I think the president, the VP, every senator, every representative, every supreme court judge and their wives/husbands should be required to go through this.
And the scanner print outs should be publicly available, as well as videos of the groping...eh "pat downs".
Surely they wouldn't require the cattle to do something that they themselves would object to? Surely.
BTW filling out a complaint form is a complete waste of time...if you want to get attention, actually call your senator/representative.
That aligns with my theory that these insane flight-security rules are mostly supported by constituencies that don't actually fly. If you take national polls, you get high support; but I bet if you restricted the polls to people who had actually been on a plane in the past year, you'd get much lower support. Instead, we have our flight-security policies dictated by terrorist-hatin' paranoiacs in Kansas and Montana who rarely themselves fly on planes, but love the idea of any policy that'll supposedly be tough on terrorism.
I don't think this is quite right. The problem is that the TSA's incentives are all screwed up. Any time some idiot manages to sneak a weapon onto an airplane, the TSA leadership gets attacked for it, whether or not they could have reasonable predicted it. But there's no penalty for instituting a new policy that is massively inconvenient (or embarrassing) for travelers but doesn't actually make people safer. So there's a one-way ratchet effect, where they keep adding new layers of security theater but never retire old ones. And because they're insulated from political accountability, there's nothing travelers can do to push back.
Public opinion is rarely coherent or rational. Most voters think Congress spends too much, but if you poll individual big-ticket spending items, almost all of them are popular. Similarly, I imagine many of the specific "security theater" measures wouldn't poll very well, but "more secure airports" is overwhelmingly popular, and that's the level of abstraction at which the TSA's mission is set.
I developed a similar theory independently this week after learning about the loss of Feingold in Wisconsin, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act.
One possible solution: extend TSA inspection authority to interstate RV travel.
That one was surprising, although in a general Republican-wave election I suppose a Democrat losing in a swing state can happen for various reasons. But I couldn't figure out who was actually supporting Ron Johnson (the new Senator). Just people who hate taxes? Libertarians were mostly not in favor, because Johnson had a really wishy-washy position on the Patriot Act, e.g. take a look at this RedState (conservative/libertarian site) analysis of his views: http://www.redstate.com/pompadour/2010/06/23/local-grassroot...
Or maybe that was actually the reason, because people take tough-on-terrorism as more important than civil liberties?
from what I understand, the reason Feingold lost, was because Johnson outspent him something like 10 to 1, mostly from the 8-9 million he donated to his own campaign. This is mostly from seeing reddit headlines, so that may very well be bs.
Hmm, the numbers I can find show somewhat more even spending, so I'm not sure that's the reason. Ballpark estimates I'm seeing thrown around are something like $20m spent by the Feingold campaign, $17m spent by the Johnson campaign directly, and another $5m spent by anti-Feingold third parties.
Maybe the 10-1 figure is for outside money? It does seem that almost all the third-party, from-outside-Wisconsin groups doing ad buys in the election were doing anti-Feingold ad buys.
I don't know about that. The person who flies once or twice a year probably don't care that much and appreciate the security theatre- all part of the drama of flying. Definitely those that never fly would support unlimited security restriction - like those who don't work support higher taxes.
I recently was at a conference, and was pulling my old laptop from my bag. I joked to some people standing around that I use my old laptop in case the TSA decide they like it more than I do. One person looked at me seriously and said 'why would they do that'. I responded with 'well, it's not like anything they do makes any sense at all'. Most people laughed at my joke but that one person looked offended.
I'm guessing that person was the visible representative of a population who thinks the TSA is doing important work and actually improving things.
I don't know what the answer is. Everyone is painted into a corner by this : any politician that mentions disbanding the TSA is going to be slammed by opponents for being soft on terrorism. Soon enough the TSA employees will have a srong union and lobby against any changes and actually ask for more. The only way around would be an eventual change in technology that busts the old paradigm apart - like a new way of getting onto planes, or a whole new transport system. If you look at shipping, there are practices and laws which date back 400 years. I don't think all this cruft being attached to air travel is ever going away. Maybe with another big war when there is not enough resources or something. 'TSA abandoned for war effort' - that type of thing.
>any politician that mentions disbanding the TSA is going to be slammed by opponents for being soft on terrorism.
Has the TSA ever stopped even a single real threat? Ever? If they haven't [1] then how could disbanding them be seen as being soft on terrorism. Nothing they do appears to actually be related to terrorism.
[1] I can't remember anything. All the bombings I've heard about got past them. And I hope no one starts this nonsensical "oh they stop hundreds, we just never hear about because they're so good!" nonsense. These are clearly "bottom of the barrel" workers.
The premise was that nobody but people who work support higher taxes. It was that people who don't work probably support higher taxes, because they get benefits with no cost to them personally.
It doesn't matter what the TSA does - the fact is they were invented as a response to terrorism. Thus removing them would be an opportunity for an opposing politician to use the attack of 'being soft on terrorism'. I think the TSA should be abandoned - I shudder to think of the lost actual dollars in funding, as well as the lost productivity of millions of air travelers going through a couple of minutes of invasive screening.
As for 'prevention' - many western nations have been victims of Terrorism attacks since 2001 - including the UK and Spain. None of these countries have/use TSA style screening or restrictions. None have had an airline-based terror attack since. That should tell you about the need for the TSA.
Fun fact, defense spending was always criticized and cuts were always proposed, even at the height of cold war. But since 9/11, it's never considered because proposing something like that would label you as soft on terror.
I think the president, the VP, every senator, every representative, every supreme court judge and their wives/husbands should be required to go through this.
...and their sons and daughters as well, of course.
I'm hoping that this is finally the straw that breaks the camels back and people start to push back on these "security" measures. Not traveling via air is an option for some people but for most when they fly they aren't any reasonable alternatives. Making these invasions a prerequisite to flying means you are going to have strangers looking at you naked regularly or being groping (which I'm presuming is meant to be as invasive as possible to encourage use of the scanners). The alternative to this is turning down a job away from anybody you would like to see regularly, or any job that requires frequent travel or going to college in another state etc. And boy is your life about to suck if you travel with kids or someone elderly.
