TSA

Overheal

Can I just say I am glad I don't fly anymore?

No doubt you've heard or read about the recent flare-up in media attention regarding the TSA? Makes sense coming into the Holiday Season that this is going to be on everyone's mind. Whether they're asking cancer survivors to remove their prostheses (against their own regulation) Or treating "Opt-Out" as the new Terror Alert Orange. There was another woman who simply had her breasts exposed to the public during her TSA screening, afterwards a TSO verbally harassed her about it, saying he was looking forward to reviewing the security footage later.

This has just been building up for years. I always hated the shoes, but I understood it. I started traveling in open-toe sandals. They started pushing a little too hard on liquids, even when you were permitted to carry enough butane to start a considerable fire. Or the way they won't feasibly ban Lithium batteries despite the possibility of turning one into a mild explosive. The way you can still craft just about anything into a shank. Or my personal favorite controversy of 2008, when the TSA wanted to confiscate your laptop and be able to inspect the contents of the Hard Drive. So now I would just think to keep my disk encrypted in 512 bit.

Now they want to body scan you, which is very revealing, and while the TSA machines can store images you can still be mocked or sexually harassed. Of course, you have the right to refuse this secondary screening (it uses X-ray and cancer patients should not, under any circumstances, enter such a machine) but that will signal anywhere from 3 to 12 additional TSOs to your position where they will urge you to accept the scan. Do they need to fill some kind of Quota?? And good luck filming it, because then the TSA agents will just begin stalking you after you refuse under your Rights to delete the footage.

How much more are the American people willing to put up with? And how much will foreign visitors put up with? Airline Pilots already put their foot firmly down and they're earning themselves a free pass through this screening process. The last time I was in Orlando Int'l a private company had secured the rights to Half of the Screening area in which to allow pre-screened/pre-approved passengers to bypass security altogether, so what is the point of this security exactly when it leaves such gaping holes and only offers the ignorant a false sense of security? At this point Terrorists don't even need to plot another attack or attempt, we're pretty wound up as it is.

What's more, these TSO's might be people with feelings but they act like a shower of c*nts:

Thomas Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor. He must use a urostomy bag, which collects urine from an opening in his stomach. On a recent trip he was asked to step aside for a pat-down. You know what happens next.

"One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants." The security officer finished the pat-down, tested the gloves for any trace of explosives and then, Sawyer said, "He told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn't seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark."

Want to Opt-Out of these scans? Here, print this, laminate it, and carry it with you. Should speed things along. It's a letter from the UCSF outlining the carcinogenic properties of the scanners.

The guy who made that tip tells his story while waiting in line for the screening:

I started talking to the family behind me as soon as I got into the security line, a middle-aged couple with 2 adolescent boys and a girl about 4 or 5. They were amused by my shoes, so it wasn't too hard to strike up a conversation.
I asked where they were from. Santa Clara. Heading to Toronto for some family thing. I asked if they'd heard about the new X-Ray machines. The dad was tired and apathetic. She said, "Oh, yeah, I heard about those on the news, that if you don't go through, they grope you or something, and if you do, they take a naked picture of you."
"Yeah, it's messed up. Did you know that the UCSF oncology department thinks they pose a serious health risk, especially to children or anyone at risk for breast cancer?"
"Whoa, no, I didn't know that!"
I handed the paper to the mom. Bam.
"Oh, honey, you should read this!! … Oh my god…"
Turns out she's a breast cancer survivor. And her doctor has told her to avoid x-rays, even at the dentist, unless absolutely medically necessary. And she didn't realize that "millimeter wave digital backscatter detection" used x-rays, because the TSA doesn't actually put that on the sign.
She did the rest.

A further outline of the UCSF's concerns: http://gizmodo.com/5540815/scientists-concerned-about-safety-of-new-airport-x+ray-scanners

Finally, here's a very thorough editorial from a fmr. Police Chief on why she feels the searches are not only ineffective, but why it will soon lead to civil revolt.

http://gizmodo.com/5696160/why-the-tsa-could-lead-us-to-public-rebellion-or-a-terrorist-attack

I am also forced to conclude that the purpose of the "pat-down" was not to actually interdict contraband. In my case, I believe I was subjected to a haphazard response in order to effectively punish me for refusing secondary screening and to encourage a different decision in the future.

Orlando's Sanford Regional Airport has already expelled the TSA. Hopefully more will follow and by writing to your local officials you can get them the hell out of your local airports, too. Hopefully.



(Much more information on this topic anywhere good news is found)



National Opt-Out Day

Carcharodon

It is all just laughable at this stage, I will never understand why people buy into all this security and are able to justify it. At the end of the day if "terrorists" want to cause damage they will find a way, all this fear is just what they want to create.

