look at your silly, naked, cartoon image then take a bus and let me and my family board the plane knowing we're safer than we were before."
If repeated exposure to radiation induces cancer, I am sure you have an answer for that as well- take the bus.
Lets get to the heart and meat of the most recent TSA mistakes. F15s, F16s, Newark, at least the tip of the holiday blunders.
"Folks, grow up and stop assuming you know the Constitution. There is no "right to privacy" in the constitution. "
Um, I think I know it a little bit better than you. Ever hear of the ninth amendment? It reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Courts have consistently held that the right to privacy is one of the unenumerated rights. So how about you stop lecturing me on something that you clearly know nothing about?
Really, Bob? The blog goes silent for 2 weeks, and this is what we get?
Please, please look through the comments on the previous thread. There are, as you can see, a lot of them. Answer the questions there. Don't answer the questions that you want to have been asked, since they're easier to answer.
If this is truly going to be a blog to facilitate conversation between the TSA and the travelling public, you're going to have to answer the difficult questions.
Why does the TSA insist on pushing a device that invades the privacy of innocent people, costs $170k each, and can be beaten by simply stuffing the contraband under your breast and wearing a bra?
I'm done here. This blog is totally worthless and is a waste of taxpayer resources.
TSA is incompetent.
FBI taking down terrorists nearly every month of last year in the United States, and some of you people think it would be just as safe without TSA? I guarantee if Mr. Abdulmutallab had tried to come through an American checkpoint, he would have been caught. Go ahead and do away with our security procedures, see how quickly those odds change.
I would truly like to know why the US Transportation overseers don't just scrap the whole TSA random screening nonsense in favor of something actually effective like the Israeli system, where they actually scrutinize people who are likely to be offenders. You know, rather than 10 year old boys and 85 year old grannies in wheelchairs. You call it profiling, I call it a proven effective law enforcement technique. Stop herding, for the purpose of appearing effective, and actually BE effective.
"One of the biggest misperceptions I found was that people thought that TSA conducts screening in Amsterdam and in other places around the world. Not so. We only screen passengers at airports in the United States and U.S. Territories. Each country has their own screening workforce - some are government, some are private sector, some are even military."
The TSA may not but the US Customs and Border Protection does:
http://nassau.usembassy.gov/cbp.html
"Preclearance for US Customs and Border Protection is established through Bilateral Agreements signed between the United States Government and the host nation. Preclearance has been operating in Nassau and Freeport for almost 30 years."
"In the U.S., over 38,000 people die each year in car crashes; that's as many deaths as 9/11 each and every month, year after year." "~ http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/07/schneier.security/index.html
When is the TSA going to increase auto security?
I'm not concerned about TSA employees seeing me undressed. They're very well paid, and can afford much better "visual aids" if they like.
I am concerned about the radiation exposure from full-body X-ray scans. Given the history of misinformation and incompetence from the TSA, I see no reason to believe their explanations. I believe that screening will kill far more passengers from cancer than could possibly die from terrorism.
Now that you're back, you can start trying to to spin all of the other problems the TSA has had while you've been on vacation. You've got the Newark Shutdown, the harassment of bloggers, the honey shutdown, and the LAX "God."
So if naked scans are the TSA's solution to the Underwear Bomber, does that mean that mandatory cavity searches will be the TSA's solution when someone tries a tampon bomb?
You guys are turning this country into a police state and worse.
Hi, Bob-- thanks for the comments. I had read a similar (may be the same with a different title) article as an earlier anonymous poster: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744426--what-israel-can-teach-us-about-security and had some of the same questions-- can TSA comment on whether "Israeli-style" security would work in a US context? I see two problems-- the Israeli security force is much smaller and I've always been told is mostly ex-Mossad and I'm not sure we have enough similarly trained people. The other is that, as you mention, US carriers have always relied on foreign government native security while the Israeli carriers have hired their own, even for foreign boardings (even for US boardings).
But still, the article makes a powerful case that the security can be more effective, less instrusive, and more acceptable to people who object to physical search procedures.
Anon said… “given that the WBI does not detect explosives (nor do x-rays), just how is WBI going to make air travel safer?”
Simple answer, any kind of imaging technology allows the security officers to see the explosives. It is not the machine that detects the explosive; it is the security officer who will detect the explosive. We then use additional technology to confirm our observations.
"Israelification" - Interesting article.
Let’s see, TSA has implemented the use of Behavioral Detection Officers which many here have stated is a waste of money. TSA knows that behavioral detection is a proven science and an effective means of security that is deployed in some of the most dangerous areas in the world.
I would love is the bomb boxes were put into use in all airports in the US. It also makes sense to have small bomb resistant areas to screen checked baggage. The only thing stopping this from happening is money. Every airport in the country would have to be remodeled. Every airport in the country would have to spend millions to make this a reality. They simply aren’t willing to spend that kind of money to make you happy.
Love the ID checks, but for some reason the American people don’t believe security has anything to do with checking your ID.
If this is truly going to be a blog to facilitate conversation between the TSA and the travelling public, you're going to have to answer the difficult questions.
January 8, 2010 9:31 PM
.............................
It's apparent that Bob and the other bloggers do not have the permission of their handlers to respond to the public.
Lets keep this in perspective here. I don't care about the nudity factor. Hell, if there was nothing else to complain about, I would complain about so called "decency laws" that say I can't fly naked (even though I never would... traveling without pockets... no way)
But remember... you are asking us to give up ALL of our privacy as to whats in our pockets and under our clothes....
all to protect us from something thats less likely to kill us than a mechanical failure, car accident, or lightning strike.
This seems like a bad trade off to me.
This is the sort of mentality that had me deciding to spent 14 hours driving rather than subject myself to the local airport for a couple of 1 hour plane rides.
Yup, I drove 1300% more than I needed to because I didn't want to be subject to pat downs and having to answer for my personal belongings.
Good job guys. Cost me as much in gas as the round trip would have too.
Um, Bob? Did you turn around and look behind you? See the 500+ comments on that last post? Yeah, those. Maybe you wanna take a gander at a few of them and let us know what the TSA has to say about the public's reaction to the TSA's "swift action immediately following the incident to strengthen those standards even further at airports across the country and around the world."
Jannis, please show us several places where "non-TSA security experts say":
"that if the guy with the bomb in his pants had been patted down, or screened using a WBI, or given extra screening, he would not have been able to smuggle the bomb onto the plane."
WBI would not have picked up the explosive nor would a pat down have done so unless the screener put his hands far into the man's crotch, which no screener is allowed to do and which the flying public will not stand for if TSA attempts to institute such searches.
“The full-body scan is not the answer,” said Charles Slepian of the Foreseeable Risk Analysis Center in New York. “Even with a full-body scan if you went through there with nothing on but you had something in the crevices of your body you won’t see it in the full-body scan.”
Think about it, Jannis. No one has come forward to refuse the comments that one can hide someone on or in one's body and defeat WBI. What does that tell you?
I just flew back from Canada and encountered two new security measures that made absolutely no sense to me. First I was not allowed to bring on my very small rolling carry on but was allowed to bring my briefcase with my laptop, gloves, headphones, books, papers, toothbrush and other items. When I asked what the actual rules where they gave me a slip that said:
"Passengers travelling to the United States are not allowed to bring carry on bags into the cabin of the aircraft, with some exceptions. Passengers may carry with them one or more of the following items: medication or medical devices, small purses, cameras, coats, items for care of infants, laptop computers, crutches, canes, walkers, containers carrying life sustaining items, a special needs item, musical instruments, or diplomatic or consular bags."
This statement is full of ambiguities like "small purses". Furthermore, when they did the third screening after the metal detectors and xrays they patted me down and asked me to turn on my "electronics". My iphone's battery was completely dead and would not turn on. The security guy stood there with a dumbfounded look on his face telling me I had to go back and "xray" the device. I reminded him it was made of metal and would have set off the detector had I not xrayed it already. Another dumbfounded look. He "let that one slide" and proceeded to my laptop. It did turn on, in my mind, only proving that had I had some sort of explosive inside it my triggering system was operational and the battery that could be used to ignite it had power. Please help me understand:
How 1 carry on instead of 2 makes us safer?
How one can know based on these rules what is and is not allowed?
What does turning on an electronic device do for security?
What good the last point is if the device is simply out of battery and is therefore still allowed through.
Should they have forced me to "turn on" my electronic over the ear large Bose head sets?
Thank you.
TSA, you guys are seriously taking things WAY too far.
Security is just an utter joke now. What happened to the times back in the day where aviation was actually a JOY, especially to aviation enthusiasts? Now it's an utter "lockdown" of any form of freedom or enjoyability.
Yes, I agree that you should arrest bombers and terrorists and people who carry such items on board, but arresting innocent people unaware of the rules or shutting down an airport entirely and fining people hefty amounts is just INSANE, STUPID, and UNNECESSARY.
Get that through your minds, TSA.
FULL flight security will NEVER be reached unless baggage (carry-on or checked) is prohibited ENTIRELY and everybody flies naked.
Positive note:
Looks as if TSA is starting to clean its own house. Good job.
“I just flew back from Canada…”
Then why are you presenting your questions to the US government????
@carp:
"Good job guys. Cost me as much in gas as the round trip would have too."
But just think of the small carbon footprint you left on the world.
(PS - my word verification was FRESH - which is how you left our air by not flying. Thank you for choosing to drive.)
TSO Jacob, please explain to us completely how checking ID has anything at all to do with security.
