TSA - new security opinion

[ellenmillion]

You've probably noticed the dearth of politics and general OMG-DRAMA in this blog. That's about half deliberate choice to keep my opinions to myself, and half a lack of investment in the current OMG-DRAMA issues that happen.

This new TSA security? DO NOT WANT.

Either option is invasive, x-rays are not something you should be casually exposed to in any doses, and are cumulative, making them a bad idea for people who travel regularly... like my husband. If I had children, I would stop travelling with them immediately, because neither option is something I consider safe for them. And if they decide your scan is blurred, they can squeeze you anyway.

This feels like a dangerous step towards a loss of personal dignity and safety. I disagree with their reasons, and I disagree with their implementation. It says to me, more clearly than anything else I've seen, that we have already lost our war with the 'terrorists,' and if we don't do something about it, we're going to go down an inevitable spiral into an actual police state.

I do not want this.

Enough so that I am considering taking a 50% hit on the vacation I had planned for next month. Enough so that I am actually blogging about it.

Some more links:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/life/health/americans-fed-up-with-airport-security-measures-pat-downs-angering-travellers-108523499.html <- Dave Barry gets groped after a blurry scan

http://jimhines.livejournal.com/539229.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother <- an excellent resource of alternatives

http://www.askthepilot.com/essays-and-stories/terrorism-tweezers-and-terminal-madness-an-essay-on-security/

Comments

[jenny_evergreen]

Thank you! People keep saying "privacy" and that word wasn't working for me..."personal dignity" hits the nail on the head.

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! It did take a little re-writing to find that phrase.

[theresamather.livejournal.com]

TSA once strip searched my little nephew down to his diapers because of his metal buttons on his little overalls. Now I guess they're going to treat us all that way. :P

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

PLUS, a squeeze to the diaper. O.o

[octoberdreaming.livejournal.com]

I should have put this on my last entry; I'll make another one later today. http://thetsachoice.com/ <-- It's a group started by a friend of mine that applies transmedia techniques to activism. We're just getting started, and Andrea had to do some stuff for work, but we're going to be putting some stuff together in the next week or so, I think.

I'm so depressed over this. I couldn't even sleep last night for thinking about it.

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

This is a line. Seriously. :/

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I have been reading about all this with horror since I'm getting on a plane on Friday.

My spouse's suggestion: video of everything. Audio if you can't manage it. Set your phone to record, shove it in your pocket. Make sure they know we're watching. We're all watching THEM.

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

Ugh! Let me know how it goes. I've got a trip scheduled in December that I'm tempted to cancel. I'm not even that squicky about being touched, but this is a line, and they've crossed it. I intend to opt-out, and the husband and I will try to stagger so we can record each other. If we go. If it weren't non-refundable, it would already be called off...

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean.

Well, hopefully it will be quiet. We'll see. :P

[amanda-now.livejournal.com]

I don't think any grown person should be allowed (let alone PAID) to grope the body (including genitals I heard) of anyone, unless they are in law enforcement and they're dealing with criminals. This especially holds true to children. I heard a three year old girl was pulled aside - but NOT her parents?? - and was screaming "stop touching me!" and bawling as she was being groped. That's very upsetting to me and frankly I'm not afraid to call any grown person who does that a state-endorsed pedophile.

These people in the TSA are not well trained enough to keep us safe. These are government employees. This is a job factory paid for with tax dollars and does nothing to keep us safe. I have no respect for them and I will definitely not fly if it means either a naked imaging scan or being groped. I'm more than happy to drive.

[mathhobbit.livejournal.com]

So it's OK if you're doing it to criminals? What about suspected criminals?

(Sorry, I'm a troublemaker.)

[amanda-now.livejournal.com]

Hey, you can be a troublemaker if you want, that is the basis of a good society. But I'm not going to internet argue this because we certainly can't change each other's minds. However, since you asked, this is my opinion:

Absolutely. Anyone behaving suspiciously in the eyes of a trained - well trained, worth the cost - law enforcement person should be subjected to a search. Unfortunately that requires experience/training/brain power so it's just easier to grope children and nuns rather that singling out people who are more likely to be terrorists. And yes, I believe in profiling. Other countries have done it for years and have much more efficient security than we do.