I would also presume that all these security systems and tools are making some people a hell of a lot of money somewhere.

For me personally I would be ok with walking through a full body scanner if it was quick and easy (plus safe).

amacachi

In fairness I can't believe some of those measures weren't in place before 9/11.
That said, the new measures would be too much for me, not a chance I'd fly unless there was no alternative.

nyarlothothep

The TSA are the latest expression of authoritarianism in a human history all too willing to accept it. In Israel they have security measures which aren't nearly as invasive because they use things like judgement, critical thinking and intuition to catch their suspects, which shock/surprise require mental effort. The problem with the TSA is that they're reacting to threats rather than forseeing them, its ridiculous that with every alleged terrorist attack there is a new measure introduced, eg the shoe bomber requires everyone to take off their shoes, the underpants bomber requires people to submit themselves to a total violation of their rights, not excluding the possible radiation threat, the printer cartridge bomber now necessitates the banning of printer cartridgers. Where does it stop? If you took it to its logical conclusion no one could board a plane because all people are potential terrorists! Its essentially hysteria mixed in with authoritarianism and thats what is so repugnant about it, you'd think humans would learn to perceive their flaws, the salem witch hunts, the mc carthy trials, the nuremberg rallies all had one thing in common, collective hysteria and this is just another example of where stupidity over rides rationality. I recall that before the fall of the Roman Empire they increased security with regards people entering the capital, or something like that, look it up. An interesting parallel with America. In any case there are ways to fight against this oppression and thats simply to boycott the airports, refuse to travel, start legal cases, organize a movement to amend the current legislation for airport security, then you'll see changes. Laws are made to be reflected upon and modified or discarded completely if needed. There was an article about the new security measures by an airline Pilot, worth a read, he was basically saying that planes have been hijacked before but none caused the hysterical reactions we're seeing now. I guess America was psychologically damaged by 911.

Denerick

It worries me that so many people are willing to accept these intrusions for some perceived security.

Thank God the world has Ron Paul. While he may be an absolute nut, its comforting to know that some at least have not abandoned the cause of liberty to the pen wielding bureaucratic tyrants of our age.

Overheal

Mythbuster Adam Savage says that he got through TSA safely... while still being allowed to board with two 12" Razor Blades.

http://gizmodo.com/5697222/adam-savage-mythbusting-airport-security-wtf-tsa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4

(starts about 1:00 in, and its loud)

hardCopy

Anyone who thinks we're even a little bit safer now the September 10th 2001 wants their head checked.

1 mini coke can torn in half will do as much damage as a cheap box cutter.

It's all an elaborate PR excercise, nothing more.

[Edit]Locks on cockpit doors have probably elimnated most of that threat, I got a bit worked up reading those reports[/Edit]

Manic Moran

Denerick wrote: »

It worries me that so many people are willing to accept these intrusions for some perceived security.

I think an entirely different thought process is required. When we strap ourselves into a car, we knowingly take the risk that we are going to get T-boned and killed by a drunk driver, or whatever. We have come to accept that. We just need to accept that every time we get into an airplane, there is a statistical chance that someone is going to blow up his underwear. Once we've come to terms with the concept, flying becomes much more reasonable again. And it also completely negates the 'terror' in 'terrorism'.

The problem is that if someone does bring down an airplane by blowing up his underwear, many people are going to be screaming 'why did this happen' at the exact same time as they're screaming 'no pat-downs and no profiling!'

NTM

snowyeoghan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think an entirely different thought process is required. When we strap ourselves into a car, we knowingly take the risk that we are going to get T-boned and killed by a drunk driver, or whatever. We have come to accept that. We just need to accept that every time we get into an airplane, there is a statistical chance that someone is going to blow up his underwear. Once we've come to terms with the concept, flying becomes much more reasonable again. And it also completely negates the 'terror' in 'terrorism'.
NTM

A bit much comparing a terrorist with the intention of blowing up a plane, and a drunk driver who kills somebody - how often does a drunk driver go out with the intention of mass murder.

We cannot accept mass murder like we accept getting into a wreck with a drunk driver.

Anyway, the TSA are doing a terrible job in terms of publicity and protocols. I just read about a 5 year old getting strip searched in view of everybody - this is not acceptable.

Pat downs and scanners are a requirement now, for everybody's safety - just do it leaving the individual with a bit of dignity.

Lemming

snowyeoghan wrote: »

Pat downs and scanners are a requirement now, for everybody's safety - just do it leaving the individual with a bit of dignity.