You can't do it, can you? You know why? Because it doesn't.
I just don't understand the logic of the TSAs critics. They say nothing the TSA does works. I wish everyone who is unhappy with the TSA security policies would write their own idea of how to prevent weapons and bomb parts from getting on a plane. I'll bet they can't. I can guarrantee you that the TSA officers want to have much stricter rules and profiling of passengers like on EL Al flights but that the ACLU has their hands tied. I see alot of people complaining but nobody coming up with solutions. All I hear is "I don't want to be touched, I don't want to be seen in my underwwear. I want to carry my knife or gun on a plane because it's my right".
For everyone who says the TSA isn't trying to do a good job, may i suggest they take a month off and let anyone who wants to fly with no security in. no lines, no ID check, no metal detectors. No bomb sniffing dogs. Everyone flies with a ticket that reads John Doe. Yeah, bring back the good old days.
This Blog needs a new policy. you can't post a gripe without a solution to your gripe that would make flying 100% safe and not involve touching you, seeing you or your property. Ready, set go.
@Anonymous: "FBI taking down terrorists nearly every month of last year in the United States, and some of you people think it would be just as safe without TSA? I guarantee if Mr. Abdulmutallab had tried to come through an American checkpoint, he would have been caught. Go ahead and do away with our security procedures, see how quickly those odds change."
I'd take that bet - and you'd lose.
Once again, we see the straw man that if you don't like TSA's brand of security that you must not want security at all. Can you apologists and TSA folks try a different, intelligent argument please?
The fact of the matter is that despite TSA's incompetence, we're still safer flying than with many other things including auto travel, train travel, and lightning. I'd dare bet that we'd still be just as safe if we went to 9/10/01 screening standards as we are now with TSA's "security."
Earl
Jacob, Behavioral detection was deployed in Amsterdam and was an EPIC fail. How do you reconcile that with it being good science? And considering TSA's other "science", how can you call it science at all?
TSA seems to be the only one that believes this "science." If anything, it's more of an art and it's not one a spotnik will learn in a 4 day course and some OJT.
Earl
Anonymous said...
Why does TSA always wait for something to happen before strengthing security? We know where the vulnerabilities are; do we really have to wait for somebody to try and exploit them first?
TSA can only do what the people allow them to. TSAs hands are tied by the many advocates that dislike what TSA does. If you want a good solid security you will never have it in the USA because of advocates. If something were to ever happen within the USA aviation infrastructure then everyone would blame the TSA but it is those very people that also want to limit the TSA and what they can do to provide security.
-James
It seems to me that at a certain point the TSA cannot be held responsible for the safety of a flight. We're looking here at the case of a flight originating outside the United States. Unless TSA agents are placed internationally there is nothing to be done by the agency about such flights.
It must also be considered at what point it is worth the effort. It's easy to say that any cost is worth it to protect American lives, but if that was the case we'd have agents screening every flight internationally with so much as a single American citizen on it. Clearly absurd.
Carp says ---
ANY measure that simply moves these extremely rare events from air planes to movie theaters is simply, not working.
-------------------------
As far as the TSA goes, I think movie theaters is of little concern. If they provide enough anti-terrorism security measures such that terrorists give up on aviation, I think they've done their job.
@Frequent Flyer: "This Blog needs a new policy. you can't post a gripe without a solution to your gripe that would make flying 100% safe and not involve touching you, seeing you or your property. Ready, set go."
Does that mean your post wouldn't show up since it meets none of the criteria you listed?
After all, you griped and posed no real solution either.
And by the way - flying will NEVER be 100% safe. Nothing can ever be 100% safe.
The rest of your post is a straw man. Lots of things have been suggested in this blog - I've been here since the beginning. Try going back and reading things and you'll see. If people are getting upset with TSA and griping a lot, it's because what they're doing isn't effective and they don't answer questions or explain things when asked. Nonanswer answers aren't answers.
Earl
Earl Pitts is correct. I'd like to add one thing- TSA Bob- name ONE incident that the TSA prevented. I'm not talking about the the few idiots every month that bring their pistol or knife on (which I certainly hope you catch, but this is really elementary level)
Some idiot published the TSA manual on the internet. Good job. Nice tight security within TSA as well.
The ACLU certainly isn't helping, but one cannot blame the incompetence of the TSA on them. The TSA fails their tests how many times, Bob? Close to 3 out of 4 times. Correct me if that's wrong, Bob....tell us what the FAIL percentage is.
Run that one through your puffer. Oh, that's right, that doesn't work, either.
Here's an excellent article from the Wall Street Journal that all you TSA apologists would do well to read and LEARN from:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704130904574644651587677752.html
"For everyone who says the TSA isn't trying to do a good job, may i suggest they take a month off and let anyone who wants to fly with no security in. no lines, no ID check, no metal detectors. No bomb sniffing dogs. Everyone flies with a ticket that reads John Doe. Yeah, bring back the good old days. "
That's actually a great idea! ...and the basis for many states' concealed handgun laws. No matter how hard you try, gun control only keeps weapons out of the hands of the good guys, while the bad guys WILL find a way around your methods.
Let everyone carry weapons on board. No hijacking attempt will succeed, since any hijackng attempt will result in a bullet to the back. Same for anyone trying to light their shoes or underwear on fire. Why do our security methods focus on keeping everybody else defenseless?
As for "behavior detection", I don't see how that's effective either. If I were a sophisticated terrorist, I'd cooperate with TSA and all it's bogus security measures by showing my valid ID and trying to blend into the rest of the public as much as possible. My weapons would be stuck where the sun don't shine and TSA would be none the wiser.
Unfortunately, the public and media expect a perfect security apparatus, something they'll never get because the bad guys are always one step ahead. Therefore, TSA tries to make it look like they have the ability to stop an attack, whereas everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that isn't the case. Really, TSA is more about maintaining people's confidence in flying than it is about anything else. And TSA can't admit that, or else public confidence would be destroyed.
Either way, the bad guys win unless everyone has the ability take everyone else out. Remember the cold war?
I am a retired LEO. I have been in two terror attacks. WTC 93 and 9-11 The one thing that remains the same is the lapse of memory of the American people and our leaders. We are at WAR. We must change our mental attitude about security. The TSA is only reacting to the flavor of the day. Whats the difference of being blown up by shoes or underware. A bomb is a bomb. Forget about being polictically correct.
Nice try Sandra. If you had read the “Israelification” article you would have discovered that the country that has been dealing with terrorists for 5 decades utilizes behavioral screening as their first line of defense. What better time is there to look someone in the eyes and see if they are up to something not so nice then when you are taking a peek at their ID? You can’t think of a better time, can you?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
@anonymous:
Someone already tried a rectally installed bomb for an assassination, it happened a few months back.
Turns out there are some logistical issues with making that plot work. If I remember right, the bomber was close enough to shake his target's hand and well... his target was quite shocked, but uninjured.
Kinda makes me sad, I mean, if people didn't think things had gone ridiculously too far with liquid bans and shoe scans, then maybe a good old fashioned anal probe would finally make the point.
So please, lets implement this...with no exceptions for anyone, ever, no matter who they are or who they work for. Period. (including TSA employees coming to work...never know who could be compromised! What if some terrorist kidnapped a TSA employees family like the IRA did for that bank job a few years back?)
Cavity searches for everyone! Might help us get over this ridiculousness.
A very strong point I want to push is the fact that the terrorist had to attempt his attack from a different country. If the terrorist or his organization thought he could do what he tried to do from inside the US where TSA operates then why didn't he do it? Because they can't get past TSA because TSA does work.
"Frequent Flyer" writes:
This Blog needs a new policy. you can't post a gripe without a solution to your gripe that would make flying 100% safe and not involve touching you, seeing you or your property. Ready, set go.
Making flying 100% safe isn't possible, period. It's not 100% safe now, and nothing anyone can do can make flying 100% safe. There will always be someone who will find a way to circumvent whatever procedures are put into place.
Since 100% safety isn't possible, we're left a far more difficult debate to have: how much safety, at what price? That's worthy of debate and discussion.
Anonymous said...
FBI taking down terrorists nearly every month of last year in the United States, and some of you people think it would be just as safe without TSA? I guarantee if Mr. Abdulmutallab had tried to come through an American checkpoint, he would have been caught. Go ahead and do away with our security procedures, see how quickly those odds change.
January 8, 2010 10:35 PM
.........................
How does any action accomplished by the FBI justify anything TSA has done?
How many terrorist did TSA take down in 2009? Since inception?
Anonymous said...
Positive note:
Looks as if TSA is starting to clean its own house. Good job.
January 9, 2010 4:52 PM
...................
Only what to clean house is to fire the lot of them.
Bob, when a person is screened by WBI is the screener looking at the image of the same sex?
The thing that keeps being left out is that this guy should have been on a no-fly list. His Dad even tried to turn him in...that seems to be where the failure was. As this was an American airline, if the U.S. gov't had said 'this person is a threat and should not be boarded without extra screening' this would have been handled by computers within Delta (at the gate). A buzzer or some such thing should have gone off and he should have been told to go wait over there and be searched.
As for the obvious response of old people and children on this list, then take them off. But when it is some guy who's own father thinks he has gone extremist, then that is where the failure was.
Oh, and boo hoo as to more Muslims being on that list. Funny, most terrorists in the 21st century have all been Muslim...odd that we may have more on the list than say 60 year old Baptists.
