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."
How's the crackdown on TSA employees who steal from baggage coming along? Oh, there isn't one.
No sig today...
back of the hand is the old
rewriting history since 2109
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.