Pat downs & scanners are not a requirement now. You're being told they're a requirement now. That's all.

The world has been dealing with the spectre of terrorism for several decades. That didn't chage in 2001. Only the perception and mass hysteria as millions of people who otherwise were oblivious in their ignorance suddenly learned that the word "terrorism" existed and what it meant.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think an entirely different thought process is required. When we strap ourselves into a car, we knowingly take the risk that we are going to get T-boned and killed by a drunk driver, or whatever. We have come to accept that. We just need to accept that every time we get into an airplane, there is a statistical chance that someone is going to blow up his underwear. Once we've come to terms with the concept, flying becomes much more reasonable again. And it also completely negates the 'terror' in 'terrorism'.

The problem is that if someone does bring down an airplane by blowing up his underwear, many people are going to be screaming 'why did this happen' at the exact same time as they're screaming 'no pat-downs and no profiling!'

NTM

Why do I get the feeling that the goal for terrorists is not to actually set off these bombs but rather to demonstrate that it can be done. Taking the example of the disgraced underwear bomber, did he really go through all of that only to have his explosive fail? Or did he know that in doing so he would provoke more hysteria. Because before that it was the Shoe Bomber, and nobody really panicked. They just took off their shoes. It gruntled you slightly. They had to christen the "Recombobulation Area" at the rear end of screening stations, but it was relatively quick and frequent flyers knew best not to fly in biker boots that take an hour to get in and out of. So they had to up the ante by attacking out right to liquids and now our right to basic decency. And they succeeded. And it's done more damage than actually setting off the bomb would have accomplished.

Take for example the printer cartridge bombs, where they armed? Nope.

Whats more is according to Richard Skinner, our airports are no more difficult to get contraband through now than they were on September 11th. Making it an exercise in futility and resentment for us, and a resounding victory for them.

snowyeoghan

Lemming wrote: »

Pat downs & scanners are not a requirement now. You're being told they're a requirement now. That's all.

Correct me if I'm wrong - in the eye of the law its not a requirement. But, personally, I believe, for the upmost security, it is a requirement.

Lemming wrote: »

The world has been dealing with the spectre of terrorism for several decades. That didn't chage in 2001.

Exactly, thing is, it was only in 2001 that the US really saw the damage that can be done on home soil.
Thats the difference when comparing terrorism in the rest of the World with terrorism in the US, its happening in their backyard now - on a larger scale, not 1000s of miles away in a different nation.

Manic Moran

snowyeoghan wrote: »

We cannot accept mass murder like we accept getting into a wreck with a drunk driver.

Why not? You'll never be completely rid of either, no matter how much the government or anyone else attempts to control it. And as the 'end user', the chances are utterly out of your hands.

The big deal about terrorism isn't how many people get killed, it's how much we fear it and bend our lives over backwards in response.

NTM

Victor

snowyeoghan wrote: »

A bit much comparing a terrorist with the intention of blowing up a plane, and a drunk driver who kills somebody - how often does a drunk driver go out with the intention of mass murder.

Its negligence, not intention. Regardless, the victim is dead.

Road traffic kills more than 500,000 people per year. Airline terrorism? Not a whole lot since 2001.

Lemming

snowyeoghan wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong - in the eye of the law its not a requirement. But, personally, I believe, for the upmost security, it is a requirement.

In that case, I have a bridge to sell you. Are you interested?

Exactly, thing is, it was only in 2001 that the US really saw the damage that can be done on home soil.
Thats the difference when comparing terrorism in the rest of the World with terrorism in the US, its happening in their backyard now - on a larger scale, not 1000s of miles away in a different nation.

And what do you think goes on in every other country? Hey, how about Israel, Ireland or the UK? Countries that have been dealing with tangible and common occurences of acts of terrorism for years; both at airports (more so Israel from that list of three examples) and on your street?

As overheal has correctly observed, the terrorists have successfully altered your society for the worst. Ergo, they have "won" that particular battle because you are now afraid of your shadow if you genuinely believe that all the "security" put in place at airports matters a jot. Yes it will stop Mr. half-@rsed, no it will not stop Mr. committeda and his/her ilk who have consistently carried out devestating, concise attacks. The only thing that will is intelligence work by state security services (of which TSA are very much not)

Carcharodon

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think an entirely different thought process is required. When we strap ourselves into a car, we knowingly take the risk that we are going to get T-boned and killed by a drunk driver, or whatever. We have come to accept that. We just need to accept that every time we get into an airplane, there is a statistical chance that someone is going to blow up his underwear. Once we've come to terms with the concept, flying becomes much more reasonable again. And it also completely negates the 'terror' in 'terrorism'.