Those machines do no detect explosives.
Yes you previously state that;
If you wear an ostomy bag would you like that displayed? If you wear a catheter would you like that displayed? If you wear adult diapers would you like that displayed?
...................................
So let me try to understand. It can detect your bodily waste in bags straped to your leg, but you cant find a bulk mass of explosives on someone?
(Sandra said...
TSO Jacob, please explain to us completely how checking ID has anything at all to do with security.
You can't do it, can you? You know why? Because it doesn't.)
Well Only ticketed passengers are allowed into the sterile area and to make sure that the boarding pass they are holding is actually theirs, we check their ID and make sure there ID isn't fake.
So I don't see why you are so upset with having to show your ID.
@LucidLunacy
>It must also be considered at what point > it is worth the effort. It's easy to
> say that any cost is worth it to
> protect American lives,
Easy to say sure. There is also whats called a "point of diminishing returns".
Lets take cars. You add a seatbelt, easy, cheap. Saves lives. You add crumple zones. A bit more costly, saves lives. You add anti-lock brakes, a bit of expense, saves lives.
Thing is, as you make each thing safer you save more lives, and decrease the number of people who would die in car crashes, now there is a smaller number that will be saved from the next improvement.
At some point, each improvement is saving less and less lives, and costing more and more. You will never reach 100%, so the only logical conclusion is to pick a stopping point where adding more cost doesn't save as many lives as the last cost.
I have trouble believing that airport security failed to hit that point in 1985. Yes, locking the cockpit door helped a lot. Thats was an anomaly.
The simple fact is, beefing up the checkpoints has done absolutely nothing worthwhile at all. Sorry but its true. The point of diminishing returns is so ridiculously long passed.
Tragedy cannot be 100% prevented. This is exactly why this SHOULD be in the hands of private security firms who don't have to answer to congress and respond to fickle public opinion. Thats going to be demanding radical change every time someone farts on a plane.
-Steve
"... There is no "right to privacy" in the constitution. ..."
Really?
Amendment IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What part of that is so hard to understand? Really, come clean - tell us what your badge number is.
Hey, I don't know what all you commenters are getting so fired up about. Don't you know that Americans love invasions of privacy for the sake of security theatre?
Compare this report to the comments you are seeing here and the attitudes or your friends and relatives. Can you say "Corrupt Media Lies"?
CBS Poll: 3 in 4 citizens approve of body scan imaging.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/earlyshow/main6080816.shtml?tag=strip
Of those questioned, 74 percent said airports should use the controversial machines because they provide a detailed check for hidden weapons and explosives and reduce the need for physical searches. Just 20 percent said the machines should not be used because they see through a passenger's clothing and thus constitute an invasion of privacy.
Fifty-seven percent of the Americans questioned by CBS said they approved of the way the Obama administration responded to the attempted terrorist attack, while only 29 percent said they disapproved. The ratings are better than recent measures of President Obama's overall approval.
See what a well-timed underwear bomb can do for public relations?
If the "system worked", why are we making all these changes to the system?
Anonymous writes:
Well Only ticketed passengers are allowed into the sterile area and to make sure that the boarding pass they are holding is actually theirs, we check their ID and make sure there ID isn't fake.
So I don't see why you are so upset with having to show your ID.
But how do you know the boarding pass isn't fake? Especially since passengers can print boarding passes at home, it's relatively trivial to forge a boarding pass to match the name on the ID ...
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this story: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother. Could we learn from Israel on airport security?
==============
Israelification would be nice, but it's not practical. Mind you, Israel is the size of New Jersey. That's only one state... compared to the fifty states plus inhabited territories the TSA is required to cover.
I was originally going to write a long-winded response, but luckily, the folks at Foreign Policy magazine did that for me:
What would it cost for the U.S. to get Israel-level airport security?
The BDOs are based off the Israelis' behavior profiling concept, just modified because again... we just don't have the people or the money to pull it off Israeli style where every single passenger gets an interview.
Then again... since Israel is the size of New Jersey.... hmmm.
Maybe they could Israelify Newark (EWR).
Or better yet... have the PANYNJ install an millennia-old invention called...a DOOR!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/index.html
Body scanners can store, send images, group says
Bob, would you like to comment on the CNN article that contradicts your and TSA's claim that WBI cannot store images?
While your responding, are TSA employees who view WBI images looking at their both sexes?
Two simple questions Bob. Come on, how hard can it be?
Is there anything that is done to prevent terrorists from bombing the actual airport? If they can't get into a plane, what is going to stop them from detonating themselves before they do. In an international flight with hundreds of people in line, this could be catastrophic.
Listen folks, WBI machines are an essentail alement to enhanced screening procedures at airports in the US. Given the "underwear bomber" and any other ill intentioned person, and the fact the "the only limitation is the bomber's imagination", I would gladly submit to a whole body image if it meant that my flight was going to get to its destination safely. When people stop trying to blow up airplanes, then we can go back to the way things were before 9/11. But since that isn't going to happen anytime soon, embrace the technology and get on with your lives. Call it security theater, or whatever you want to call it, but if you get to your destination safely, then the system worked. Thank you Bob for sharing this information with us, it sheds a whole new light on the Christmas incident.
Can you please explain how you plan to resolve WBI images in the underwear area? Are you going to visually inspect all sanitary napkins and adult diapers?
___________________________________
Sanitary napkins and adult diapers are not dense materials. And explosive would be a bit heavier and more distinctive than those items. Move on to more intelligent questions!
Sandra: ID checks do have something to do with security. Every major organization that deals with individuals, also deals with identification of individuals. When you open a bank account, or cash a check you have to present ID. This shows the bank officials that you are who you say you are. When you apply for credit, you either have to show your id, or give them your license or id number, so they can check you out. When you apply for a job, you have to show ID along with your social security card, this tells the employer that you're not misrepresenting yourself. When you go into a bar and appear to be under drinking age, you have to show your id. ID was created for a reason, to let people know who you are. Its that simple. ID checks also allow TSOs to have a moment of the passenger's time, that casual conversation that takes place at airport TDC podiums has a purpose. I'm not flirting with you, I'm looking for inconsistencies in your behavior. Something that might tell me you're up to no good. I'm also checking the name on the ticket against the name on the ID, and the likeness of your face to the picture on the ID. If you're showing me a fraudulent ID, chances are YOU ARE up to no good. Simple as that. Also, given the fact that we have to look for passengers from countries that support terrorism, or other countries of interest, TDC is where we do that. People coming from those countries are designated for additional screening by the TDC officer. If id checks had nothing to do with security, then every state in the union would not be enhancing their licenses and id cards with security measures to ensure validity of the document. Look, its real simple, you want to get to your destination, I want to make sure that everyone boarding your plane has good intentions. I check your id, I send you on your way, you board your plane, you get to your destination safely. What else is there?
RB said...
Body scanners can store, send images, group says
Bob, would you like to comment on the CNN article that contradicts your and TSA's claim that WBI cannot store images?
While your responding, are TSA employees who view WBI images looking at their both sexes?
Two simple questions Bob. Come on, how hard can it be?
-----------------------------------
You should have read the rest of the article there RB. The devices can only store and/or transmit images when in test mode. They are not shipped to the TSA with this capability.
As for the same sex theory, hmmm. Viewing a black and white, 2 dimensional non-realistic image, is not something I would find fun, or even interesting. As I have said before of course.
Time to get back to realism there RB, the free reign of the “what if’s” gets old quickly.
RB said...
Bob, when a person is screened by WBI is the screener looking at the image of the same sex?
___________________________________
The TSO's will look at images of both female and male regardless of their own sex. That is why this is done in private so that the TSO looking at the image can not see the actual person that they see on the imager.
"Two simple questions Bob. Come on, how hard can it be?"
Clearly, at least as hard as asking whether the virtual strip-search images posted on this blog and in airports are of the same size and resolution seen by the operator of the machine, since Bob consistently refuses to answer that question.
Lessons from the case of the man who set his underpants on fire:
http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2010/01/08/lessons-from-the-case-of-the-man-who-set-his-underpants-on-fire/
TSOJacob said: "TSA knows that behavioral detection is a proven science and an effective means of security that is deployed in some of the most dangerous areas in the world." If TSA "knows" this, then why is it so hard to come up with a single peer-reviewed piece of scholarship (i.e. one not compiled by individuals who stand to profit from the program) to demonstrate how a few days of training can make you a human lie-detector. We've heard again and again about how great the Israelis are at this, but surely they get more than a week of training, no?
Sanitary napkins and adult diapers are not dense materials. And explosive would be a bit heavier and more distinctive than those items. Move on to more intelligent questions!
___________________________________
We need more intelligent answers first. Most sanitary napkins and diapers today have absorbent materials that are gels. We are repeatedly told here that gels are a concern for airport security. So either there is a plan on how to resolve the image of a low density material surrounding a denser gel-like (and liquid retaining) object in the intimate area, or you are not going to catch the one in a billion terrorist and do a lot of very invasive inspections.
Of course, the solution is simple - test for explosive traces. Do not look for images of objects on the body, which can be just about anything.
Tom showing an ID at the bank, etc. (which, BTW, only became necessary as a provision of the hastily thrown-together and so-called "Patriot" Act) only proves that I look like the person whose picture is on the ID, not that I am, in fact, the person whom I claim to be.
TSORon says:
You should have read the rest of the article there RB. The devices can only store and/or transmit images when in test mode. They are not shipped to the TSA with this capability.