I sincerely hope that enough people push back to make a difference. I think for a lot of people, it's easier to just stop flying---and some people already have---than it is to protest the security theater. If it's clear to the airlines that they're losing a significant number of passengers due to the security measures, I would expect them to lobby against the security measures. Whether or not they will have an effect is another issue entirely.
I for one love travelling but hate flying. I see two options for people who enjoy international travel but don't want their privacy invaded by TSA.
1. Travel by boat. You can hitch a ride on a cargo ship to just about anywhere in the world: http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-c... It's more expensive than flying and takes longer, so this is probably not an option for most people.
2. Depart from another country. I recently traveled to New Zealand, and when I flew home from the Auckland airport to San Francisco, I had to go through an extra security screening because it was a US-bound flight. I was left with the impression that airport security in the rest of the world is not as draconian unless one of the endpoints of the flight is in the USA. So I suspect if you can drive or take the train to Mexico or Canada, you can avoid an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Last year, I took an Amtrak train from Vancouver to Seattle, and the border crossing was a piece of cake.
Edit: Does anyone know how airport security in Mexico or Canada compares to the US?
I fly SYD - LAX at least once a year. A few years ago, it was no bottles, shoes off, grope from local version of TSA at SYD. In my recent flight, no bottle restriction, no shoes off, no groping. A couple of small signs talking about liquid amounts but no sign of enforcement. I suspect that periodically the TSA tries to force higher screening on other countries, but for the most part the airlines/airports want to skip the cost (and aggravation for it's customers), and so get lax about it. Someone has to pay for extra floorspace for extra screening on US flights, as well as extra staff, facilities, equipment. When airlines will drop one meal in a flight to drive down costs, adding costs like this to flying has to hurt someone, somewhere, whether it's the airline or the airport. I'm guessing they don't forward the invoices to the TSA.
When you think about it, it's a net losing situation for the USA, because they can't possibly force every single country every single day to keep up the standards. And without a blanket coverage on the standards, the cause is hopeless because any wrongdoer is just going to pick an international flight to do the business.
Is there yet a web site yet that catalogues the security procedures at each airport? If some people consider avoiding flights, they might actually be interested in such info. Not the standard detectors which aren't that annoying, but things like control of liquids, these new scanners, the grope, etc. Can just imagine selling third-party widgets to travel sites:
"On this itinerary, you may be subject to these security checks: genitalia scan (arr: LAX) or grope (arr: LAX), liquid check (dep: SYD)."
This is a brilliant idea. If someone else doesn't do it, I may; I travel infrequently, but I sure as hell don't want to be putting my kids through either of the "options" right now. It would be wonderful to know how to route around it.
I really like that idea as a way to resist the security theater. It would give travellers the information they need to vote with their wallets for privacy over "security."
Someone downvoted you so I'm voting you back up. I thought the same thing when the concept came to me - the creator would cop a lot of criticism (even be mildly terrorised, funnily enough) from some quarters.
There's no real unrest in El DF (Mexico City) since it's far enough away from the U.S. border. All of the unrest in Mexico is either far north (Narco terrorists) or far south (Zapatistas). Mexico's an awesome place with a lot of culture, amazing food, cool people, and plenty of stuff to explore. If you're avoiding it because of the press fear-mongering I would urge you to reconsider.
(I'm an American who's been all over Mexico on several trips, most recently three months ago)
I flew through Heathrow post-Lockerbie and was running late for my fight. I kept glancing at my watch and getting pretty nervous at possibly missing the boarding window.
A guard nearby saw my body language and pulled me aside instantly. There was a table set up right next to the counter where they did an immediate search of my luggage, asked questions, where was I, etc etc. Nothing harsh, very polite, and I'm sure my reactions and body language were being watched the whole time. Afterward I was given my place back in line with a thanks.
That is how airport security should be. I know Israel takes it even 10 notches higher than this, and it seems to work just fine.
The most I saw in Heathrow was that they made me take off my shoes, and they wouldn't really make a fuss about it if you didn't do it. The only time they made me take my shoes off was when they found a swiss army knife in my hand luggage (I absent-mindedly took it, along with 15 kg of stuff, from my checked luggage because they were too heavy).
Even with a pretty large knife in my luggage, what happened was that I had to go through the metal detector with shoes off, and then I had to wait for the police for 20 minutes. They were very polite and told me that there would be no problem if the knife wasn't a "locking" knife (no idea why that's a problem), but they just kept it and let me go.
However, I imagine I didn't look like the typical terrorist, with four bags bursting with clothes as hand luggage.
Not sure why you were modded down, since several types of knives are illegal to carry around in public (not to possess on private property or to carry around well packed such as in original secure packaging though).
Flick-knives have been illegal since forever (in fact since 1959 according to Wikipedia - responding to the threat of "teddy boys"!). Locking knives that open under gravity and lock are also illegal.
If it has a blade longer than 3 inches, then you need a 'good reason' to be carrying it in public. If not, then under normal circumstances (rule 7 applies) it's fine so long as the blade is capable of folding. A locking catch is fine, but a fixed blade isn't.
It seems safe to assume it's just the fact that you were planning to carry it on to a plane that made them unhappy.
Hmm, I see. I don't know exactly how long it was, but it was maybe 2.5-3 inches. The fact that I was carrying a server, 20 liters of LEGO and a backpack with 3 laptops and another one with underwear probably made it look quite nonthreatening.
I had no problem carrying a longsword into and out of the UK. I called the London police in advance to ask if it was an issue, and they asked me whether I could conceal it on my person. Since I could not (it's a longsword), it was not classed as a knife and so was no problem.
Given I practice with both, this is very true. And it's not just that they see it coming. But the parent to my original comment was noting it was just a pocketknife, not a sword or something. A small knife can do way more damage at close range, is nearly impossible to parry when in distance, and moves crazy fast. The saying goes that if you get into a knife fight, you will get cut, and you might die. Regardless if you win the fight.