The problem is that if someone does bring down an airplane by blowing up his underwear, many people are going to be screaming 'why did this happen' at the exact same time as they're screaming 'no pat-downs and no profiling!'

NTM

I could not agree more, it just seems people as a whole have been somehow brainwashed.

If we concentrate enough on all these security measures and anti terrorist measures then maybe people will forget or not care why these people want to carry out these acts.

southsiderosie

Michael Chertoff, who pushed for these regulations, has a financial interest in the company that makes these.

Not to mention the fact that, if officials were actually doing their jobs in terms of passenger screenings, less of this would be necessary. The underpants bomber should have never been allowed on a plane in the first place.

Finally, airport screening would be a lot more palatable if TSA officials were more professional. I cannot tell you the number of times I have been leered at in security, and I have repeatedly seen male staff use spot checks as an opportunity to stop what they are doing and stare at women's asses.

Overheal

Basic Safety of TSA Scanners called into Question

http://consumerist.com/2010/11/are-tsa-scanners-likely-to-cause-cancer-in-travelers.html

A Columbia University radiation expert says the Transportation Security Administration's airport body scans are "likely" to cause cancer in some passengers. The expert also said Department of Homeland Security-commissioned research, which found that the exposure to radiation is minimal, is suspect because it has not been peer reviewed.

WorldNetDaily reports the expert, from Columbia's Center for Radiological Research harshly condemns the body scanners, citing a peer-reviewed paper that was published in October in the Oxford Journal of Radiation Protection Dosimetry:

"If most air travelers went through these X-ray scanners, then it is indeed quite likely that there would be some number of cancers produced by the radiation," he concluded.

"Skin cancers are a particular concern, because the low-energy X-rays used in these scanners deposit a significant fraction of their total dose in the skin," he said. "In general, children are more sensitive than adults to radiation, and that's true for the endpoint of radiation-related skin cancer too."

However, he does say the risk of going through the scanner once is "minuscule."

And even the peer-reviewed study the expert cites for backup states that "calculated effective doses are well below doses associated with health effects."

Scientists at UC-San Francisco have reportedly written the White House, saying that

"There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations" and "that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted."

kaiser sauze

Until this nonsense is reversed, and I mean all of it, I will never set foot in The US.

I recently had the situation where US customers of mine wanted to meet me in person. I believe they were sure that I would fawn over their offer of a junket. I flatly told them that I would not go over, but would be happy to meet them in either Cuba-which they nearly croaked at, but I deliberately said to get a reaction out of them-, The Bahamas, Iceland or Ireland-at my expense.

Strangely enough, they picked Iceland. :pac: I told them that all passengers entering Iceland were strip searched and if there was even the mildest suspicion, a cavity search. :cool: This was due to the ever present threat of a communist invasion from Norway. I think they believed me.

Does this idiocy extend to Canada? I wasn't sure of the situation there so I didn't offer them that.

Overheal

FYI, US Citizens in about 99% of cases aren't permitted to travel to Cuba. Or something like that.

Lemming

The Brazilian authorities started fingerprinting/photographing/searching US citizens entering the country via air a couple of years ago as retaliation for the US authorities doing it to their nationals. Apparently whenever any visiting US citizens kicked up a fuss over the "outrage", they were told that this was exactly what their government was doing to Brazilians and the matter got quickly dropped.

I'd need to go do a big search to find the article but it was in one of the online tech news sites like wired.com, or el reg, etc.

southsiderosie

Lemming wrote: »

The Brazilian authorities started fingerprinting/photographing/searching US citizens entering the country via air a couple of years ago as retaliation for the US authorities doing it to their nationals. Apparently whenever any visiting US citizens kicked up a fuss over the "outrage", they were told that this was exactly what their government was doing to Brazilians and the matter got quickly dropped.

I'd need to go do a big search to find the article but it was in one of the online tech news sites like wired.com, or el reg, etc.

I remember that - an American pilot was fined $12,000 (or something like that) for giving the camera the finger as he passed through Brazilian security.

Manic Moran

I think the difference is that CBP does not target Brazillians specifically for those checks, it does the same for every nation. If Brazil was only doing the same to US citizens, and not as an issue of national policy, I would join the pilot in the metaphorical finger-giving.

NTM

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think the difference is that CBP does not target Brazillians specifically for those checks, it does the same for every nation. If Brazil was only doing the same to US citizens, and not as an issue of national policy, I would join the pilot in the metaphorical finger-giving.

NTM

I fail to see your point. The US does this to every country, here you have one country taking a stand against this stupidity.