And who says those machines couldn't be altered at a later date to have that capability? Just because a feature has been "disabled" in ordinary usage doesn't mean that they couldn't be re-enabled in the future ...
Why is it that everyone in the US is focused on A terrorist who may carry A bomb on board an airliner and blow the plane and 200+ people up in the air???? Has it ever occurred to anyone how incredibly easy it would be to roll three or four carry on bags into the TSA screening area and right there blow themselves and everyone around them, including the screening equipment to smithereens??? I was at Denver airport recently and a well placed carry on bag would have disabled the entire airport and killed about 600+ persons. Bagdad has it figured out in that you have to clear security about .25 miles from the acutal airport and you are then BUSSED to the airport. TALK ABOUT A FATAL FLAW in US security?!?!?! How about some stimulus dollars to fix this flaw BEFORE it happens...
Newsflash to everyone bashing the body imaging units: I know two planeloads of Russians who sure wish (posthumously) those machines had been in use in Moscow when two Chechnyan women went through screening with suicide vests on. And to everyone who thinks TSA's people are lusting to see them nekkid - if the Christmas Day Fruit of the Boom Undie Bomber had been successful, I'm sure those hundreds of persons falling out of the sky to their flaming deaths would have been very comforted by the fact that nobody saw their naked electronic images. It's a brutal world out there, people - there are those who are trying to kill us.
TSORon said...
RB said...
Body scanners can store, send images, group says
Bob, would you like to comment on the CNN article that contradicts your and TSA's claim that WBI cannot store images?
While your responding, are TSA employees who view WBI images looking at their both sexes?
Two simple questions Bob. Come on, how hard can it be?
-----------------------------------
You should have read the rest of the article there RB. The devices can only store and/or transmit images when in test mode. They are not shipped to the TSA with this capability.
As for the same sex theory, hmmm. Viewing a black and white, 2 dimensional non-realistic image, is not something I would find fun, or even interesting. As I have said before of course.
Time to get back to realism there RB, the free reign of the “what if’s” gets old quickly.
January 11, 2010 2:53 PM
..................
I appreciate that you have taken on the responsibility of responding for TSA. I hope your responses are official TSA positions otherwise it means nothing.
The article from CNN that your using to say images are not able to be saved or transmitted is statements from TSA. We already know that TSA is pretty loose with the truth.
Why would TSA require the capability to save images in the contract specifications if there was no intent to use that ability at some point.
At this point I will listen to the disenters.
The second point, I just asked if a screener would be viewing people of both sexes. Nothing more. Why did you feel a need to go beyond the question?
I do think that many people knowing this would object to WBI. Why hasn't TSA provided this information along with actual full size images as seen by the screener for the public?
Only one reason, TSA knows it would cause some serious pushback.
TSORon, my suggestion to use is to not speak for TSA unless you first have their authorization to do so. Your a poor public representative for your agency.
Justin V. (Chicago) said...
Is there anything that is done to prevent terrorists from bombing the actual airport? If they can't get into a plane, what is going to stop them from detonating themselves before they do. In an international flight with hundreds of people in line, this could be catastrophic
***********************************
Yes Justin, this could be catastrophic indeed. However, the average suicide bomber, as you can recall from the last attempts, and or plots, is to blow up a plane in mid air usually over the ocean somewhere to minimize recovery/rescue operations. Yeah they could detonate in an airport terminal, unlikely but it could happen, and yes measures are in place to minimize/prevent that from happening. Again, these people want to make major impact, they want to make major statements, they don't want to blow up an airport, they want to blow up a plane because it causes fear....fear of flying, blow up a train it makes people want to stay away from that mode of transportation. Get the point, Justin? Bomb sniffing dogs, high police presence, etc are all detterents to airport bombings. But once on the plane, there is nothing but the bomber, the passengers, and the crew...maybe an air marshall but that isn't guaranteed either. Mostly all the obstacles are gone once the bomber has boarded the plane.
Bob -- I thought the images couldn't be stored and/or transmitted? Looks like you lied again.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/airport-scanners
[part 1 of 2]
Tom wrote:
"ID checks do have something to do with security."
In your entire post, you never said what that was.
"Every major organization that deals with individuals, also deals with identification of individuals.
No, they don't. For example: NFL doesn't know who enters its stadiums. McDonald's doesn't know who enters its restaurants. The Post Office doesn't know who puts letters in mailboxes. U.S. National Parks Service doesn't know who enters our parks. Your state department of transportation doesn't know who drives on your roads and bridges. There are many more examples.
"When you open a bank account, or cash a check you have to present ID. This shows the bank officials that you are who you say you are."
No, you don't. Most banks require this, but that's a private matter between you and a bank. If you don't like it, you can choose to do business with another bank or none at all. Those who do it do so for good reason -- if they're going to hold your money then give it back to you, you're going to want them to make sure it's really you. When you cash a check, the bank is obligated to try to ensure that you are the person to whom the check was written. It's highly unlikely that they could do business without these procedures.
"When you apply for credit, you either have to show your id, or give them your license or id number, so they can check you out."
Again, you don't have to, but that's common practice with private businesses that lend money. But they don't have to request proof of identity and you don't have to provide it. They probably wouldn't be very successful lending money to anonymous borrowers, but they don't have to identify people to whom they lend, and you're under no obligation to identify yourself to any lender. If you do do, you do it by choice. The alternative is to go on about your business without interference from that lender.
"When you apply for a job, you have to show ID along with your social security card, this tells the employer that you're not misrepresenting yourself."
I'm not positive, but I assume that this is up to employers, and that they do so because they want to provide accurate information to the IRS. But again, this is between two private individuals. You make your own arrangements, or none at all. It's up to you. You don't have to show them anything. The alternative is to go on about your business. You can apply for a different job, or none at all.
"When you go into a bar and appear to be under drinking age, you have to show your id."
No, you don't. In practice, many such businesses will not allow you entry to their private property unless you convince them that you are of drinking age, but you're under no obligation to do so. If you do, it's because of a mutual agreement.
"ID was created for a reason, to let people know who you are. Its that simple."
I'm not sure what you mean by "ID", but keep in mind that identification is a process, not something you can hand over, and that we all have identities. Did you mean that proof of identification is meant to let you proove your identity? No kidding.
--
Phil
Arrested at ABQ airport TSA checkpoint November 2009 (Google it with my last name, Mocek -- Bob won't allow links to details)
[part 2 of 2]
Further quoting Tom, who wrote:
"ID checks also allow TSOs to have a moment of the passenger's time, that casual conversation that takes place at airport TDC podiums has a purpose."
"Also"? You've yet to say what else ID checks allow TSOs to have.
"[When you're walking through an airport minding your own business and I stop you on behalf of the U.S. government, then require you to identify yourself to me in order to avoid having me restrict your freedom of movement,] I'm not flirting with you, I'm looking for inconsistencies in your behavior. Something that might tell me you're up to no good. I'm also checking the name on the ticket against the name on the ID, and the likeness of your face to the picture on the ID. If you're showing me a fraudulent ID, chances are YOU ARE up to no good."
If I'm serious about my intentions, chances are that neither you nor the other hundreds of TSA document checkers is going to recognize my identification card as fraudulent. And if I was part of an organization that was up to no good, we'd just keep sending people through on harmless trips until we find one who is not given the special treatment. Then we'll send him back through to cause trouble without any of your interference.
"Look, its real simple, you want to get to your destination, I want to make sure that everyone boarding your plane has good intentions."
Look, this is real simple. Stick to keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off of airplanes, and leave the guessing about people's intentions out, okay? In this country, we're not supposed to punish people or restrict their liberties in any way based on the hunch of some guy working airport security.
Quoting the Identity Project page I mentioned above:
"What does an ID, any ID, do for security? The honest answer is 'not much'. If anything, relying on ID for security purposes actually makes things worse: a false sense of security fosters complacency.
"Showing ID only affects honest people. If you're dishonest, you can obtain false documents or steal the identity of an honest person.
"If a 19 year-old college student can get a fake ID to drink, why couldn't a bad person get one, too? And no matter how sophisticated the security embedded into the ID, wouldn't a well-financed terrorist be able to falsify that, too? The answer to both questions is obviously 'yes'.
"Honest people, on the other hand, go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel? The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.
[...]
"Every government that has imposed totalitarian rules told its populace that it was doing so to "uphold freedom" or "improve the security of the homeland" or "root out terrorists and subversives." These ends do not justify unconstitutional means. We uphold freedom by exercising it – not by restricting it."
--
Phil
Arrested at ABQ airport TSA checkpoint November 2009 (Google it with my last name, Mocek -- Bob won't allow links to details)
It's a miracle that we did not loose another 100's perhaps 1000's of lives. Hopefully this incident makes us all realize how dangerous terrorists are.
Why won't the TSA address the number of cancer deaths expected due to X-Ray screening? It's now know that CAT scans kill more than 14,000 Americans every year.
The TSA has lied when they told us the scanners won't store and transmit pictures. Why should we believe you when you tell us they won't kill us?
Of course, I have no confidence you'll let this comment be posted, or refrain from sending TSOs to my door to threaten me for criticizing the government, so we'll see.
TSORon:
"You should have read the rest of the article there RB. The devices can only store and/or transmit images when in test mode. They are not shipped to the TSA with this capability."
Yeah, that's what we're told now, after the documents in question came to light. Before we were repeatedly told the machines don't have the capability at all.
