Slashdot Mirror
TSA To Make Pat-Downs More Embarrassing To Encourage Scanner Use
Jeffrey Goldberg writes for the Atlantic about his recent experiences with opting out of the back-scatter full-body scanners now being used to screen airport travelers. Passengers can choose to submit to a pat-down instead of going through the scanners, but according to one of the TSA employees Goldberg talked to, the rules for those are soon changing to make things more uncomfortable for opt-outs, while not doing much for actual security. He writes, 'The pat-down, while more effective than previous pat-downs, will not stop dedicated and clever terrorists from smuggling on board small weapons or explosives. When I served as a military policeman in an Israeli army prison, many of the prisoners 'bangled' contraband up their a**es. I know this not because I checked, but because eventually they told me this when I asked. ... the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check."
TSA: Sir, please empty your pockets, even scraps of paper, then step into this booth and place your feet on the yellow footprints. Me: I'd like to request a patdown, please TSA: Certainly sir, please wait here. Approx 3 min wait, then someone walked over, and spent another minute explaining how he will touch my butt and pelvic area with only the back of his hand, then he proceeded to do that The actual pat-down took another 3 minutes and was quite thorough It felt a bit intrusive, but not having experienced one before I don't know if I got the new, enchanced version or not. Like parent above, this was my silent protest: let them waste time on this. I will continue to opt for the pat-down.
How's the crackdown on TSA employees who steal from baggage coming along? Oh, there isn't one.
No sig today...
seems like
http://xkcd.com/779/
would make it as embarrassing to security doing pat downs as viewing the scanner results
Or the fact that they essentially steal with impunity. My coworker packed a macbook pro in his checked bag but when he got back he found a note from the TSA and no laptop. The TSA claims that they have security cameras on their employees at all times so they couldn't have stolen it. However when he looked closely at his bag he saw a small but certainly noticeable cut on the upper right part of his bag.
We theorize that the TSA people look for bags with goodies, "inspect" them and if they find something worth stealing they make a small cut on the bag. Then they give the bag to someone else who then proceeds to take it to a place without cameras, grabs the goodies and then sends the bag through.
The TSA repeatedly claimed that since they "screen" their employees and that their employees don't steal. Bullshit.
Monstar L
Are you implying the US Gov't would run false flag operations? That would never happen, sir, and I challenge you to retract your implication or back it up with facts. :)
(sarcasm, for the impaired)
actually i am just tired of airline prices
While you might be experiencing a moderate fare bump right now, historically fares have never been cheaper.
50 years ago or so it would have cost about $300 to fly transcon - Nearly $2400 in todays's dollars. Today you can fly from New York to LA for under $500.
Here's some more recent examples:
In 1990 I flew from Vancouver to London... It was my first big backpacking trip after university. I remember the fare was around $950 - Around $1540 in today's dollars. By comparison, that same trip on those same dates would cost $1465 today - Almost $100 less.
I remember around 1999 I used to fly Vancouver to Denver once a month on United. The flight, purchased three weeks ahead without a Saturday stay was around $1000. Indexed to today's dollars, that's nearly $1300.
Today the fare is about half that - Or less.
So are fares moderately higher than they might have been 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe, but in looking at the big picture fares have never been lower.
Don't fly with a valuable laptop without theft recovery technology, period. This is what netbooks are for... or lojack
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Anyone else starting to see the TSA as a bigger problem than actual terrorists?
No, I see the TSA as the actual terrorists. They're the ones scaring people and grabbing their nuts.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That sounds more like Iran. I haven't been there myself, but from what I gather when you come in as an American they go out of their way to humiliate you the way we treat their citizens. After that there isn't much trouble and apparently the Iranians are just as nice as the ones you run into here, but they do even things in the airports.
There is precedence for this. In the early 20th Century, there were frequent terrorist bombings by anarchists. As such, it was standard procedure in France to have a similar pat-down before boarding a steamer ship. An account of this was written by the famous author Henri de Balsack.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
This article is the one linked to from Drudge. I find it interesting that it reports most people at LaGuardia were willing to go through the TSA security because the 'alternative' is worse (plane blowed up). I queried my friends and acquaintances this past week and not one of them feels these security measures are necessary and many are changing travel plans around which airports have the scanners.
"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,"— Rafi Sela, leading Israeli airport security expert, referring to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world. source
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
If the TSA wants to make your pat down more humiliating, you have a chance to be even more of a pain in the ass: demand a private screening. It is well within your individual rights to do so. Furthermore, demand that a video camera document the screening so if something untoward happens, you have legal recourse. You have to remember that the TSA are just "security guards" with no more real authority than a civilian. The only TSA employees with real power are the Criminal Investigators (also known as an 1811 after the GS-1811 pay grade.) I have no problem giving an 1811 the respect they deserve, I have friends that are 1811's and they epitomise professional, honest civil servants. They go to rigorous training, have strong formally educated backgrounds in law, science, and procedure.