Ireland, and The EU, need to do the same, making note that it is in retaliation for US policy, it will end very soon then.

southsiderosie

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I fail to see your point. The US does this to every country, here you have one country taking a stand against this stupidity.

Ireland, and The EU, need to do the same, making note that it is in retaliation for US policy, it will end very soon then.

I doubt it would end, it would just be mutually annoying.

Manic Moran

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I fail to see your point. The US does this to every country, here you have one country taking a stand against this stupidity.

By specifically targetting one country.

The US has nothing against the average Brazilian. Or Irishman. Or German. Or Thai. No nation's citizens are being singled out for special treatment.

If Brazil is singling out US citizens only, then there is no reasoning behind it of security which is the US rationale. Only spite. They may consider the US to be paranoid or excessive, but it can't be said to be unfair or discriminate

NTM

Lemming

If I recall, some countries have agreements in place with the US - such as Ireland and the like - regarding US Borders & Customs/Imigration Control, whereas Brazil doesn't; hence its citizens come under extra scrutiny (or did at the time of the article being written) by US officials. Which is why Brazil replied in kind. I have no idea if this policy is still running.

metrovelvet

I am so sick of the TSA I havent travelled to the US in a year and a half and Im not going to until they stop this harrassment. They scanned my infant, they made me put him on the floor [he couldnt walk because he was an infant and I had to take him out of the buggy because the buggy had to be searched.] They scanned my toddler when he was older, they felt me up and down. Creeps. I had a friend [male] who would stand there when getting searched and scanned and say 'yeah baby, oh that feels sooo goood... do it again to me brother....]

I know a man who's 94 year old mother was coming to visit him here for Christmas and he was brought into a room and strip searched. These people are disgusting.

Thank you so much Overheal for bringing attention to this. Half of the TSA are ex cons to start with. I cant express enough how much I hate them. I wont mention the fact they stole 90 dollars worth of cosmetics from me in JFK. Pigs.

kaiser sauze

Manic Moran wrote: »

By specifically targetting one country.

The US has nothing against the average Brazilian. Or Irishman. Or German. Or Thai. No nation's citizens are being singled out for special treatment.

If Brazil is singling out US citizens only, then there is no reasoning behind it of security which is the US rationale. Only spite. They may consider the US to be paranoid or excessive, but it can't be said to be unfair or discriminate

NTM

You're still not getting it.

Brazil cannot control the airport policy of all the countries affected by this (which is every country apart from The US).

Brazil made a unilateral decision against The US border program, not because it was targeting Brazilians in particular, it was because they took a stand against the preposterousness of the overall program.

They hoped other countries would also do the same; noone has been as brave as they have, which is a shame.

And, of course, Brazil would not target non-US, this is about getting through to a thick US administration about its ridiculous policies.

EDIT - I agree, it's spite, but they're dead right.

Overheal

kaiser sauze wrote: »

EDIT - I agree, it's spite, but they're dead right.

Yeah, if they want Brazilians to end up on TSA No Fly lists.

Brazilian discriminatory practices do not hurt the TSA, they just hurt Brazilian Tourism. US Citizens aren't going to hate the TSA more because Brazil wants to be an asshole; the bottom line is we all deal with the TSA coming in and going out of the US. They're just guaranteeing fewer US Citizens will visit Brazil for the sake of going not only for a round of TSA screening but of Brazilian screening also.

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah, if they want Brazilians to end up on TSA No Fly lists.

Brazilian discriminatory practices do not hurt the TSA, they just hurt Brazilian Tourism. US Citizens aren't going to hate the TSA more because Brazil wants to be an asshole; the bottom line is we all deal with the TSA coming in and going out of the US. They're just guaranteeing fewer US Citizens will visit Brazil for the sake of going not only for a round of TSA screening but of Brazilian screening also.

...and Brazil are clearly happy with that.

Lirange

kaiser sauze wrote: »

this is about getting through to a thick US administration about its ridiculous policies.

Is that what it's about? Poor strategy if so. No matter how ridiculous the policy.

Manic Moran

National Opt-Out day kindof fizzled. It seems that the fare-paying punters were more interested in making their flight to wherever than they were about making a protest about the screening process.

There was that one exception of a lass who went through wearing a bikini. I could handle more of that.

NTM

Mr.Micro

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah, if they want Brazilians to end up on TSA No Fly lists.

Brazilian discriminatory practices do not hurt the TSA, they just hurt Brazilian Tourism. US Citizens aren't going to hate the TSA more because Brazil wants to be an asshole; the bottom line is we all deal with the TSA coming in and going out of the US. They're just guaranteeing fewer US Citizens will visit Brazil for the sake of going not only for a round of TSA screening but of Brazilian screening also.