The facts, as of right now, are: the machines can potentially store and transmit images when in test mode. We don't know what's involved in enabling this test mode -- or whether it can be enabled. We do know that what we've been told so far is at best incomplete. I won't call it an outright lie.
Personally I have no problem with body-scanners, although what you will find out is that the technology leaves a lot to be desired and won't significantly improve contraband detection. But I digress...
What I have a problem with is the lack of even a modicum of transparency and sanity when it comes to the TSA.
Also the complete and utter incompetence that some TSA staff demonstrate repeatedly doesn't help bolster the public's confidence in the organization as a whole.
Consider this true example:
A friend of mine from Europe came to visit me in LAS. After spending New Year's in Las Vegas he flew from LAS to BOS to visit some other friends. He showed the document checker his only piece of ID: a European passport. The TSA guy blankly stared the document up and down and said: "You can't use a passport to travel in the United States. This is for customs." After the document center at the next stand informed him that passports are, indeed, a valid form of ID, this guy proceeded to open the passport, presumably check the passport's information page, only to ask "What country is this passport from" despite the fact that the name was clearly emblazoned in large gold-foiled print on the front of the passport and on the top of the information page.
Which brings me to what TSO Jacob said: "Love the ID checks, but for some reason the American people don’t believe security has anything to do with checking your ID."
Even if we assume, arguendo, that checking ID improved the security of the flying public, that assumption rests on having TDCs who can reliably check those IDs to ensure that they are, indeed, original, valid and untampered.
Instead we have TDCs who don't know that a passport is a valid piece of ID for travel within the United States or how to tell what country that passport is from. Remember, these are the individuals the TSA says have undergone special training specifically that enables them to magically identify bogus travel documents. So forgive me if I don't buy the notion that having some guy who took a 30-minute video course check IDs magically makes me safer.
Because time and again, TDCs have demonstrated that they wouldn't know an invalid piece of ID if it had "INVALID" written over it. And time and time again, we are given excuses.
TSORon doesn't know what consitutes valid ID? We get "he doesn't see many nexus cards" which somehow makes it OK.
14 year old boy uses his mother’s credit card to purchase a plane ticket and boards a flight using his mother’s name without showing ID? We get social commentary like "[w]ith names like Moon Unit, Apple, etc., I’m not shocked by anyone’s name anymore." We didn't ask you to be shocked, and we don't care if you are.
So TSO Jacob, do forgive the American public's cynicism. They do think checking ID is somewhat important. It's just that they also think that the TDCs should be competent.
Of course all the competent TDCs in the world won't help when people can acquire genuine ID documents with bogus certificates as a GAO investigator did. But that's a whole 'nother story, isn't it?
> I would gladly submit to a whole body
> image if it meant that my flight was
> going to get to its destination safely.
> When people stop trying to blow up
> airplanes, then we can go back to the
> way things were before 9/11.
Excuse me, do we even live in the same universe? Stop blowing up planes? When did they start?!?
This is the second attempt that I am aware of, which even managed to get on a plane with explosives. It is also the second one to utterly fail.
Look at Bojinka, realize that conspiracy was responsible for multiple plane explosions... a significant number of the ones that have EVER happened in the ENTIRE WORLD. Those guys are no longer operating (dead if I remember right)
SO really, we have a few, very rare incidents. You going through a scanner is going to have absolutely no measurable effect on whether your plane makes it safely anywhere.
Seriously, I wish security were an opt-in by the airline. I would choose to fly on the airline that opted for the LEAST amount. In fact, I feel perfectly safe getting on a plane where my fellow passengers don't even go through a metal detector.
Every time I get on a bus, thats the exact situation I am in. I would have no problem doing the same on a plane.
Just because you want to help Ossama convince people, of the ridiculous proposition, that they should be afraid and to fear him and his people's tactics, doesn't mean that I want to help too.
I am just not that afraid of these bogeymen. I do not support your war on bogeymen.
I support living life in a normal manner and dealing with tragedy in a mature and level headed fashion. Cry, and Grieve sure. Cower in fear and become all paranoid and looking for evil everywhere? Ridiculous. Go talk to your doctor about inappropriate fear if air travel scares you that much.
-Steve
@TOM
> ID checks do have something to do with
> security. Every major organization that
> deals with individuals, also deals with
> identification of individuals. When you
> open a bank account, or cash a check
> you have to present ID. This shows the
> bank officials that you are who you say
> you are.
Nice try, but wrong.
Banks ask for ID because federal law forces them to. If banks are left up to their own devices, they could (and have) come up with mechanisms to, safely, offer anonymous accounts. Verification of authenticity can be done in numerous ways.
ID checks are primarily done so that the federal government can more easily enforce tax law.
As such, from the individuals viewpoint, they make him less safe. It means one more place where is identifying information can be stored and stolen. It means the federal government can track down his money, and take it.
Really, the ID check does nothing for the individuals safety. All it does is help his government keep tabs on him.
Really...it sounded nice, but you are just wrong. Look at how hard the swiss fought for so long to keep anonymous accounts. Gee, you think some of the worlds most influential bankers would do anything that lowers their own security? I think not.
-Steve
Isrealification wouild NOT be nice.
Again, why? Not until the bogeymen manage to make air travel more dangerous than car travel, over the same distance, do I want there to be more security involved in my plane flights than in my car drive.
I don't go through metal detectors to get in my car. I don't get patted down, or put through a strip search machine. I don't even get asked if I packed my own bags (seriously, has anyone ever said no?).
Yet despite all this, driving my car is many times more dangerous than flying. I would sleep like a baby on my flight after going through no checkpoint, paying in cash for my ticket, showing no ID, and knowing that everyone else could have done the same.
Sleep like a baby I tell you. No danger at all.
-Steve
TSA is starting to do a good job at shaking out the problems. I've often thought the emotional and personality problems displayed by TSA staff were drug based. Let us hope they keep up the good work.
First, the Constitution does contain a right to privacy -- though not explicit, it is implied (and the Constitution is not a grant of rights; it is a grant of power from the people to the government). In any event, that is not the primary constitutional issue.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits searches without probable cause. The whole search protocol violates the Fourth Amendment, as will the use of full-body scanners. You don't treat millions of people like potential criminals by subjecting them to unconstitutional searches just because an unstable boy clumsily tries to blow up a plane (or because a few hundred "terrorists" mean us harm).
If this process is ok with you because it makes you feel "safe," perhaps you would prefer to live in a police state. (I'm sure it's "safer" in North Korea.) Think of of it this way: We know that a crime might be committed in New York tonight. Should we search everyone's home to to find the potential instrumentality or plan? FYI: The Constitution does not even permit such a dragnet search after a crime has been committed, let alone before.
There have to be better ways to deal with this issue than to subject millions of innocent citizens to unnecessary searches and to prohibit same from carrying benign items (e.g., water, contact lens solution, yogurt) onto planes.
But please, Americans, don't let your fear of a remotely possible event lead you to abandon your Constitution.
RB said,
Body scanners can store, send images, group says
"Bob, would you like to comment on the CNN article that contradicts your and TSA's claim that WBI cannot store images?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As is the case with much of the technology that is used by TSA, they have many functions that are not available to the officers that are using the equipment. These functions can be disabled by the proprietor of the software that is in the computer that is being used in the WBI. Many of the scanners that are currently being used have a vast array of functions that are in a sense turned off, so that only the engineers have access to them. If the software/hardware inside the computer does not allow the operator to store, send or copy the images, then they can't. Also, the engineers wouldn't have access to a library of images as they were not stored by the operator as that function was not activated.
This is what I know to be true with much of the current equipment used by TSA and I suspect, it would be that same if the WBI had functions that TSA did not want the officers to have access to.
CNN says that the Whole Body Scanners can, in fact, store and send images it takes.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/index.html
We had a long drawn out discussion about ths in a forum I am a regular on. we came to the conclusion that the previous efforts in airport and international security measures were better than they are now. I think something needs to be done soon but I'm sure it will eventually.
Thank you, Carp, for adding an extra dash of sanity to the rest of us who feel the TSA needs to justify their existence (and funding).
Seriously, I wish security were an opt-in by the airline. I would choose to fly on the airline that opted for the LEAST amount. In fact, I feel perfectly safe getting on a plane where my fellow passengers don't even go through a metal detector.
I am just not that afraid of these bogeymen. I do not support your war on bogeymen.
If there were two planes available, one with TSA "protection" and one without, I would take the 'without' option every day of the week.
If, by some outrageous chance, my plane got blown up, then I was the one who made the decision to risk that. Not the decision of some pompous self-serving Congressman who has never flown on a commercial airline or gone through the security theatre. I will sign any paper indicating that it was wholly my decision.
It is all about freedom. The same freedom that lets people play football and skydive, even though these activities are "dangerous".
Your own government wants to scare you into submission.
Ranger11 said...
RB said,
Body scanners can store, send images, group says
"Bob, would you like to comment on the CNN article that contradicts your and TSA's claim that WBI cannot store images?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As is the case with much of the technology that is used by TSA, they have many functions that are not available to the officers that are using the equipment. These functions can be disabled by the proprietor of the software that is in the computer that is being used in the WBI. Many of the scanners that are currently being used have a vast array of functions that are in a sense turned off, so that only the engineers have access to them. If the software/hardware inside the computer does not allow the operator to store, send or copy the images, then they can't. Also, the engineers wouldn't have access to a library of images as they were not stored by the operator as that function was not activated.