EDIT: I now notice it was you that made that original comment, so I'll answer that: A knife that opens with little effort and then locks into place allows for one-handed arming and stabbing, without the risk that the blade will snap back and cut the user. It also enables a blade the length of the handle to be stored in space slightly more than the length of the handle itself. A blade of the length of your typical pocket is considered sufficient to easily cause fatal damage even when used by an untrained fighter. In many countries there are exceptions for knives that require two hands to open, or where the blade must be held in place during usage or where the blade is below some set total length. The UK has fairly strict restrictions on knives in general, so most of those exceptions do not apply.
Ah, I see, thank you. My knife was a pocketknife (so it had screwdrivers and stuff as well on it), and the blade was a bit of a bitch to open with two hands, so it was impossible to open it one-handed. Regardless, the policemen were polite and understanding, and did at no point want to touch my junk.
@duke_sam: If this article from Jeffery Goldburg is to be believed, there are TSA officials on record as saying the groping is directly intended to push people through the other scanners, all the while ignoring any cavities which could hide plenty of explosives or other contraband.
Agreed. I've just taken the last half hour to write to my senators in hopes it will gain some attention. This will be a hard issue to battle though - no senator wants to sponsor a bill that might be blamed for a terrorist attack.
It's hard to remember that a mere ten years ago the TSA did not exist and now it is already groping our grandpas. It is a good thing we are so much safer now.
I wonder: can I claim to be gay and would therefore prefer to be patted down by a woman? Can we make this a standard thing to claim?
I would imagine that if they did not adhere to this request, then they would be guilty of sexual discrimination. I can equally imagine the scene if 95% of male travellers claimed to be gay and demanded to be groped by a lady 'for American values'. I cannot imagine that there will be that many women willing to grope a man on command.
Other things to try: not washing for several days before the flight, telling the patting-down officer to be careful because you have lice, feigning injury from an aggressive pat-down and rolling around on the floor clutching your privates, like a soccer player who's been roughly tackled. Air travel has been turned into a fucking circus; let's go along with it and have some fun at the same time!
I think we're at the point where if you offered every traveler a choice of a screened flight or a non-screened flight, most would take the non-screened flight.
I suggest we all write our Congresscritters and explain this. I don't think protesting to the TSA, at any level, will accomplish anything at all.
Writing to congressfolk might be helpful. Calling might also help. If you can arrange it, a meeting might be the most helpful. Many congressfolk will meet with groups of constituents, so if you can get a couple of people together, you might be able to get an appointment. Meeting in person with a congressional staffer is usually not too difficult, especially if you have some expertise. I'd guess that at least 30% of HN readers know enough about basic security to give a cogent explanation of why extensive airport security restrictions don't make anyone safer.
Why should your congresscritter care? At most you represent one vote, and you aren't likely to donate money to them.
No if you want to change this, you have to go after the TSA people, not with violence (as tempting as it is, and as deserving of it as they are) but by totally ostraciseing them: if you work in a shop, you don't serve them, if you are a doctor you don't treat them, if you used to have them over for lunch you don't invite them anymore, if their children goes to your children's school you don't talk to them, invite them for birthday celebrations, etc, etc.
Then maybe the TSA will learn that they too need other people and can't go around being assholes.
Congressmen usually assume that for every person that bothers to write in, there are ten people that feel similarly. So yes, concerted letter-writing campaigns can have an effect.
We even saw some of that in action with the bailout. Recall that the first bailout bill failed, despite heavy pressure from Wall Street, because of a mostly-Internet-organized letter writing campaign. Then they turned around and passed it with minor edits a week later, when everyone was celebrating their victory.
The problem is that legislators typically work on an out-of-sight, out-of-mind basis, so once they count up all the letters and cast their vote, they forget all about general public opinion. Professional lobbyists know this, and so they live and work in Washington and make sure to schedule regular dinners and outings with the legislators so that whatever concerns are on their minds stay on the legislators' minds too.
Ordinary citizens don't have this luxury, and the collective Internet hive mind isn't exactly known for attention span. I bet that if you got a Reddit-scale letter-writing campaign going and kept it up for a year, with every person writing in once a week or so, you'd see meaningful change in this country. I also doubt that you could convince a critical mass of people to write in once a week for a year.
Might be an interesting political hack, though, and worth trying.
Maybe a group could participate in a scheduled letter-writing or calling campaign. Once you join, you will be sent a reminder in the week it is your turn to write or call.
Actually, nowadays, the email is more likely to be read in a timely fashion. Snail mail to congress gets delayed because it's subject to heavy duty security screening before it ever reaches the legislator's office. It may be useful for issues of general concern, but if you're writing about any specific piece of legislation presently under consideration your snail mail may not even reach your representative's office until after the bill has already been voted upon. You're better off phoning.
I understandthat arguing with the TSA screeners at the ceckpoint is pointless as they have no ability to change policy and you don't have time to miss your flight, but I have also wondered wht kind of person can work for the TSA and be happy getting paid to do this.
One of our interns this summer used to work in one of the London airports, where his job was basically to tell people that they were allowed strictly one bag, and yes, that little plastic bag they're carrying with a book they just bought counts as one bag, and yes, you're going to stuff your purse into your backpack because that counts as a bag too, and so on.
Very irritating stuff, particularly since it has absolutely zero bearing on security (why would the number of bags make a difference??), and so seems like a completely arbitrary imposition of force. I once chatted with someone who worked for the airlines and they said they didn't care about how many bags you carried (within reason), but the regulation is imposed by BAA (British Airports Authority).
So, our intern worked there for a month or two. Every time he let someone through with more than one bag he was told off by his supervisor after someone at the security checkpoint reported him, and eventually at one point when the guy was complaining about him once again, he had enough and he quit.
Why'd he do it? For the money. Easy money, not a tough job, not that risky. Yes, people think you're an asshole, but when you're a starving student with no money, you can cope with that.