[eregyrn.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing -- generally speaking, when criminals/suspects are subjected to various procedures, including searches like this (and even more invasive), it SHOULD happen only when there is probable cause, determined by a law enforcement officer. Are there violations of this? Of course, many. There are also recourses within the law to address violations of that system.

The situation we have now with the TSA is this: they (or, that is, our government) have determined that "intention to fly on an airplane" is *itself* probable cause to suspect *any* person, any time, anywhere of criminal intent.

This is really overturning the way our justice system has worked for... well, up until now. There are various ways to count it, but basically somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million people may be flying in the U.S. on any given day -- and ALL are being treated as potentially criminal enough, and considered as having given enough cause of suspicion, to warrant that all will be treated as criminal suspects. "Guilty until proven innocent"... wait, isn't that the wrong way around?

What I'm surprised by is that more people aren't attacking this on the basis of the Fourth Amendment.

Consider the following:

"Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (i.e., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband)."

Seriously, how did we get to the point that "bought a ticket to fly on an airplane" is considered enough of a "specific and articulatory fact which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" searches of this type?

(To be clear, I've thought that TSA's approach has been screwed up for some time now. I thought that it ALREADY went beyond what it should have, legally and constitutionally. But not enough people seemed to care. This, at least, is making more people care.)

IMO, it's not really about "privacy" or even "dignity" (although it directly attacks both). In the most basic way, it's about our constitutional right "to be secure in [our] persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches..." Fundamentally, as a US citizen, I have that right, unless I offer probable cause. "Buying an airline ticket" is not and should not constitute probable cause to be treated like a criminal until some security guard (not even a law enforcement officer) happens to decide that I am not one.

[mathhobbit.livejournal.com]

I think I agree with you but, as previously mentioned, I'm a troublemaker.

Do they still do pat-downs at rock concerts? If so, do your arguments also apply there? How do you apply them to the practice of searching lawyers and mental health professionals who visit jails? What about metal detectors at schools? Shoplifting detectors at store exits? Book detectors at library exits?

I'm inclined to draw the line at government mandated "invasive" searches (and we can quibble over "invasive" later). I'd understand drawing the line at *any* invasive search without probable cause, but we may have already lost that fight.

[eregyrn.livejournal.com]

I have no idea if they do pat-downs at rock concerts -- the last rock concert I attended was in, like, the early 90s, and they weren't doing it then for the concerts I was attending; and I don't really go to clubs or smaller concerts.

I also can't really speak to the situation regarding visitors at jails. I don't know what exactly *is* done.

Although, I would point out that the number of people who would be affected by a narrower search of lawyers/med professionals at jails is far, far lower than what we're talking about with "all airline passengers in the US, every day". Part of my point above was that the regulations are treating all passengers every day as *probable* criminals until an exhaustive search proves them innocent. In the jails situation -- that sounds like law enforcement targeting a smaller and defined population based on more specific criteria ("you are asking to enter the physical presence of a prisoner").

There may also be some argument that the restrictions and searches in that case are partly for the protection of the person going in (if prisoners know that those people have been searched and had things removed, they may be less likely to assault that person in an attempt to take from them items that could be useful). The "rational inferences" mentioned above (although it's not necessarily true that that particular ruling pertains to this kind of thing) include the percentage of actual lawyers or medical professionals who in the past, in the entire system, have tried to smuggle in contraband plus the number of prisoners who have tried to assault anyone in their presence for the purpose of obtaining items. In comparison with the total number of in-person visits per day by outsiders, that percentage may have been high enough to warrant the "rational inference".

Meanwhile -- out of 800 million airline passengers per year (estimated, obviously), 1 had an underwear bomb last year... that we know of. It really doesn't seem to pass the "rational inference" test to say that if one (or heck, even 10) people out of 800 million had an underwear bomb, that's close enough to probable cause to subject everyone to the highest level of scrutiny.