This is what I know to be true with much of the current equipment used by TSA and I suspect, it would be that same if the WBI had functions that TSA did not want the officers to have access to.
January 12, 2010 12:59 PM
................
If the feature to store images is just turned off then to state that WBI do not have that capability is not true. The capability is in fact built into the machine.
The contract specifications apparently do require that the capability to store images is built in.
Who is to know if TSA decides to do a software upgrade a few weeks from now that enables that feature?
I don't think anyone should trust TSA on any point. This is an example why!
TSA abuses the truth and does not deserve the trust of the people.
Other examples: TSA claims WBI are safe for school children to view. Yet network news will not show images without masking intimate areas. Why?
TSA PIA says travelers will give consent to WBI after being provided a brocher explaining the process. But no brochures were available. Why ?
TSA stated WBI signage would be placed in front of machines so travelers could see what the images looked like. But in reality signage was missing, hidden, placed out of sight lines so the traveler never had the opportunity to see said signs nor give proper consent to WBI screening. Why?
WBI may be the very best that is available but why has TSA mislead the public from day one?
I'd like to see the TSA explain this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/12/national/main6087950.shtml
Someone with an infectious, communicable disease is extremely dangerous to the health and well-being of their fellow passengers. This person made it on a plane despite all the recent claims about stepped up security.
Carp said in part:
As such, from the individuals viewpoint, they make him less safe. It means one more place where is identifying information can be stored and stolen. It means the federal government can track down his money, and take it.
***********************************
Show me where TSA officers are storing identifying information? Bottom line, ID checks are part of the process. You guys are really starting to irritate me with your contstant badgering and complaints about "privacy" "constitutional rights" etc. Some idiot tries to blow up a plane and all you can do is whine about your rights. GET OVER IT! If security were lax for just one day, and a major incident occurred that brought the airline industry to its knees, this is what the headline would read, "TSA relaxes security measures allowing catastrophie to occur". Everybody would be up in arms that TSA didn't DO MORE to prevent it from happening. Cry and moan and whine all you want but this is the society you live in.
@Kyle B.
Actually, have to step out of Congress bashing character for a minute (please, don't make me do that, it kinda hurts).
Its not exactly correct to claim that congresscritters never fly commercial TSA protected airlines...
Just a few years ago, Ted Kennedy found himself grounded on the no-fly list. Of course, a man with his clout and easy recognition was able to get the situation rectified pretty fast. Not so sure that peons like us would have so easy a time.
Though still, a pretty ridiculous gaffe which calls into question why we even have a list.
-Steve
Obama Administration ends Ban on AIDS visitors/immigrants to U.S.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/united-states-ends-22-year-hiv-travel-ban/story?id=9482817
If the TSA and Government intend to have us believe that they are concerned for their citizens' "safety", maybe the left hand shouldn't be doing the opposite of what the right hand is doing...
Incredible.
> You don't treat millions of people like > potential criminals by subjecting them > to unconstitutional searches just
> because an unstable boy clumsily tries
> to blow up a plane (or because a few
> hundred "terrorists" mean us harm).
Never forget to put your numbers in perspective. A few hundred terrorists might scare someone if you don't phrase it correctly:
"A few hundred terrorists our of over 6 billion mostly decent human beings"
See, much less scary. That is a ratio of um... lets round up from a few hundred to 1000... 6 million to 1.
Then add that at least half of the really serious ones can't even seem to get a working plot together before they execute, and its maybe 12 million to one?
Sound fair?
Of course, thats only if you count the real terrorists and not legitimate freedom fighters.
Clearly anyone in Iraq fighting US or our puppet government's forces can't be called such... afterall, I would personally take a dim view on anyone who wouldn't fight a foreign occupier here in America (or worst... collaborators!)... so I can't, in good conscience, blame them for doing what I, or any red blooded American would do if the situation were reversed.
So that probably does disqualify all but a small handful. A few hundred at best.
-Steve
RB,
I was just giving you a possible explanation to your submitting of the CNN story that concluded that the WBI do have the capability to store and send images. Many of the scanners and x-ray machines already have those abilities and are not functional, and have never been.
I agree with you when you say that to state that the equipment does not have a capability that it indeed does have would be wrong. To date, I have not been given information that either supports what I have given as an explanation, or that what you submitted from CNN is actually the case with the WBI's that are being ordered and deployed throughout the United States.
I can't even state that I would want or feel comfortable having my children go through one of the WBI Machines. What would I tell my kids the WBI is going to do? If I do tell them, how will they feel? I know that I am not totally convinced that it is 100% effective and even necessary. My kids fly to see me several times a year, it is a real possibility that they may have to experience this first hand. Again, I am not sure that I am ok with this either. I just try to give as much factual information when and where I can to help all parties better understand what it is they are dealing with.
The Transportation Security Administration is a waste of resources and tax-payer money. This is an embarassment to our nation. A stress for our citizens, and
who let's this kind of stuff happen?
The TSA is a FAILURE!
TSO Wrong...
Speaking as an engineer, any capability that has been turned off is a capability that can be turned on. Any capability that has been degraded is a capability that can be restored.
So the TSA has them shipped with "store images" turned off. Whoop de doo.
So the TSA has the images downgraded to the point where it looks like an over-exposed black-and-white negative. Whoop de doo.
Let me know when the machines actually do not have the capability the TSA assures us they do not have.
Aaron Kinney said...
"CNN says that the Whole Body Scanners can, in fact, store and send images it takes."
While the equipment has the capability of collecting and storing an image, the image storage functions will be disabled by the manufacturer before the devices are placed in an airport and will not have the capability to be activated by operators. Images will be maintained on the screen only for as long as it takes to resolve any anomalies; if a TSO sees a suspicious area or prohibited item, the image will remain on the screen until the item is cleared either by the TSO recognizing the item on the screen, or by a physical screening by the TSO with the individual. The image is deleted in order to permit the next individual to be screened. The equipment does not retain the image. In addition, TSOs will be prohibited from bringing any device into the viewing area that has any photographic capability, including cell phone cameras. Rules governing the operating procedures of TSOs using this WBI equipment are documented in standard operating procedures (SOP), and compliance with these procedures is reviewed on a routine basis. Due to the sensitivity of the technical and operational details, the SOP will not be publicized, however, TSOs receive extensive training prior to operating WBI technology.
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Anonymous said...
"Why won't the TSA address the number of cancer deaths expected due to X-Ray screening? It's now know that CAT scans kill more than 14,000 Americans every year.
The TSA has lied when they told us the scanners won't store and transmit pictures. Why should we believe you when you tell us they won't kill us?"
The American College of Radiology (ACR) recently released a statement vouching for the safety of each type of WBI. "The ACR is not aware of any evidence that either of the scanning technologies that the TSA is considering would present significant biological effects for passengers screened."
Tim
TSA Blog Team
Blogger Bob,
Care to explain this?
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/11/tsa-lied-naked-scann.html
How long until pictures of children start making the rounds? Or say Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt? Or some Congressman?
What options are being put into place for those of us, who for biblical purposes don't allow anyone but our spouse or doctor see between our collar bone and our knees? (And no, I'm not a nutty Christian fundamentalist, I'm rather mainstream, but modest.)
We all know that which is abled, then disabled, can easily be re-abled. Having the capability at all, even shut off is problematic.
PATRICK SAID::::
I would truly like to know why the US Transportation overseers don't just scrap the whole TSA random screening nonsense in favor of something actually effective like the Israeli system, where they actually scrutinize people who are likely to be offenders. You know, rather than 10 year old boys and 85 year old grannies in wheelchairs.
***********************************
heres a reason for ya...LET ME TELL U A STORY....when my brother was in iraq there was a mentally handicapped boy about 11 or 12 yrs old.. he would come over and play with the soldiers kick balls arund with eachother and whatnot and he came by everyday one day his father decided he didnt want his son playing with the soldiers anymore in fact he didnt want the soliders around at all so he strapped a suicide vest to his kid and sent him out to play with his solider friends...im sure u can figure out the rest of that story....a few soldiers were injusred when the vest went off but nothing serious... would u have ever seen it coming from the handicapped little boy? no cuz u never would have checked him since all you would have seen is a 10yr old kid... make sense yet? we dont know who is guna make the next move...so just sticking to one race, age group, or sex isnt going to do any good whatsoever it could come from anybody at any time
"Many of the scanners that are currently being used have a vast array of functions that are in a sense turned off,"
"in a sense turned off"
What the heck does that mean?
Rep. Chaffetz wrote an article in this week's Newsweek outlining his opposition to the Nude-o-Scope. Some highlights:
Quote:
Early last year Salt Lake City International Airport began testing a new device called a whole-body-imaging (WBI) scanner. The process seemed simple enough: people pass through the scanner with their arms above their heads, then wait a few seconds while a screener reviews the image. Last spring I met with the Transportation Security Administration in Utah to find out more about it. I had seen some of the images in news stories and on television—but, as I learned, there's a big difference between the two-inch image in the newspaper and the one the TSA sees on an oversize screen. As I looked at those detailed images, I imagined my wife and children having to pass through that scanner. I resolved that no one should be forced to expose their body to total strangers to secure an airplane. ENDQUOTE
So all this time people reading and posting to this blog have been asking over and over again for actual WBI images have learned the truth.
TSA has never revealed to the public actual images in the size and resolution that a screener sees.
How can TSA make any claim that the public accepts this form of screening when it uses falsehoods to advance its position?