I don't think being angry at these people would help any more than it would help to be angry at the piece of paper that a parking fine is printed on.
>Yes, people think you're an asshole, but when you're a starving student with no money, you can cope with that.
If someone is ready to be an asshole for money don't expect me to go easy on them because "they're just doing their job". You are responsible for what you do and "just doing my job" is not a legitimate excuse. If you're just trying to take the easy way out then I want to make your life a miserable living hell so you never think of taking this shortcut ever again.
I can't express how much I loath this non-excuse. People like Hitler are able to commit such atrocities because of literal armies of people "just doing their job".
I experienced this ridiculousness at Gatwick. I'm not sure what they expected families with prams and babies to do. The pressure to conform, as a crowd, to the expectations of the airport staff was intense and uncomfortable, especially around Christmas/New Years.
I have also wondered wht kind of person can work for the TSA and be happy getting paid to do this.
The rank and file TSA agent who yells "take your shoes off" when you are in the line, looks at the metal detector when you walk through and checks your bags when they see something unusual...
... that's practically a minimum wage job on par with being a shift supervisor at Starbucks. And at most airports they're all contract staff - yes, even TSA is outsourced.
The people who are groping you for not taking the back-scatter scan work for a boss who owns the a company that contracts them to the TSA - they're so removed from any policy decision it's not worth venting unless you can see a senior person as they are usually staff.
In fact, you can see the pecking-order at airpots - the front-line contractor doing minimum wage tend to be black, latino etc and the senior staff are old white guys. The two-tier system has removed a great deal of diversity. Sad.
It doesn't matter who they are or what their setup is. If everyone made this the most miserable job on earth then no one would want to do it. That is the goal.
Middle Easterners are born Middle Easterners. TSA agents choose to work for the TSA. These people choose to participate in a bad system. If you make it harder on these people, they're gonna quit and it's going to be harder to hire TSA agents, putting pressure exactly where it needs to go.
What you're suggesting is idiotic. These are not dignified, middle-class jobs held by people who have much choice in life. It's work given to people whose entire lives have been defined by bad systems. Schooling, health care, criminal justice - at the low end of the scale they're all maliciously self-serving in a way that middle class people struggle to imagine.
If you think being a dick to people whose entire lives have been shaped by a series of collective 'f* yous' form society, then you deserve whatever 'secondary screening' they elect to give you. You really do.
And if you genuinely believe that every job is a matter of choice, that people are free to quit if they're at all unaligned with their employer, then you've lived your entire life in an amazingly sheltered and privileged bubble. This makes the image of you (essentially) spitting on the much less fortunate even more appalling. All you're doing is making them even meaner and more defensive - something that's likely to make life harder for everyone else having to deal with them as screeners.
I'm not defending what the TSA is doing. It's clearly stupid and awful, and I strongly suspect it's a product of corrupt back-scatter purchasing deals made by craven congressmen in exchange for campaign money and mindless votes. But taking out your anger on the luckless human fodder that these people have insulated themselves with is galacticly uninformed. If this is honestly your approach, just stop.
All you're doing is making them even meaner and more defensive - something that's likely to make life harder for everyone else having to deal with them as screeners.
That's exactly how nonviolent resistance is supposed to work. You have to amplify conflicts to the breaking point before they get resolved. That means making things uncomfortable for a lot of people.
Of course, I don't think it's going to be effective, for reasons similar to what you mention--most people who are affluent enough to care about this issue are pretty unlikely to socialize with the class of people the TSA recruits from anyway.
All of that having been said, your moral defense of these people is pretty questionable. "I'm just following orders and trying to make a living" isn't a moral defense for the actual human beings who are out there violating people's bodily privacy. I'm sympathetic to your argument, but quite frankly it leads in a pretty terrifying direction that's directly counter to what the Western world collectively agreed on after the Second World War. More worryingly, it gives governments an incentive to use these people for their dirty work, secure in the knowledge that the actual decision makers are remote enough, and the people doing the dirty work are poor enough, that neither group will face any resistance.
So what is your non-idiotic proposed solution? Do nothing? At this point stirring the pot is exactly what's called for. Make this awful process even worse for everyone involved until it finally blows. And the sooner the better.
People like you get to sit on the high horse and point out how you're morally superior to everyone. Meanwhile it's the unreasonable who keep on changing the world.
EDIT: Further, these jobs didn't exist at all not so long ago. You can't claim the people doing them now are somehow "trapped" there. What the hell were they doing before?
Or they can work for the TSA and get access to health care. If your 'respect' for them as humans is conditional on them acquiescing to life at the absolute lowest (legal) tier, I suspect they can live without it.
What I'm really saying here is that a decent sense of situational awareness would indicate that being a jerk at the airport is too little too late. As in individual, you've already been socially isolated, so the effort is going to be exceedingly counterproductive, in that you're only going to prompt further hardening.
If you're one of the many many people for whom air travel is essential, you're going to find more effective routes to common cause long before you get to the departure gate.
I can't honestly say where they are. I suspect something will need to be created before any real leverage exists. I just know that if I were looking for a place to develop this, the least viable option would be by myself, at the gate, doing something that's far more likely to harm me and the people who are depending on me to get somewhere that the people who are practically looking for a fight.
I am afraid you misunderstand me, I didn't intend for them to be treated as they treated middle-easterns, but as the blacks where treated in the south during the Jim Crow era, minus the lynchings (since this would put those who do this at the risk of prosecution).
The idea is that the agents will grow to hate their jobs and then quit, and to make it harder, much, much harder for the TSA to hire people.
Since being a TSA employee is job which you choose to get, and one from which you can quit at anytime, this seems fair.
I don't think the airline passengers get to decide what happens to themselves. If a bomb or hijackers get on a plane far more is at risk than those that are actually on the plane.
Besides 9/11, where have passenger jets been used as weapons? Isn’t the worst case a demand of a ransom in exchange for the hostage travelers? How are others “far more at risk”?