If your rights are denied and you miss the plane as a result, you do have more than a fighting chance. The ACLU is known to rabidly hate the TSA and itches for a chance to whittle away at their undeserved power. However, when I say be a pain in the ass, I mean be polite but firm and stand your ground. You need to appear like you are the better, more responsible person in the interaction. Don't allow yourselves to be bullied by a screener and don't be afraid to call out a potential abuse. Most importantly, know your rights! You do not have to submit to a body scan. I work in an airport and if I got this x-ray scan every time I pass through security, I might get slow radiation poisoning over several a career.
Doesn't matter. Even if it's your own plane, and you are the only one going to fly it, you still have to obey the rules.
You never know, you might hijack yourself with that pocket knife!
NOTICE: An actual, real, does-this-for-a-living pilot as told me this. This isn't some assumption on my part.
He told you wrong. If you aren't going through the secured terminal (which 99.9% of private flights don't), then you don't need security screening. I am an actual, real, living pilot and I've flown through over 250 airports large and small in the USA on private flights. O'Hare is the only one I've seen that actually has even a metal detector for private flights... I walk through, it beeps (because of my pocket knife, flashlight, keys, etc. on my person) and they wave me on through.
I looked in to this when my family and I went to Cancun, Mexico. A small jet started at $3,000 per flight hour so our trip would have cost at least $12,000. The company also said that if you stay long enough at your destination, you will get charged for 2 round trips. We opted instead to spend $2,000 for round-trip tickets on American Airlines.
Oh we don't worry about little one off folks like you. We have Goldman-Sachs and Company - they're capable of trashing the US economy one hell of a lot more than some itinerant sheep herder.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Oh I see what you're saying. If fares were moderately lower 2 or 3 years ago then to say "they've never been lower" isn't correct. My bad... I meant while there have been upswings and downswings, historically fares today are cheaper than they were in the past.
You think 24-36 hours is almost as fast as flying? Southwest, know for always having to stop somewhere, can get you from Albany, NY to Ontario, CA in 9-11 hours. American can go JFK to LAX in 6 hours. Add in arriving 2 hours ahead of time and it is still 3 times faster than driving. On a good day, you'll get there tomorrow while I'll get there today and have dinner, a night on the town, a good night's rest, a good breakfast, a productive day, and then greet you as you arrive after you've dealt with countless idiots that may or may not be trying to ru you off the road.
It was covered by several mainstream media sources, tard.
I had a dispute with some GB airport security (actually with Group 4 staff, a company the govt ofter outsources essential state duties to, like guarding prisoners, and at which G4 have got a pretty poor record of actually succeeding). As a result I ended up repeatedly leaving the secure area and having to be searched again on entry - I did remark to the guy doing it "We're getting to know each other quite well, aren't we?" but he didn't seem to see the funny side. I suspect the OP's comment about humiliation was pretty close to the mark on that one...
TSA Screener has got to be becoming the profession of choice for perverts who have not been convicted of any sexual offenses. Most of them (especially pedophiles) understand that they'd get their balls cut off if they ever actually touched someone non-consensually, and like most people they're capable of exercising self-control, so they are completely unknown to law enforcement and will easily pass a background check. Working for TSA now gives them the chance to see through people's clothes and/or feel them up several times a day. No particular skills needed, jobs available in every medium-to-large city, a decent working environment, a livable wage, and... benefits! Where do I apply?
Of course not, but there are several bits that are very nearly global. For example, every UN member apart from the USA and Somalia has ratified the UNCRC.
Somalia hasn't got around to it due to lacking a functioning government. Everyone else signed it in the 90s. Prior to 2005, the USA's major objection was that it would prevent them from executing children. That is failure to accept international law.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Lockerbie? Were there any others?
The amazing thing is people get worked up about the summery, but nowhere is it written that the "more embarrassing pat-down" is actually a TSA directive. It is the opinion of one employee that the writer talked to. As far as we know, it might be that it is really a more effective pat-down intended to be more useful at finding weapons/bombs on those who refuse the scanners.
I'm not saying I am that naive, but OTOH, getting all worked up over the opinion of one TSA employee, without even the TSA's response...
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Excellent suggestion! I would never check my laptop or camera in to baggage, but if I ever did, I'd head down to Western Auto and buy a $200 POS.
If I understand correctly, a blank-firing starter pistol also qualifies for this restriction.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
LOL, Faux News was linked as proof that a story is real.
It's a clever pun but it falls apart. See, "faux" is French and it's pronounced like "foe", not like "fox". When you say "faux news" it reads as "foe news" and doesn't make any sense.
I'd try to come up with something more clever if I were you, right now you just look ignorant.
Sapere aude!
If the US Supreme Court has the authority to suspend the death penalty on the basis of its unconstitutionally arbitrary imposition, as the court did in 1972, it would follow that the federal government has the authority to set limits to the use of the death penalty.