Another example of why TSA cannot be trusted.
TSO Ron,
I am an engineer. Therefore I know that any capability that has been turned off can be turned back on. Any capability that has been downgraded can be reset to its original level.
And you tell us that the child porn machines are good because a capability has been downgraded and a capability has been turned off.
Can you see why I'm skeptical?
Bob, why did you reject this post last time? Or are you holding it for my post asking about rejection so you can post both at once in an attempt to make one of your harshest critics appear silly?
Here is an interesting article for anyone who wants to know where the future of TSA should be going.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/11/yeffet.air.security.israel/index.html
Amendment IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If you don’t want the police to search your house don’t invite them inside. If you don’t want the TSA to search you don’t voluntarily walk up to a checkpoint and asked to be searched. The government cannot compel you to be searched without a search warrant or YOUR PERMISSION.
Jannis said...
Amendment IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If you don’t want the police to search your house don’t invite them inside. If you don’t want the TSA to search you don’t voluntarily walk up to a checkpoint and asked to be searched. The government cannot compel you to be searched without a search warrant or YOUR PERMISSION.
January 14, 2010 8:08 AM
............
While your statement is true there is really no reason for government to be providing security to private business.
In the case of the airlines and airports it should be the responsibility of those companies to secure their property.
TSA is nothing more than a workfare project for the unemployable.
Read the New York Times, the kid is on the watch list! You guys are Incompetent liars!
"No 8-year-old is on a TSA watch list. Airlines can and should automatically de-select any 8-year-olds out there that appear to be on a watch list. Whether you're eight or 80, the most common occurrence is name confusion and individuals are told they are on the no fly list when in fact, they are not. If you get a boarding pass, you’re not on the no fly list.
The no fly list is reserved for individuals that pose a known threat to aviation. The list is an important tool in our multi-layered approach to aviation security and is used daily to keep individuals that pose a threat to aviation off airplanes.
For more information on the list and to learn about the redress process for individuals that believe they may be on a watch list erroneously, click here."
Awesome.
Another inept response from the most joked about/ hated agency in the US. When was the last time the TSA actually stopped a threat before it took place? It's turned into a gestapo-like bureaucratic nightmare full of inflated egos. Keep frisking 8-year olds and confiscating bottled water. You stay classy TSA.
No, Tom, I'm NOT going to get over it. Those rights and freedoms we enjoy are what separate us from places like China, North Korea, and other places that we've vilified since the advent of communism. If you don't want rights, go somewhere that doesn't have them.
TSA has constantly been moving the goal posts in asking us to give up more and more freedom. And for what? Every time they do, the terrorists find another way to exploit the hole. Security isn't lax for one day, it's lax EVERY DAY and is provided by your "friendly" neighborhood TSA. The fact that despite the abysmal failure they are that planes aren't falling out of the sky should tell you something about the threat we're facing.
Is it real? Yes. Is it real big? No.
Have you ever stopped to think about what a terrorist’s goal is? Is it to bring down a plane or inspire terror in the people that they will go crazy and cringe with fear? Blowing up a plane is a tactic. The terror is what we're experiencing right now because people are afraid. People are afraid of dying. Guess what? You drive to work, you get on the train, take the bus, etc. You're thousands of times more likely to die from that.
Every time people react like you do and want to give up more freedom, Osama and his buddies are laughing at us in his cave because we just became more like them. They don't like freedom and want to take it away from us. So why are we letting them do it?
Abraham Lincoln said (yes, the President our current POTUS idolizes): "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Terrorists are just a catalyst. They don't have to do anything. They can FAIL and still SUCCEED in their mission. They can sit in their caves and watch America implode just like it's doing now. Even this "failure" is a massive win for Al Qaida.
All because we're willing to give up liberty for safety. If we're willing to do that, we deserve neither.
You and others need to accept the fact that we can NEVER be 100% safe. Even in my own home, I could die falling down the steps if I land wrong and hit my head.
I'm willing to accept the risk. If it's my time to die, it's going to happen whether I'm at home, on a plane, or wherever.
If you want to be safe and live in a nerf world, find some other place. If you want to live in the real world in the America we used to be where we valued liberty and accept that life has risks, feel free to join us.
Let's think about thinks based on reality and not let our emotions get the best of us and make irrational decisions. Let's show some of the nerve and fortitude that our grandparents once had.
Mel Brooks was right when writing the script for Spaceballs. "Evil shall always triumph, because Good is dumb." As long as the good guys are dumb, we'll keep handing Al Qaida victory after victory.
If we really want to defeat the terrorists, we need to stop overreacting to every little thing they do. It's like when we were kids and other kids made fun of kids in school. The ones that made a big deal out of it kept it going. The ones that ignored it were left alone after awhile because it wasn't fun anymore.
We're a nation of wimps. It's mentalities like this that cower to terrorists that are destroying America.
Robert
I remember when I was a child, before I could join a school sports team, I had to drop my pants, and my underwear, a doctor grabbed my genitals and made me turn my head and cough. It was a requirement the school had to make sure I didn't have a hernia. Everybody had to do it. Well, the males anyway.
It was humiliating that I had to go through all that to play a game of soccer.
By comparison, flying on an airplane is a lot easier than playing a game of soccer.
People on this blog talk about the minute risk of a terrorist attack as if that is supposed to make airport security not worth the hassle and expense. Ask the victims of 9/11 if they think it's a waste of time. The risk is only minute because it's mitigated by many things including the passenger screening process. If you've ever stopped to listen to our enemies, they speak daily that they are going to attack and kill Americans and have come right out and said they will continue to target aviation.
I don't want *anybody* on my plane that hasn't been thoroughly screened. If you don't like it, take a bus.
When I was a child I made the decision that I would go through a process I didn't like in order to play soccer. Now it's your turn to be an adult and make a similar decision- and I bet that the 4 minutes it takes you to get through security will be a lot more pleasant than what I went through to play soccer.
The majority of us on the airplane want you to be screened. None of your whining on this blog is going to change that. Maybe instead of pointing your finger at the screeners or at the TSA you should be pointing your finger at all the passengers sitting around you who don't trust you and want you screened.
I'm a frequent flier and I hate going through security. But I do it because I know YOU have to do it too. For all I know, you're the next Timothy McVeigh.
Sorry folks, my link didn't copy correctly. Try this website to see where TSA security should be heading.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/ OPINION/01/11/ yeffet.air.security.israel /index.html
Failblog, what exactly am I supposed to be looking at? An airline representative who has some down time? A baggage service assistant who is on a break? A taxi driver who’s killing time until the tow truck arrives? You post this picture and claim it has something to do with TSA but you can’t see anyone from TSA in the picture. Why are you making up false accusations, try sticking to reality.
I just came back from Europe and for the US flight we were scanned twice! Once at the regular security for all airport passengers and once that is dedicated to US flights only.
Part I
Well, Tom, you talk about our Founding Fathers not being able to anticipate everything that we might have in society and I'd say you're absolutely right about that. However, when they wrote the Constitution, they also erred on the side of the people and protecting the rights of the people. It is a limit on the government. It does not say "Void in case of terrorism" or "Pick and choose which rights we'll suspend in the case of terrorism." Right now, we're looking at selective erosion of our rights. You might not think some of the measures are a big deal, but a lot of people do. Despite accepting a measure, people also acknowledge that they're giving up rights in the process - and are trading liberty/rights/freedom/whateveryouwanttocallit for that safety.
If you're such a believer in the Constitution and rights, why do you ridicule those that support them and tell us to "get over it"? These aren't imaginary rights we're talking about, Tom. We're talking about rights that have been codified in the Constitution and upheld by Supreme Court rulings. And with a lot of TSA actions and lawsuits, TSA has shown that it can't be trusted to err on the side of rights.
Supporting the subjection of anyone to searches that were previously only reserved for criminals simply for having the audacity to buy an airline ticket is not supporting rights, Tom, no matter how you try to spin it.
I'm in the security field as well and I agree that thing change. If you have been in the field for that long, you know that knee jerk reactions and fighting the last war are not prudent measures. That does not mean that security measures shouldn't be evaluated periodically - it does. However, such evaluation should come with risk analyses, cost/benefit analyses, and if the measure is even going to be effective. TSA does NONE of that. They throw solutions at the wall, hope one works and if it isn't effective, they call it a layer. Not only that, TSA is ignoring other areas that have big holes (apparently airport exit security, unscreened cargo, baggage thefts, and so forth). You can't sit there and lecture me that these mechanisms are needed when there are other huge gaping holes in security. You look at the WHOLE picture - not just the part that people see. Security is about quality - not quantity. It's about being smart with what we have. You should know that. We're not being smart.
Part II is coming since I keep hitting that 4096 char limit.
Part II
Flying is still very safe despite TSA's incompetence. Even before a lot of the measures were introduced (liquid restrictions, all shoes off, etc). Could improvements be made still? Sure - but TSA isn't making improvements, just hassles.
Please spare me "the private companies failed security" diatribe. Private security did NOT fail on 9/11. Yes, the hijackers used boxcutters - but guess what? They were PERMITTED items. The policy at that time was for airliners to comply with hijackers. In the past, it meant a detour to Cuba. 9/11 changed that paradigm quickly and it didn't even make it past the 4th plane, thanks to the brave folks on UA 93. However, the private security companies were the perfect scapegoat. They did what the government asked. Now we have a government bureaucracy that is just as bad, if not worse, than any of those companies, is a lot more expensive, and is not accountable. At least the private companies could be fired.