Shoe bomb, underwear bomb, water bottle bomb, cargo bomb, these were all (thwarted) attempts to destroy a plane in transit over metropolitan areas. When is the last time someone hijacked a plane and demanded a ransom for the passengers outside of a movie? What do you exactly think happens to a plane when it explodes over a populated area?
It’s hard to imagine the common case would involve fatalities greater than double the occupancy. As an urban citizen, you’re still a bajillion times more likely to die in a car accident than due to an exploding plane…
They were all thwarted... but the water and cargo bombs were thwarted by intelligence work, not by security screening, and the underwear guy really should have been.
Unfortunately, they're only protesting that it be used against pilots. They say nothing about the rights of their passengers. From the article (emphasis mine):
"the practice of airport security screening of airline pilots has spun out of control and does nothing to improve national security"
They would have deserved more kudos if they had stood up for passengers' rights as well.
I am not a pilot, but I find the fact that they have to be security screened to be pretty darn annoying, and I'm glad they're protesting. A pilot does not need a box cutter to crash the plane. They have full control over the plane by definition.
Well, the value of a sympathizing pilot that is willing to smuggle in truly dangerous stuff is probably higher than the value of the average guy that is willing to crash a plane with himself in it. Using the (unscreened) pilot, one could generate a stream of well-armed terrorists.
Sorry, I don't think you're addressing what I meant, and I don't see the relevance of your latest statement to what I wrote. Can you please explain?
In the scenario you described, the pilot dies ("A pilot does not need a box cutter to crash the plane. They have full control over the plane by definition."). Hence I am guessing your point is that we only need to be worried about suicidal pilots (who can't be stopped anyway, and who are very few in number), the risk of which it very low.
I was trying to point out that if you don't check pilots at security checkpoints, we will also have to worry about non-suicidal pilots (which is a much larger population), the risk of which is non-trivial.
Again, am I missing something obvious in your two statements? I am not supporting the TSA's gropers, I am just saying that pilots need to go through the same security procedures as the cattle. Otherwise there's a security hole. Are you disagreeing with this? If so, you haven't backed it up, as far as I can tell.
My hope is that if pilots and flight attendants are forced to be groped everyday, they will stop groping us cattle too.
It's a matter of perspective, I imagine, but I don't think the airlines have much power here at all. I think it's reasonable to view US airports as having been nationalized over the past 9 years, so I think elected officials are probably a more-effective vector here.
Why would you assume that airlines can effectively lobby them?
From a government official's perspective, the truth is that when an attack happens, they're going to get blamed. People aren't going to blame the airlines, they're going to blame the government. The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the better protected officials are from blame when the inevitable attacks finally occur.
There's nothing an airline official can offer a government to compensate for loss of shielding from blame. As long as Americans are pathetic and fearful, we will have the government we deserve.
> The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the better protected officials are from blame when the inevitable attacks finally occur.
I believe that is true for other security theaters as well. A large bank, for example, instead of hiring in-house security experts, might contract out their security to an outside firm. Not because it is necessarily cheaper or the consulting company will do a better job, but because they can be blamed if something goes wrong.
A security breach happens, shareholders are up-in-arms, C*Os tell them "we hired the best, we payed them a lot of money, if they can't protect our data, nobody can."
The security firm in the meantime has to do their best to project themselves as "the experts". Usually carefully chosen stock photography of people in the business suits smiling and talking on the phone on the front page of their website, and the ability of the salesman to play and _lose_ at golf does the trick.
TSA does the same thing. They are the scapegoats. So when shit hits the fan, nobody can point out to the politicians and say "you fucked up". Security theater is not pointless, it has an exact purpose, and that is to protect and serve (the government) from future blame.
The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the larger the shitstorm officials will be in when the inevitable attacks finally occur and people realise the TSA groped their toddlers for nothing.
But, unions have no incentive to lobby the government in this matter on behalf of anyone other than airline employees. By definition, the airline unions don't represent the general public, so they can't be expected to lobby on behalf of the public.
Except that they won't, they'll just lower prices and get bailed out with tax-dollars if they get into financial trouble. Air-travel is now a matter of national security, and by this token airlines are not threatenable.
Too bad the invasions of privacy at TSA checkpoints don't do anything to prevent "attacks". If you're going to cover your ass, at least do it in an effective way that doesn't offend your intelligent voters.
A thought comes to mind: Is it arguably illegal now for a job to require you to fly? It may not be sexual assault in the legal sense when the TSA does it, but that's partially because you can be said to have consented. If someone else is "forcing you to consent" (quoted for oxymoronicity) then that is a different thing altogether, and given the extreme attention the law pays to sexual harassment in the workplace it would not surprise me that while the government and the TSA agents are indemnified, your company may not be.
Actually, let me refine that to merely point out that one could plausibly file a very expensive and uncomfortable-to-your-employer lawsuit over this; I wouldn't guarantee victory, but I wouldn't guarantee defeat, either.
The solution is rather simple tho requires a fair bit of determination and ground swell to achieve.
The Gandhian strategy of civil disobedience, TSA wants more people to pass thru the porn machine. We as a country should request not passing thru the machine. Assume that more people require individual attention resulting in greater lines and longer delays at the airports. Delays that will not be acceptable to the airlines, TSA or even us the traveling people.
Small price to pay to secure the freedoms of those after us.
There are a couple of consequences that could happen as a result, (a) mandatory porn machine scan for everyone no exception or (b) a change in policy.
For a president who claimed that we were winning the war because the terrorist hated our freedoms, this loss of freedom should come as a shock. We might be winning the battle of the guns, we are losing the war of the minds.
--- Interim recruiting slogan for the TSA ---
Come one , come all, we grope them all. White or color, young or old, women and men. Gay straight and transsexuals we like to feel them all.
(Small print): TSA is an equal opportunity groper. Guarantor : United states Govt.
This is a good idea, but I think to be effective would require more organization; everyone here deciding to do this the next time they fly to their random destination wouldn't likely delay any flights.