I wish that every country would do the same in their screening processes and the stupid invasive practice completely over the top would soon die out. Next body screening will not be enough for the nutters in the US....it will be full body/cavity searches of all travellers. As Wikileaks has revealed paranoia is rife in the US....I just cannot figure what the US, the land of the free is so scared of?

kaiser sauze

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I wish that every country would do the same in their screening processes and the stupid invasive practice completely over the top would soon die out. Next body screening will not be enough for the nutters in the US....it will be full body/cavity searches of all travellers. As Wikileaks has revealed paranoia is rife in the US....I just cannot figure what the US, the land of the free is so scared of?

I must admit, I lol'd when I read this.

GuanYin

metrovelvet wrote: »

Half of the TSA are ex cons to start with.

Care to back this up?

Lemming

GuanYin wrote: »

Care to back this up?

Regardless of what metrovelvet has said - and I haven't a clue one way or the other - the job requirements for prospective TSA "security officers" are not exactly demanding in the slightest. In short, lowest common denominator standards & pay get you lowest common denominator results (i.e. outrageous behaviour and abuse of position by staff, and seriously f*cked off passengers). It is also very obvious that the TSA has absolutely no concept or ability to think or react outside the confines of whatever cheat-sheet they all work off, nor is there any sort of adequate, sane, common sense protocols in place to deal with anything that isn't black or white.

My own experiences of the TSA were minimal - I had more "fun" with the extremely condescending and obnoxious US Immigration/Borders & Customs official at Shannon airport a few years back. @rseholes come in many shapes and sizes; I guess the TSA just seems to make it a requirement.

GuanYin

Lemming wrote: »

Regardless of what metrovelvet has said - and I haven't a clue one way or the other - the job requirements for prospective TSA "security officers" are not exactly demanding in the slightest. In short, lowest common denominator standards & pay get you lowest common denominator results (i.e. outrageous behaviour and abuse of position by staff, and seriously f*cked off passengers). It is also very obvious that the TSA has absolutely no concept or ability to think or react outside the confines of whatever cheat-sheet they all work off, nor is there any sort of adequate, sane, common sense protocols in place to deal with anything that isn't black or white.

I travel a lot in the US. I've over 100K status miles with my frequent flyer program this year. In my experience, the TSA are mostly courteous and try and be as anonymous as possible. I've had some terrible experiences, I've had some very good ones too.

They are in a crappy, crappy job, being asked to do something that everyone resents and they're the ones who get the front line abuse. Most of them don't realize how bad it can be and the rate of turnover is high in some states.

Regarding common-sense... they're there to carry out protocols as directed. They aren't there to make judgement calls. If they did they'd be sued even more.

If people are annoyed, write to your representative, we just had mid-term elections and I didn't see homeland security strong on anyones agenda.

My own experiences of the TSA were minimal - I had more "fun" with the extremely condescending and obnoxious US Immigration/Borders & Customs official at Shannon airport a few years back. @rseholes come in many shapes and sizes; I guess the TSA just seems to make it a requirement.

Immigration and TSA are not the same thing.

Overheal

I do remember glancing over something regarding the rapid expansion and establishment of the TSA and that the hiring standards were not exactly Pedigree, but I don't think arguing that half of them or indeed any of them are former felons is a qualified statement.

Of what I can find on short notice was a 2003 WaPo article about TSA employees having criminal records. This was early in TSA's life, and that information is likely obsolete:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46180-2003May27

Not being learned on current TSA Employment regulations I can't say for sure one way or the other. I'm only sure that the TSA is losing hearts and minds.

Lemming

GuanYin wrote: »

I travel a lot in the US. I've over 100K status miles with my frequent flyer program this year. In my experience, the TSA are mostly courteous and try and be as anonymous as possible. I've had some terrible experiences, I've had some very good ones too.

I never said the TSA weren't mostly courteous. But it's very clear from the frequent reports that do come in - as individual as they may be given the geographical size of the USA - that there is a very real problem with how the TSA as an entity conducts itself. Only a blithering idiot - or someone at either the helm of the TSA or with a vested interest - would argue otherwise.

They are in a crappy, crappy job, being asked to do something that everyone resents and they're the ones who get the front line abuse. Most of them don't realize how bad it can be and the rate of turnover is high in some states.

Regarding common-sense... they're there to carry out protocols as directed. They aren't there to make judgement calls. If they did they'd be sued even more.