I'm not the one that's afraid Tom. I'm not the one calling for draconian measures and punishing passengers because someone gets a dumb idea. I'm not the one calling for measures of questionable constitutionality to make me safe and less afraid of flying. I was perfectly fine getting on a plane on 9/10/01, and would still be fine getting on a plane if those same measures were in place. Those calling for ever increasing and invasive measures are the ones that are afraid, Tom. Where do you fit in?
If I don't fly now, it's not because I'm afraid of terrorism. It's because of our government's clueless response to it and erosion of my freedoms as an American.
Robert
Okay Robert, very well worded both parts 1 and 2. Yes I've been in the field that long, and yes there are some knee jerk reactions, but I see the value in the shoes rule, although I wholeheartedly disagree with the current liquids rule, I'm willing to concede that there was once (and may still be) a threat regarding liquids. We're not going to agree on everything, and I find it okay that I can get on my plane and get to where I need to go with just a few minor inconveniences. I spend a total of 4 minutes at the checkpoint, including the time it takes me to put my stuff through the x-ray, walk through the metal detector, and put my stuff back together. I still believe that the measures in place, for the most part are prudent. I don't mind showing my ID, that's what it was intended for, i don't mind taking my shoes off, or walking through the metal detector, nor do I mind the pat downs that i occassionally get chosen for at the walk through. You see Robert, i could sit and bitch about it all day long, but I'm a busy man with a busy schedule, and I have no time to waste. So I say it again, get over it...its not meant offensively, it is meant as a wake up call, this is the way it is. With that said, I won't be back on the blog for some time, as I'll be out of the country for awhile.
Tom wrote:
"I spend a total of 4 minutes at the checkpoint, including the time it takes me to put my stuff through the x-ray, walk through the metal detector, and put my stuff back together. I still believe that the measures in place, for the most part are prudent. I don't mind showing my ID, that's what it was intended for, i don't mind taking my shoes off, or walking through the metal detector, nor do I mind the pat downs that i occassionally get chosen for at the walk through."
The most troublesome of the measures you listed is "showing your ID". You seem to be focused on the inconvenience of the measures -- the direct harm or discomfort that they cause you when you, personally, pass through a checkpoint -- but not on the larger implications. Consider that what many of us are most bothered by about the ID check is not the inconvenience of getting documentation of our identities out and presenting it to someone, but the fact that we are required to identify ourselves to our government, then wait for permission to proceed before being allowed to continue going where we were headed. I care little about some security guard at the airport knowing who I am. I care a lot about someone working on behalf of our government stopping me and demanding that I identify myself then wait for his permission to proceed. The identification part means that our government gets to decide who can proceed and who can't, based not just on whether or not he's carrying a bomb, but for any reason at all.
The airport ID check is presently used by the United States government as part of a system of restricting people's freedom of movement based on blacklists. No one is disputing this. Some people think this is a fine idea. Presumably, those people trust that the list contains only names of people over whom we should exert some extra control. Many of us, however, don't trust those with the power to put someone on these blacklists to use such a system without abusing it. Even if we trust those with the ability to blacklist people now, we're not ready to trust everyone who'll be in such a position in the future.
Tom, even if you aren't concerned with the big-picture implications of TSA's airport identification policies (which, if we allow them to, will undoubtedly become TSA's rail travel identification policies, and if they had the resources to implement such a system, TSA's highway identification policies), and even if you trust members of executive branch of government to secretly blacklist people without having to provide any explanation of such to blacklist people only for good reason, please consider the reduction in security that comes from putting all the known-bad people on a list and hassling them at the airport. Using the Carnival Booth Algorithm, terrorists can probe a security system based on identifying people by sending a number of people on harmless trips through TSA's system, noting who is flagged for extra searches and who isn't. Then they can send those who aren't flagged -- people who almost certainly will get through security with a less-thorough search -- on terrorist missions.
Showing ID really only affects honest people. Dishonest people can use forged ID cards or get real cards using honest people's stolen identities. When considering how you feel about showing your ID, please think about what it means for us all to be required to show our IDs. It makes us all less free. It doesn't make us any safer.
--
Phil
Robert Johnson,
You spout off about the constitution, the founding fathers, and the erosion of our rights.
The founding fathers had no idea that man would one day invent a 747 or a skyscraper, so they could not fathom a world where one would kill Americans by flying airplanes into buildings. That is exactly why they created the consitution to be a fluid, living document for a republic that could create and change laws quickly as the need arose.
9/11 was exactly one of those needs. People don't like airport security or the patriot act but both of them save American lives. If you don't agree with them, that is great, but don't use a 200+ year old document from another era to try and tell us that these things are wrong. There are approximately 190 other countries in the world you can emmigrate to if taking off your shoes at an airport checkpoint is too much for you to handle. But when you get there don't be surpised to find out that their citizens have far fewer rights and their airport security is more invasive than our own.
Steve said:
Robert Johnson,
You spout off about the constitution, the founding fathers, and the erosion of our rights.
The founding fathers had no idea that man would one day invent a 747 or a skyscraper, so they could not fathom a world where one would kill Americans by flying airplanes into buildings. That is exactly why they created the consitution to be a fluid, living document for a republic that could create and change laws quickly as the need arose.
9/11 was exactly one of those needs. People don't like airport security or the patriot act but both of them save American lives. If you don't agree with them, that is great, but don't use a 200+ year old document from another era to try and tell us that these things are wrong. There are approximately 190 other countries in the world you can emmigrate to if taking off your shoes at an airport checkpoint is too much for you to handle. But when you get there don't be surpised to find out that their citizens have far fewer rights and their airport security is more invasive than our own.
____________
Sorry, Steve, you’ve got that exactly backwards. The founding fathers lived through a time of incredibly violent conflict in the establishment of our nation. While they didn’t envision today’s technology (for that was not their job), they did understand human nature and knew that people react foolishly when they react in fear and in haste.
The Constitution was not meant to be a “fluid, living document” but on the contrary was meant to be a solid, unchanging statement of the principles of the USA. It was explicitly meant to keep the politicians and the people from changing laws willy-nilly to suit each day’s circumstances or the mood of the time. It was meant to provide stability. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the concept that people should relinquish fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to free speech, to “save American lives”. On the contrary, the founding fathers were men such as Benjamin Franklin, who wrote: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” And Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” And Patrick Henry: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know now what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
Furthermore, I’ve been to quite a few of those of other countries you refer to. While some of them grant fewer rights to their citizens than the US does, none of them has airport security as invasive as our own. In fact, US airport security is the butt of jokes in countries around the globe.
Finally, airport security doesn’t save lives. 9/11 was not a failure of the airport screening process, it was the consequence of a policy that encouraged cooperation with terrorists (“do what they say and no one gets hurts”). That policy ended before mid-morning, with UA 93. Locking the cockpit doors has done the rest. TSA is just for show, to convince the infrequent flyers that “the government is doing something.” And increasingly, even the infrequent flyers can see through the charade.
Steve,
Isaac Newton said most of what I would say. You are wrong on so many levels.
Let's just say that if you don't believe in that 200 year old document, the one that even to this day the entire nation is based on, then I'm not the one who should be leaving America.
I shouldn't be compelled to give up rights just because other places have less and we can "afford" to. Rights are not "given" by a government. The Constitution does not grant rights but recognizes them and puts a limit on what the government can do.
The Founding Fathers may not have known about a 747 crashing into a building, but they knew what effects similar events could cause. They fought a war against the most powerful (and to them, oppressive) nation in the world at the time and won. I think they know a thing or two about terror, oppression and tyranny. And conversely, they had a great understanding of freedom to the point that they explicitly spelled out some things that they didn't want happening to anyone - ever. It's a shame that many people today don't understand that.
It does not say "void in case of terrorism." They purposely made the constitution difficult to amend to prevent knee jerk reactions. They purposely defined things so the government would know what lines to cross. The flexibility that they left in there was meant to erring on the side of the PEOPLE, NOT the government.
Just where do you draw the line?
You really need to go back and learn history and civics, sir.
If you really think my main gripe is about shoe removal, you haven't read my posts here very often.
Robert
I worked for the TSA one day and after that one day I felt that it was not my “calling”. I am not fond of the rude, arrogant type that has something to prove… The inspectors that have the belief that “ it will not happen on my watch and to prove it I will make every passenger miserable ”. However, once in a while, you run across a TSA inspector that will restore your faith in the agency and the job that they must do. Recently, my wife and I had to fly from GFK to IAD. The airport had several flights cancelled due to heavy fog, and had more people in the terminal than I have ever seen at any one time. Patience and tempers were short, passengers taking their frustrations out on the terminal agents, TSA Inspectors and even the rent-a- cops. Then a true shining star emerged from the TSA, I don’t know if I should give out her name but.. I will just the same, she deserves the credit. N.SANFORD stepped in to provide outstanding supervision and direction to the other TSA inspectors. She worked with terminal agents and fielded questions from the passengers, and if that wasn’t enough still managed to scan the luggage while other members of her team completed their assigned duties. I have never seen a more professional or courteous Inspector. In this extremely stressful situation, she was able to deal with disgruntled passengers, the demands of her duties and being able to control all of the situations that confronted her.. In a time when the TSA has be under the microscope, and struggles with balancing the security and safety of the passengers with that of passenger’s needs. She has restored my faith .
TSA had nothing to do with that flight. What people need to do is to find out who does security over seas
Post a Comment