Slashdot Mirror
You Have Been 'Randomly' Selected?
dpbsmith asks: "One thing I've noticed is that the people who are told by the TSA that they have been 'randomly' selected for baggage inspection have a tendency not to believe it. I know one couple whose wife has been 'randomly' selected four times, while the husband never has been. The wife believes that it is because each of those times, she was traveling by herself, without checked baggage, (whereas she has never been inspected when traveling with her husband with checked baggage). In 'Uncommon Carriers', John McPhee accompanied a truck driver to write about the experience, and bought a trucker's cap to blend in. He says 'I would pay for my freedom at the Seattle-Tacoma airport when, with a one-way ticket bought the previous day, I would arrive to check in my baggage.' His baggage was 'randomly' selected for inspection, and later he was 'once again "randomly selected" for a shoes-off, belt-rolled, head-to-toe frisk.' So, what about it? Is the TSA simply flat-out lying when they tell you that you have been 'randomly selected?'" The better question to ask is: "Are random searches effective in keeping everyone safe?"
It is not random. It is determined by a number of factors, a huge one of which is flying standby and/or one way.
Other factors include travel / purchasing habits etc...
At at least 2 airlines I've flown, you will see them write one "S" on your ticket for each flag you set off, which increases your likelihood of being "randomly" selected. The whole random thing is a complete misnomer. You're being profiled - not necessarily racially, but you're definitely being profiled.
http://www.babysmasher.com
http://www.openingbands.com
I flew over to the US from Europe a few weeks ago. Six flights overall, three to California and three back.
I got "randomly" selected three times out of these six flights. In addition to this, my (checked-in) bag was "accidentally" delayed before being loaded onto the plane, and the flight attendant had to come and ensure that I was onboard before the "delayed" bag was brought onboard, just before landing (which was delayed due to my bag).
I'm mid-20s, with an Arab-sounding name, not married, travel a lot (including Eastern Europe), didn't carry a lot of baggage (I was only visiting for a couple of days).
Every time they told me they "randomly" selected me for inspection, I smiled and let them do their thing.
"Random" selection is profiling under a PC name. Of course they profile people. And of course they won't tell you that they do. Before travelling to the US, I was thinking about how suspicious I may appear and how many times they would search me, dig through my luggage and ask me questions. Surprise, surprise, they did it. Three times.
I have a large camouflage pattern duffel bag that I've been traveling with over the last two years. Every time I arrive at my destination I find one of those long TSA slips in my bag informing me that it was randomly selected for search. In over twelve trips with this bag, it has never NOT been 'randomly' selected. I don't care if my bag is searched, but it makes me wonder how realistic it is to expect a camouflage bag to more of a risk than some other bag.
My point is, I expect it. But random? Yeah, right.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
My father-in-law gets nailed everytime he flies. I've been standing next to him with a laptop, earphones in, etc and he got nailed. Some pastey, white haired guy with glasses, over me. I still don't get it. Its even funnier when he talks about the times he's pulled into an office to talk about why he has an industrial packet scanner and other "security" type tools when he gets on the airplane. They're "far too advanced for his age..."
On a side note, my wife is in the military and we have to go through "random" security screenings for our cars. Somehow my Saturn gets nailed 10 to 1 over my wife's car every month. There are times when I just want to run the damn guards over.
Back in june I took 4 flights, 2 within the US and 2 to/from the US, in the space of a week. I was randomly selected in only one of these, flying from Dulles to SeaTac - that time I had missed a connection flight and had a standby boarding pass, not sure if it had anything to do.
Anyway, after the metal detector I was informed that I had been selected for additional screening. I was briefly stopped in a funny looking box with a red sign, less than 30 secs later a guard took me to behind the metal detector lines. My hand luggage, shoes and jacket were carefully inspected, I was checked with a metal detector wand, and then I was on my way. The whole process must have taken about 5 minutes and didn't cause me a single inconvenience.
Even though I'm caucasian, I'm from south america, so I could cry "I was targeted because I come from a third world country". I didn't. I also didn't notice people looking at me like I was doing something wrong. Essentially, this was routine, no different than going through the metal detector itself or the brief questions by the immigrations officer. I guess you'll say "that's how it starts" or that it's a matter of principle, but what's the big deal with this?
My website
As much as I'd like to confirm the presense of some formula I definitely cannot. I have screened people and baggage in every way. I will say that as far as baggage goes, have a look at your tags and the tags of those around you. You're likely to see a difference. Same goes for boarding passes... do a little comparison.
I don't pretend to know how the process works or what the criteria may be, but I can offer some advice:
1. Just go through with it... plan on it. It's about as annoying as a traffic jam.
2. The air carriers have more to do with the "selection" process than the TSA does. (I'm 90% certain of that) So take your bitches and complaints up with the airline... they just might put you on a white list somewhere if you threaten to give your money to another "almost bankrupt carrier." They can't afford to lose your business... none of them can.
To expound upon that, if "the people" want all this crap to get better, start complaining where the money moves, not with congress, not with the president and not with the TSA. (True, there's money there, but the influencial money starts with the air carriers.) If people start complaining enough and changing airlines, they'll listen.
I remember it being used in the 1980s - for example to describe the suicide truck bombing of American Marines stationed in Beruit
Yes, and it was used incorrectly from the start to describe any actions by the enemy, and the enemy themselves, rather than simply (and correctly) the tactic. The bombing of the marines, as much as it sucked, was an attack on a military target. The attack on the world trade center (the first time and the second) were terrorist attacks because it is a civilian target. The attack on the pentagon is borderline, since it was a military target, but since it used a civilian airliner overall I would say it is terrorism.