If you could organize enough people to constitute 25-50% of a flight's passenger capacity, you could plan in advance to all fly to the cheapest/closest destination (so everyone is on the same flight, and no one has to spend too much). Maybe some publicity would result.
That's a great idea, but if you're truly committed to civil liberties, you need to take it to the next level by faking an orgasm while you're being groped.
I've done things similar to this with mixed results. Instead of a thong, I stripped to T-shirt and boxer shorts (plus underwear) or to top and bottom long underwear (pajamas, essentially). Boston and Albany didn't blink an eye, whereas El Paso involved an unpleasant exchange with a police officer.
This was a while ago, though, after the initial shoe bomber I incident. Responses may be different now. Try to decide in advance what your goals are: are you hoping to make a scene or not? Likely you should not do not do things like this if it is not acceptable to miss your plane. I'd recommend choosing a final outfit that you would feel comfortable defending to a judge as not indecent to wear in a public place.
(I suppose I should mention: I personally have no problem with backscan X-ray so long as it is fast, safe, and effective. It's the security theater that I am willing to protest against, not the perceived invasion of privacy.)
Is it safe? I recently learned that a CAT scan has 400x the amount of radiation as an x-ray and that it's speculated that a nontrivial number of cancer cases are caused by CAT scans.
I don't know if it is safe. I'm pretty sure it is faster than the alternatives. I also don't know if it is effective in preventing terrorist attacks. Safety and effectiveness would be my primary concerns rather than the worries about 'naked' pictures.
I've been thinking about doing this for a while - show up in line wearing a nice business suit, then slowly, one piece at a time, strip down to a thong, send each piece through the X-ray machine, and walk through with a big fat grin.
It's hard to think of a procedure that would encourage more disrespect and fear of government, its personnel and policies than the aggressive pat down.
It's clearly meant as intimidation. Your government disrespects you so much that it will subject you to a humiliating experience to intimidate you into accepting a different humiliating experience.
When my government shows me this much disrespect and intimidation, I start to wonder whether they're serving my needs, and whose needs they really are serving.
This is thuggery, and the only difference between the aggressive pat down, and slapping me in the face until I agree to go in the scanner, is in degree, not in kind.
The actions by certain TSA employees as depicted by recent articles on HN are reprehensible. No doubt about it.
However! I fly about every 2 to 3 weeks in and out of big airports and small airports. I have had pat downs and swipes and millimeter wave scans. I have even worked on next generation explosives detection technology(THz,Long Range, Surface UV). Yet, over the past 3 years of this type of mobile lifestyle, I have never observed or have been subjected to the types of harassment recent articles have detailed. Surely it happens, yes. But my experience both on the inside and out of this industry tells a different story. Privacy IS respected by people developing and deploying these technologies. Privacy IS respected by TSA employees who are concerned for the safety of each passenger.
Whether these policies or technologies are effective is another debate, but I just think there is a great deal of overgeneralization going on here. Maybe I'm just an outlier.
The article (and others) is in regard to the very recently implemented policy changes by TSA in the past couple weeks. Otherwise I agree with you and haven't personally experienced problems in my frequent travel.
I haven't flown in a few months, and it sounds like from these articles that these pat downs are fairly recent (possibly in response to the printer cartridges?).
I otherwise agree with you. The security procedures I have been used to for the past few years were annoying because there was a rather small line to wait in, but I did not feel my privacy was breached during those trips through the security line.
However, these new pat downs (if they are as widespread as I am lead to believe) would be where I would draw the line.
I'm from Australia, but we will be flying to the US in the next few years with our son (and we have a second on the way).
My question is, are children subject to the requirement of either a scan or a pat down?
I find it hard to believe that any law would allow the photographing of a child effective nude, much less the touching of "genitals". I would never allow my child(ren) to be subjected to either of these measures. Does this mean I should find another country to visit?
Even for adults, call me ignorant, but how is this not sexual assault? In any other situation, if I was subjected to a genital grope I'd be pressing charges.
Wow, so you have not heard about this outrage yes. Yes, Children are subjected to both the pat down and the scan. Find somewhere else if this concerns you. The US is making itself more and more unfriendly to visit, which is a shame, because it is such a great place to go.
Yeah I've been following the outrage, I just wasn't sure if it applied to children. Thanks for the info.
If my child needs to be viewed naked by a stranger, or has to be groped to get onto a plane in the US, then yes we'll be finding somewhere else to visit.
It is a shame, my wife and I travelled across the US for our honeymoon 4-5 years ago and loved it. But I wouldn't subject my children to such a perverse security screening process.
Not quite. Islamic extremists don't care one bit about the erosion of American civil liberties; they simply want foreign powers _out_ of lands they view as sacred. Capitulation in the face of terror is one method of achieving this end, the other is a ruinous, lasting and unwinnable war designed to sap the power of the invader. What we do to ourselves that does not achieve their ambition is irrelevant.
Terrorists haven't won: the sacred lands they prize so highly are still "occupied". Rather, we've simply been dullards content to walk around in our socks, whistling 'God Bless America' to pass the time.
You might find Robert A. Pape's "Dying to Win" an interesting refutation of your post.
> While the motivation of individual terrorists is quite diverse, and some do actually want foreign influence out of holy sites, the overwhelming force behind their hatred towards western culture is actually based on the conviction that they have to destroy a deeply amoral and infidel society.
An interesting assertion. You have perused their literature, as you've implied some for of quantization. Please do share your data.
> The 9/11 terror attacks were carried out mostly by religious lunatics from Saudi Arabia, a land that is both wealthy and not occupied by western forces. Of course subsequent American military action in Afghanistan and especially Iraq has catalyzed the recruitment of some new terrorists who may start out with the reasons you described. But even given the ongoing conflicts in the occupied countries, the majority of terrorists come from wealthier backgrounds and never suffered any occupation themselves.