I do not envy them their jobs one bit and I know I wouldn't do it in a million years. But the TSA has not equipped their staff to deal with the public. That much is woefully apparent. That rudimentary common sense cannot be applied by even a "supervisor" is alarming. In order to deal with the public, that trait is a must, no ifs no buts no maybes, it is essential. Otherwise you end up with the litany of utterly f*cktarded incidents that happen.

Most of my air/ferry travel puts me very much outside almost any travelling demographic by virtue of what I often have to declare and check in with secured flight cases. I frequently encounter staff (including local police, airport police, and customs officers - all at the same time in one particular instance) who are unsure of their own airline regulations and/or legalities, and frequently have the need for common sense demonstrated before my eyes. The TSA are no different to any other airline/airport/ferry staff. If "security staff" and other airline staff in other countries can do the above, why can't the TSA? What makes them so special that they are incapable of it.

Case in point - the incident of an English businessman who bought his son an action-man figure whilst on a business trip to the West coast US. The TSA "agent", demonstrating AMAZING clarity and quick, common sense thinking, declared the lump of plastic in the packaging as a "gun" and stated that it could no tbe brought on board the aircraft and was to be seized. GuanYin, I will ask you what your opinion of that incident is. If it's anything other than utter absurdity, then I don't know what else to say to you on the matter.

Immigration and TSA are not the same thing.

Thank you for stating the obvious. I never said they were the same thing. Ever. Hence why I made the distinction when commenting on my own experiences of the TSA vs. Borders & Customs; the only remotely negative instance being a single officer who was an obnoxious jerk-off.

GuanYin

Lemming wrote: »

I never said the TSA weren't mostly courteous. But it's very clear from the frequent reports that do come in - as individual as they may be given the geographical size of the USA - that there is a very real problem with how the TSA as an entity conducts itself. Only a blithering idiot - or someone at either the helm of the TSA or with a vested interest - would argue otherwise.

Hrmmm... I enjoy the way you make a point and pre-emptively insult anyone who disagrees. I guess I'll just have to live with you calling me a blithering idiot, although I should warn you, it's strictly against the forum rules and that isn't a point for debate but a very deliberate comment on conduct, that I will let pass for now.

That aside, the frequent reports, as far as I can tell, account for an absolutely minute fraction of travelers. For instance, my home airport has over 600,000 movements (departures or arrivals) a year with a guestimated average of 100 passengers per plane/movement. It's not even the busiest airport in the US, but out of the 60,000,000 passengers it sees in a year, how many do you say need to file a complaint for it to be a "very real problem"? Even at one per cent you're talking 600,000 complaints out of one airport. There aren't that many complaints in the entire country. So ermmm yeah..... I think you need to define, in logistical terms, what you feel a real problem is.

I think it's a media issue. The latest surveys from the US public suggest that the majority of the US are happy with the TSA scanners. Further, flyertalk, which is the biggest dedicated online frequent flyer forum has very little issue among it's members when it comes to TSA staff... the policy is lamented, but very few "anger threads" and believe me, they do anger threads as good as anyone.

I think mostly, this is the US media, doing what they do.

I do not envy them their jobs one bit and I know I wouldn't do it in a million years. But the TSA has not equipped their staff to deal with the public. That much is woefully apparent. That rudimentary common sense cannot be applied by even a "supervisor" is alarming. In order to deal with the public, that trait is a must, no ifs no buts no maybes, it is essential. Otherwise you end up with the litany of utterly f*cktarded incidents that happen.

The same can be said about any security enforcer in the public. Parking inspectors, bouncers, police officer, etc etc.. people rebel against authority.

I feel for people who feel they are harassed by TSA, I do, but on the other hand, I don't want to ask some person to make a judgement call and be the person who is found to let the bomber who kills 350 people through.

As a boards mod, you know what happens with you give people ambiguity with rules, they hammer you with them.

Most of my air/ferry travel puts me very much outside almost any travelling demographic by virtue of what I often have to declare and check in with secured flight cases. I frequently encounter staff (including local police, airport police, and customs officers - all at the same time in one particular instance) who are unsure of their own airline regulations and/or legalities, and frequently have the need for common sense demonstrated before my eyes. The TSA are no different to any other airline/airport/ferry staff. If "security staff" and other airline staff in other countries can do the above, why can't the TSA? What makes them so special that they are incapable of it.

There currently aren't several attempted bombings on your transport systems every year. I get that most of this is due to american foreign policy and I get that that is the way to stop all this. In the meantime, I'd rather be safer than sorry.