Any time civilians are purposefully targeted with the use of violence for political effect it is terrorism. The identity of the doer does not decide whether it is terrorism or not.
The guy does so, then looks at me and offers to move me to a window seat. I say, "Sounds good" and hand back the boarding pass I've already received. Sure enough, the one I get back has a bunch of S's drawn on it. I get the VIP treatment at security, of course.
So, was that question really a big terrorist tipoff or something? Or did I just irritate the guy a bit and he decided to have some fun with me? And either way, am I supposed to feel safer?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
It does, if you assume that past behavior is the sole predictor of future behavior. The problem is that there's no guarantee that future anti-US-aircraft terrorism will also be carried out by Muslims -- in fact, if you go with a Muslim-oriented profiling system, you end up creating a very inviting target for non-Muslim terrorist groups (existing or yet-to-be-created), who know that they will be able to walk right through "security".
To give a computer analogy: if you are adding security to a web site, do you just put in security software that detects last year's virus and stops it, or do you design the site to make it as difficult as possible for any type of virus (present or future) to get through? If you're smart, you'll do the latter, otherwise you'll end up continuously getting sucker-punched from places you didn't expect.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I get "randomly" selested for "special attention" EVERY time I have flown in the last 5 or so years. I'm a 6'1" large, bearded guy. I have also had a Federal Firearms Liscence and had Concealed Handgun Permits in several states. Coincident? I think not.
Hero Hog AKA: Speedy, Dr. Speed 01000111011001010110010101101011
The Assad you're talking about was Hafez al Assad, who is dead. His son, Bashar, now rules in Syria. And he's approximately as much of a jerk as his father was, but he is nicer looking.
And what Assad was able to do within his own country is not something that would work for the US to do to another country. Like the ripples leaving a pebble thrown into a pond, unintended consequences go beyond our capacity to predict, and a nuke ain't no pebble. Simplistic solutions only solve simple problems, and this isn't a remotely simple situation. Strong military response is an important part of the solution, but it simply won't be enough. These are folks who are used to being treated badly by people they consider brothers -- we don't have the stomach to treat them badly enough to really make them fear us, and the world wouldn't tolerate it if we tried. Identifying and killing the worst is a good step, but we can't find them and kill them quickly enough.
"Are random searches effective in keeping everyone safe?"
Random searches wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. They used box cutters to threaten lives, but if such searches had been in place they would have used dental floss garrotes or their bare hands for the same purpose. Several times people have successfully defeated the searches just to prove it could be done and do not prevent even untrained citizens from bringing contraband on planes.
Random searches are not effective in keeping us safe. What they are effective at is lulling the public into accepting routine violation of their constitutional rights under the guise of protection. Back in the 80s, during the cold war, the paranoid and abusive treatment of travelers by the USSR due to "national security" concerns was properly seen as proof of a fascist government and held up for scorn and ridicule. How sad it is that we have allowed the destruction of a few buildings and loss of 3030 lives to turn us into what we fought against. Something several wars with much higher losses both economic and human failed to do. Many free and democratic nations suffered repeated terrorist violence before 9/11 but did not allow it to warp their societies. In contrast we have sacrificed our rights as citizens and our values as a country in response to a single attack and promote such sacrifices of rights and values by our allies.
The random searches and other intrusive treatment of passengers has not resulted in the conviction of many (any?) terrorists, but it has endoctrinated millions to accepting treatment they would not have tolerated previously. In pursuit of physical safety, we have sacrified liberty. A libertarian might say that the undefined risk of pre-9/11 security was less objectionable than the daily violation of the rights of tens of millions of citizens that takes place under post-9/11 security. It is worth thinking about.
Period. My father works for a major carrier, and he's flat out told me and I have personally experienced, that if someone buys a one-way ticket, it raises a red flag. If you don't check any luggage, it raises a flag. If your name is a close match to the 'watch' list, it raises a red flag. Yes there might be some 'random' searches, but many of them are conducted as a result of a profile that was established soon after 9-11. This even applies to buddy pass riders, and family of airline employees. Since I've been profiled because of my race since second grade (told my parents I was a behavioral problem and should be in a Behavioral Handicapped class, even though I hardly spoke in class), stopped by police numerous times for no other reason than DWB (a special F-U goes out to the Claremont, CA police), and in general thought to be up to no good if I'm in the 'wrong' place at the 'wrong' time, all I can say to the rest of the population that thought that it was at one time exempt from being profiled for whatever reasons, welcome to reality(tm).
like a man without arms, you can't hang......
Once you realize this, then the practice of profiling makes perfect sense -- you pull aside the people that you think the other passengers are nervous about, and you search them. The other passengers see "dangerous looking" people being checked, and they feel safer. And you pull aside a few other random folks just to make it look sort-of fair.
And for folks who have the Unabomber look, or the fundamentalist Muslim look, or who generally wear any sort of non-standard clothing, you pull them aside for the full body-cavity search etc. This trains people to clean themselves up and not look dangerous when they fly, which makes the public feel safer.
And of course, there is the other mechanism; you announce it is random, and you look for people who look nervous, and check them. I had a math professor in college who used to do this; he had a deck of 3x5 cards with everyone's name on it, and he would make a great show of shuffling the deck and picking someone to put each homework question on the board. Of course, he actually picked whoever was squirming in their chair, or otherwise looking nervous, thus training folks to do their homework.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'