I would also imagine that the theory behind metal detectors (which, of course, have also been employed by the airlines for decades, as well as the venues you mention) and book detectors is this -- the information they can capture is intended to *provide* probable cause.

So I'm arguing, yes, that there's a large difference between a device that pings if a book in your possession (maybe in your bag) hasn't been cleared by the librarian... whereupon the librarian asks to check your bag for the errant book; and a blanket policy that says that all library patrons must empty their bags entirely before they may leave the library, regardless.

At no point prior to (or since) 9/11 did I, or most people, object to the basic level of airport security that involved walking through a metal detector (and occasionally having to do the "what the heck is setting it off?" dance even when "innocent") and having one's carry-on bags scanned by an x-ray machine (even though, to be honest, I've always questioned how useful that really was, after a while). Even prior to this latest round of idiocy, however, I think the TSA's regulations were crossing the line into unreasonable, constitutionally speaking.

The thing is that I am not of the opinion that all searches are *equally* invasive. And, going back to the Fourth Amendment, the guarantee is against *unreasonable* search and seizure -- not against any at all.

And, I think it's quite possible for us to define what's reasonable and what's not -- legally and constitutionally. I think that's done all the time. I just think that the TSA in particular has been set up so that not nearly enough care has been taken to define and justify what's reasonable. (Or, I should add -- I vehemently disagree with those who are the ones who have currently defined what's reasonable; I think they're working from a number of untenable, not to say outright irrational, assumptions.)

[mathhobbit.livejournal.com]

I like your arguments.

I think that at some concerts in the late 80's or early 90's it was standard procedure to pat down every audience member, looking for recording devices. (RUSH? Springsteen? Billy Joel? U2? I haven't been to that many concerts...)

One of the (many) differences between frequent flyers and concert goers is class, which is why I think it's worthwhile to compare the two cases. Alas that I don't know more about concerts.

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

I might add, too, that the concert pat-down is a private security company, granting private access to a private event, not a government entity granting access to a 'public' area of transportation.

Additionally, I think that concert pat-downs tend to be of the pre-October level - they don't touch the naughty bits, or they'd be sued for assault.

[mathhobbit.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I keep circling around to whether or not I can frame this as a private establishment setting requirements to use its services. Plane flight isn't exactly an unalienable human right, and the TSA in domestic terminals aren't exactly defending our borders, so (unless we're as well read as orca_girl) it's hard to know where we stand legally.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I watched half of the video of the 3-year-old before I had to stop. I wasn't sure if I was going to be sick or put my fist through the monitor.

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

I would far, FAR rather see them invest the billions they've spent on these machines in paying more and getting better quality individuals to do their screening - and I think it would WORK better.

I wish driving was an option, but it really only is at some times of the year, and adds a week, minimum, to any trip. Urg.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

The Israelification article does bother me a little in the sense that two of their major lines of defense are cited as... the inspector looks into the other guy's eyes and if he likes what he sees, the guy passes.

Understand, I'm not denying that some people are excellent judges of character, but... Can we find that many people who are good judges? And how do we tell the good judges apart from people who will say anything to get the job? No fair assuming you have good judges to start with who can do the job of screening out bad judges, because if you start with a corrupt judge...

[octoberdreaming.livejournal.com]

The thing is... the Israeli security people are both highly-trained and highly-paid. Their job is to get people through the airport as quickly as possible while eliminating any threat, and they receive the training to do that - lots of training. And they're paid enough to care and not be bullies, to act like professionals.

The same is not true for TSA employees, who are paid at barely above minimum wage and receive little or no training. You can definitely see the difference. They're there to clock in and clock out and collect their paycheck, not to secure the airport. If we want the quality and level of security available in the Israeli airports, we have to be prepared to pay for it.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Oh, not arguing with paying airplane security - or anyone - appropriately to get professional behavior! The minimum wage-ification of America is not conducive to economic growth either.

[octoberdreaming.livejournal.com]

I agree so much about the minimum wage culture!