You have entirely misunderstood me. It's not the occupation of nation states that motivate, but the occupation of Holy Lands. You'll note that Saudia Arabia contains the Holy City of Mecca and the Holy City of Medina. American bases once near these cities caused a significant amount of religious and secular anger; strong American relations with Saudi Arabia still do.
> However, the prime motivation of the terrorist is not withdrawal of western influence anywhere.
Oh?
> Instead the goal is to achieve some kind of conversion by using fear as a weapon.
Hopelessly vague. You do know that these groups actually _state_ their intentions, both publicly and privately?
> The religious radicalization of the US in recent years together with our willingness to obliterate the freedom that once formed the very basis of our society, those are the intended effects and they were achieved on purpose.
How do you know this? How could anyone, further, have predicted this outcome?
> We are now closer than ever in spirit to the Islamic idea of society,
That's wrong-headed. Islamic societies were for centuries bastions of learning and art. Increased environmental hardship and the resulting poverty shifted Middle Eastern cultures to a more repressive frame of being, but this is hardly some intrinsic "Islamic" trait. Also, I seriously doubt that the goal of fundamentalist Muslims is to create fundamentalist Christians. Seems rather counter-productive, especially considering their rhetoric and historical views concerning The Crusades.
> we once again have disavowed science in favor of abject ignorance,
This phenomena is hardly new in human civilization. Note that Victorian Britains were enamored of the Marvels of Science and their disenchanted Edwardian children became mystics.
> we are taking back achievements of equality,
Oh?
> we are even working on instating Sharia law in some places.
Preposterous.
> We have indeed declared war on the concepts that Muslim radicals hated the most, not the least of which are: individual freedom and rights, self-fulfillment, women's rights, sex (for non-procreation purposes), education, free speech, and science.
Note that despite the rhetoric of al Queda, they have never attacked a country which did not operate a military base near territory they consider Holy. This assertion has no basis in fact.
> Keeping that in mind, the TSA's purpose is not to provide security, or even to provide a false sense of security. Its job is to update people's expectations about the nature of the society they are now living in. They chose to do this in a place where we're vulnerable, where our employment is on the line, where we invested a lot of money. They chose to do this in a place that once symbolized the freedom to travel anywhere we wanted without government interference. To show they own us, and to not-so-subtly demonstrate how completely our freedom depends on personal compliance and the ability to get along with overseers who possess the power to do pretty much anything to us on a whim.
Ah, "They". I reject your initial premise without more evidence and so do not, as yet, grant your conclusion. The vaguely Conspiracy Theory Open-Secrete tone of the conclusion is further damaging, to my mind.
I think the interesting bit is this choice between getting groped in public vs. private.
Personally, I'm much more comfortable with an authority figure in public than in private. I mean, photos of some TSA guy with his arm halfway up my ass are going to be a whole lot more embarrassing for him than for me. I mean, he could loose his job, while for me, the worst that would happen is my friends would tease me a bit.
Really, "what you would be willing to do when other people are watching" is often a reasonable ethical shorthand for 'the right thing' - allowing people to (optionally) release the recording of their interaction with law enforcement would go a long ways towards reducing abuses by law-enforcement.
On the other hand, what I'm really afraid of is getting put on some secret list, and video taping doesn't protect me from that.
I'm flying for Thanksgiving, I plan to get to SFO a little early and hand out some of these flyers that a Flyertalk user created: http://www.dontscan.us/downloads.html They're not perfect, but pretty accurate all-around.
Whether you prefer to let someone see you naked or grope you is a personal decision, but I imagine there are plenty of people who haven't flown in the last 2-3 years, and they should at least know their options before they get into security and blinded by authority.
Also, just in case anyone else gets ideas, political activity at SFO is restricted. You'll need to request a permit from the Security Access Office first.
On the other hand, video tapes released from Sudan of terrorists in intense training to increase their payload capacity for rectally delivered explosives could become an overnight internet sensation.
Not explicitly tech related, but since a lot of tech folk are photographers and we all tend to fly a bit more than the average person, thought it was good info to have here.
Just wait until someone tries to smuggle something onboard using their iPad or Kindle. shakes head
The pat-down gloves are sometimes sent through a residue scanner. However, assuming you place the foreign object into the cavity using a surgery setup any residue that _would_ trip the detector is likely to be left on the long discarded prep-clothes.
Reading these stories it makes it sound as if American Airports are becoming a virtual Police State (I haven't been to the US since 2002).
I live in a first world country (New Zealand) and we only have metal detectors and x-ray machines (and you only have to go through them if your plane has more then 50 seats). They're quite lax about it as well I've gotten knives through (accidentally) both in my pocket and on a tray through the x-ray machine. Also our inbound customs care more about fruit than drugs or explosives: http://www.customs.govt.nz/nr/rdonlyres/9bec875b-dc37-4309-9...
I'd drive or take a train if I could avoid flying. Unfortunately, I live on an island, not much I can do except take a plane if I want to visit family in the continental US.
I pretty much have to do what they want or be stuck here.
It's interesting to note that if these machines produced a regular "skeleton" x-ray image, instead of the "nude" image, nobody would care that much, and it might even be an improvement, if it sped up the lines.
What do you mean soon? The US already holds people indefinitely - see Guantánamo. As to whether these people are innocent or guilty of anything, you might have thought or hoped that's for a judge to decide via a trial, but it doesn't seem to matter.
>As to whether these people are innocent or guilty of anything
If there is no evidence what so ever of their guilt (and obviously there isn't or they would be tried) why would it be rational to assume they might be guilty?
My remark was in the context of backroom airport searches by the TSA. I'm aware of the wider context but saw no need to include it or specifically exclude it.
This is making the US look like a country with a repressive government. Many countries with repressive governments don't look this bad when you visit their airports.
I fear that the military-industrial complex has finally found something to be afraid of that can't fight back: its own citizenry.
Sadly enough, this is not an issue of good people or bad people -- I think the vast majority of TSA screeners are good people who want only what's best for the public. This problem has two parts, framing and execution.