Case in point - the incident of an English businessman who bought his son an action-man figure whilst on a business trip to the West coast US. The TSA "agent", demonstrating AMAZING clarity and quick, common sense thinking, declared the lump of plastic in the packaging as a "gun" and stated that it could no tbe brought on board the aircraft and was to be seized. GuanYin, I will ask you what your opinion of that incident is. If it's anything other than utter absurdity, then I don't know what else to say to you on the matter.

Depends on the type of toy. if it fired something, yeah, I can understand why they took it out. Really, he should have checked it in his luggage. Wouldn't have been a problem. Again, better safe than sorry applied to things you want to bring on a plane. If it was a 2 inch lump of plastic, I think, yeah stupid, guy may have been new, under-trained, stupid, whatever.. people make mistakes.

Thank you for stating the obvious. I never said they were the same thing. Ever. Hence why I made the distinction when commenting on my own experiences of the TSA vs. Borders & Customs; the only remotely negative instance being a single officer who was an obnoxious jerk-off.

I bet more people have issues with immigration officers than TSA people.. you don't see people picking on them so much.

Overheal

I have to concede the volume of reports is scrutinable, but i will say that the cancer hazard of the new scanners, is an interest. Like the TSA itself this was a program that seems it was rolled out quicker than it could be properly analysed and means tested.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was that one exception of a lass who went through wearing a bikini. I could handle more of that.

Ahem, which bits would you be handling? :pac:

Lemming wrote: »

Case in point - the incident of an English businessman who bought his son an action-man figure whilst on a business trip to the West coast US. The TSA "agent", demonstrating AMAZING clarity and quick, common sense thinking, declared the lump of plastic in the packaging as a "gun" and stated that it could no tbe brought on board the aircraft and was to be seized. GuanYin, I will ask you what your opinion of that incident is. If it's anything other than utter absurdity, then I don't know what else to say to you on the matter.

Toy or imitation guns have long been banned. If its a "rifle" that is to scale to the Action Man and would fit in a Biro, then yeah, over reaction

Overheal wrote: »

I have to concede the volume of reports is scrutinable, but i will say that the cancer hazard of the new scanners, is an interest. Like the TSA itself this was a program that seems it was rolled out quicker than it could be properly analysed and means tested.

I think the risk is rather modest. While it may be a bit more real for those with an existing or emerging cancer (especially a cancer of the skin or other external body surface), for others it needs to be put in perspective. Two weeks on the beach are probably a lot more dangerous.

GuanYin, do I have it right that total cancers in a population is directly proportional to the total radiation dose received?

Overheal

Well sure it might be possible it's less harmful than 20 minutes in the tanning bed but those possibilities need to become certainties for these scanners to remain in operation. Not to mention the other side of the debate, why are you afraid to whip out your penis if you have nothing to hide?

GuanYin

Victor wrote: »

I think the risk is rather modest. While it may be a bit more real for those with an existing or emerging cancer (especially a cancer of the skin or other external body surface), for others it needs to be put in perspective. Two weeks on the beach are probably a lot more dangerous.

The theory behind the x-ray backscatter is that it is only powerful enough to reach the skin. The result being that the skin will probably absorb more than in a normal x-ray and that is where the risk lies.

There is a modest risk which is not the same as no risk. That said, you are right, direct sunlight is probably a greater risk, however, I personally disagree with the use of TSA scanners and opt out about 50% of the time.

GuanYin, do I have it right that total cancers in a population is directly proportional to the total radiation dose received?

No, some people will be more susceptible than others. Current thinking is that about 5 in every 100 people have a less efficient DNA repair process than normal. Also, fair skinned people would theoretically be at greater risk, due to their dermal composition.

Overheal

Aside from the safety and privacy front, this from the standpoint of effectiveness of the entire system:

http://gizmodo.com/5712481/fool-the-tsas-scanners-with-pancakes

The Journal of Transportation Security published a study which shows that PETN explosives which if conformed to the abdomens and made thinner than 1cm and smaller than 15cm in diameter would be rendered invisible by the technology. Also, "High Z" materials such as iron (and 12" steel razor blades carried by mythbusters) would also be rendered invisible, as would wires, if they are conformed closely enough to the body.

The images are very sensitive to the presence of large pieces of high Z material, e. g., iron, but unless the spatial resolution is good, thin wires will be missed because of partial volume effects. It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a box- cutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible. While there are technical means to mildly increase the conspicuity of a thick object in air, they are ineffective for thin objects such as blades when they are aligned close to the beam direction.

As the article thus points out, we could spend millions on each ineffective scanner or continue to hire gruntled TSA employees to perform traditional pat-downs for much less money and much less concern about backscatter technology or stored nude body scans.