[puffbird.livejournal.com]

Yes. I've been through Israeli airport security, and while they were VERY thorough about checking bags and people, they were absolutely professional about it -- and it really didn't take much time. Even when they found something suspicious in someone's bag down the way and they evacuated everyone in the immediate area, it was fast and they thoroughly checked the situation and pretty soon everything was back to normal.

It's all a matter of training. I could tell that the security people there were very well-trained. American security was very different. (Granted, my trip to Israel was 10 years ago, and LOTS of things have changed since then...)

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

I'd rather dump the billions they've spent on machines into finding out if we can get people to do this and see. I certainly feel no more safe the way they're doing things now!

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

I suppose the hope is that the machines would be long-term cheaper and more reliable! Obviously they should have tried market focus group testing. (shifty sideways look)

[mathhobbit.livejournal.com]

I think we've been on that slippery slope for a long time. It heartens me to see your post; I hope that someday soon Americans in general will be more concerned about liberty and justice than about safety.

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

Amen to that. I feel like this crosses a serious line, and at some point you have to say enough is enough. I'll take a risky freedom over a safe frisk any day...

[marina-bonomi.livejournal.com]

That's shocking!
My own country had been under terorist threat for years (both domestic terrorism and imported), I recall times in my life where every single day one heard of kidnappings or people gunned down or hijackings, but even in the worst times, when we had the army patrolling train stations complete with explosive-sniffing dogs, passengers were never subjected to anything like that. No one ever dreamed of suggesting it either.

About the Israelification of airports, I think it's not so much 'if the inspector likes what he sees the guy passes' as to have people very well trained in detecting signs of 'out of place' nervousness and agitation, I'm definitely oversimplifying here but avoiding eye-to eye contact,twitching, sweating...

Of course the crux of the matter is that a very serious level of training is needed and applicants must be extremely well screened beforehand

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

There's irony for you!

And I would LOVE to see better TSA training and selection.

[pixiewildflower.livejournal.com]

I am glad I don't have to fly anywhere.

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

Wish I didn't!

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

Penn of Penn & Teller has a blog about it too: http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/penniphile/roadpennfederalvip.html

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

Heh! I would love to see their show!

[uminomamori.livejournal.com]

I don't doubt some of the agents get off on making people really uncomfortable. They might say they're supposed to act like professionals, but I don't think so, with the posibility of your job being to feel up embarrassed women.

I really makes me not want to fly either.

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

It's a wretched situation. And an unnecessary one, in my opinion.

[xjenavivex.livejournal.com]

thanks

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

*tip of the hat*

[jenny heidewald (from livejournal.com)]

I agree with you, Ellen! And I keep running into this quote on pages about this issue: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

I am so sorry that you have a trip planned during the middle of this! It would be nice to find out what airports have scanners. A friend of mine said that when he was in AZ they didn't have one yet, and BWI didn't yet...

I hope that this gets resolved quickly because I really want to go and visit my family in AZ next year, with me being on the east coast, driving takes about 4 days, and my employer only allows one week of vacation time take at a time (even though we are alloted two weeks, there is summer vacation and winter vacation). :\

[gymnopedie.livejournal.com]

just google "airports with new body scanners" and there's lists :)

I know STL doesn't have one, but flying back in from my in-laws, Dallas does.

[puffbird.livejournal.com]

My mother-in-law flew to Houston recently, and on account of her hip replacement, had to undergo the "pat-down" on both flights, there and back. She was appalled at the lengths they went to -- even up under her shirt and around her bra. (On a 70-year-old woman!) Ridiculous!

[ht.livejournal.com]

For years, we're talking back in the 70s-80s, there was always the pat down in Manila International Airport. It's still ongoing today afaik along with the other new safety measures like carry-on handbag inspection.

I remember it every time I flew out. 2 lines. Girl guards pat down girls, guy guards pat down guys. Guess it's just not a big deal to me so I don't get the fuss. It's just a step that I do before I get onto a plane.

[ellenmillion.livejournal.com]

A few more links, for housekeeping's sake:

http://drwho.virtadpt.net/archive/2010/11/14/the-people-said-no-more-and-the-tsa-said-shut-your-pie-holes

http://skepchick.org/blog/2010/11/touched-by-a-stranger/