The framing is a one-sided issue: who's going to argue that we need less security? It's a system designed to continue to turn the screws. Mark my words. It will not stop here.
The execution is even worse: top-down, one-size-fits-all, factory-processing of people. This makes for an expensive, cumbersome, and inflexible system. Oddly enough, the more standardized you make security practices, the easier you make it for real terrorists to take down the system. It's the entire basis of asymmetrical warfare. Small groups of highly-nimble adversaries working against a huge standardized behemoth. The U.S. should have made a conscious decision not to play that game. But it didn't.
When you have a problem that's defined poorly and executed poorly? Not much chance of improvement, I'm afraid.
I haven't stepped on a plane since 9/11 due to the stupidity of the new regulations. In that time, I've taken 3 cross-country (Utah to east coast) Greyhound trips and one drive that would have been normally taken by plane. Two of those situations were for end-of-life situations for grandparents.
I've investigated trains, but they cost nearly as much as a plane and take almost as long as the bus, so why not take the cheaper option?
I'd personally refuse to take any job that required air travel and wouldn't let me drive in lieu of the plane. I'm sure that would limit my professional options, but I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Yeah, but the point is that anyone with half a brain would put whatever they're carrying out of reach of the pat down (ie places you'd have to do a cavity search for, however it gets there), so all that we're accomplishing here is feeling people up for that same impression of security (and, to drive people to the scanners to be photographed naked, which still won't find whatever is hidden in your body).
Why do people keep insisting on flying under these conditions? Seriously, you can find pictures of pretty much any place you want online, you can have a video call to the other side of the planet for free through Skype, and you can buy pretty much anything you want online.
It makes sense for the photographer, but it makes no sense for most people who fly.
My family lives on the east coast. I live on the west coast. Christmas and family vacations are the only time I get to spend time with my mother, father, sister, and brother. My parents are getting older--- I see them seldom enough that every time I'm surprised at how much older they look. This among other things makes me acutely aware of how we're each missing out on one another's lives.
I hate traveling as much as the next person. Maybe more so since I do it regularly, around Christmas, every goddamn year. It's awful. It's hideously expensive. For my fiancee and I, it's costs more than $1000. And sometimes it's downright enraging. Of course I've questioned whether or not it's worth it, numerous times. My parents and I email one another. We talk on the phone. I play L4D2 with my brother online. But there's three hours' difference, and you might be surprised by how difficult that makes things. And for all of technology's virtues, nothing compares with having a once-a-year, sit-down dinner with the whole family; shootin' the shit in front of a warm fire; and so on.
Telecommuting will shut you out of many of the most desirable employers (eg. startups, Google, FaceBook). You actually lose a lot in terms of communication efficiency and hence productivity, and most fast-moving companies are very aware of that. If you do get a job at, say, one of Google's remote offices, your project choices are much more limited than at the home office.
My choice was to take the good job, see the family, and put up with the brain-dead TSA regulations for the 3ish times a year that I fly home. I don't like it, but it's the path of least resistance that lets me arrange the rest of my life optimally. I suspect many other people make the same choice.
Simple answer to this question - most people prefer to experience things themselves, rather than outsourcing those experiences to photographers. Photos and videos don't even begin to approach the satisfaction of actually being somewhere.
93% of conversation is non-verbal[1]. Videoconferencing does not cut it, seeing someone's head and shoulders while they are consciously playing the part of "videoconferencer" misses or conceals most of it. For any decision or discussion that matters there simply is no substitute for being there.
> It makes sense for the photographer, but it makes no sense for most people who fly
Most people who fly do so for business or commuting reasons. They can choose between their job and flying, or they can choose between their families and flying, and few are ready to make either choice. I know I'm not.
(As an aside, anyone who thinks a Skype video call is any sort of substitute for sitting in the same room with family obviously has no children and is almost certainly unmarried.)
Haven't we had enough of these articles already? They're not about startups or technology, really, and I think we've all formed our opinions at this point. Posting them here won't change a thing, in any case.
"Posting them here won't change a thing, in any case."
I strongly disagree, David. Keeping this issue in front of smart people (many of whom travel extensively) is probably one of the best ways to initiate change.
But the fraction of the traveling public that reads HN has to be minute. Seriously, what would you estimate the increase is in the probability of significant improvements to TSA policy, by virtue of this article being posted vs if it had been rejected as off topic? Even one millionth of a percent increase in probability seems high to me. People like to vent and posture, but in the moment of choice they'll almost always choose the most convenient alternative. Very few will file formal complaints, even among readers here. And as others have pointed out, the incentives for the TSA almost force them to be over cautious, so that they can survive if something bad happens.
Something has to be done. This has continued to get worse at least every year. We can't sit back and justify why we don't need to do anything.
This thing even has serious health issues associated with it. You know Doctors stand behind lead shielding when they give X-rays, right? And I bet most doctors give less than 40 X-rays a day, but this thing has at least 40 times the radiation of an X-ray. Is dying of cancer convenient enough for you?
In the US, politicians and the judiciary change laws. Those people do not read HN, and don't give a shit if a bunch of nerds who represent approximately .00001% of the electorate get their britches in a bunch over something or other. Posting political things here makes people feel good, but doesn't do one damn thing in the real world. To do that, you need to get out and engage with the political system. Clicking little arrows is, to put it bluntly, just wanking around.
And in any case, do you really want to go down the road where this site is utilized for the cause du jour? Want to see taser articles here?
"Posting political things here makes people feel good, but doesn't do one damn thing in the real world."
Again, I have to disagree with you on this. HN is where I found at about this issue to begin with, and I have already: 1. donated to EPIC's http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ , 2. begun changing travel plans, 3. informed a number of friends and colleagues (non-HN users) who have in turned passed it on to others. Clearly, there are "real world" effects.
And the scanner print outs should be publicly available, as well as videos of the groping...eh "pat downs".
Surely they wouldn't require the cattle to do something that they themselves would object to? Surely.
BTW filling out a complaint form is a complete waste of time...if you want to get attention, actually call your senator/representative.