Revolt over Full Body Scans and Pat Downs at Airports

[maiforpeace]

You're on a roll this morning CES.

I guess I thought that was funny.

The only revolt that is deserving here is the TSA having to see that naked man.

[Coito ergo sum]

Here is a video -- http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV?i ... -Pat-Downs

I would have been happier if Bar Rafaeli had conducted the protest....lol

[Ian]

Some people just can't let go of the academic argument. Privacy vs security is a perpetual debate that arises in many areas of life, and it always will, and on many issues I tend to come down on the side of privacy rights, but I can't help but think: YOU'RE GETTING ONBOARD AN AIRPLANE. How much privacy do you think you're going to get in the first place? You're cramming yourself into tight quarters with a hundred other people inside what is basically a large self-guided missile capable of flying at high subsonic speeds... and people let themselves get bent out of shape over the finer details of airport security?? FFS.

I fly rather frequently. Yesterday I flew home to DC from Seattle (after flying out there Monday), and at the airport I went through the x-ray scanner after removing my belt and shoes. The scan itself takes 8 seconds. Putting my belt and shoes back on takes about a minute. Yet again, once more, airport security did not make me late for my flight, did not strip me down in public or grope my private parts, and did not confiscate anything away from me - and this experience is clearly the case for 99+% of air travellers. After my "revolting" and traumatic experience with the TSA I bought a strawberry smoothie, got on my place and flew home, feeling safe and comfortable, arriving on time.

[mozg]

I object to any form of a strip search absent the level of probable cause necessary to perform a strip search of a person who has been arrested.

You can call me a prude, or say that safety is more important, or whatever litany of insults get thrown at those of us who oppose the TSA's measures, but the fact remains that a machine that shows me naked to government agents is a strip search and I am of the opinion that it violates the criteria set forth by SCOTUS of a permissible administrative search in that it must be both necessary and minimally intrusive.

A strip search of someone by a government agent when there is no probable cause is neither necessary nor minimally intrusive.

For the record, I am a frequent flyer (more than 100 segments a year) and would rather take my chances with pre-9/11 security measures than be strip searched for the illusion of security.

[Coito ergo sum]

I guess you could argue this is a nude image....

Not sure, though...

[Coito ergo sum]

the illusion of security.

Nobody wants the mere "illusion" of security.

But, this is a red herring argument. The security at the airport is an attempt to increase actual security. Clearly, without it it would be easier to get bad stuff onto planes, right?

Are you saying that the pat downs and screening devices, properly applied, don't make it harder to get contraband items on a plane? It seems as if they do, to me.

If they don't, though, is there any way to improve actual security? And, if so, how?

[Svartalf]

who was it said something about liberties, security and deserving neither? My favorite $100 bill?

[mozg]

the illusion of security.

Nobody wants the mere "illusion" of security.

Then why is there virtually no screening of cargo which is loaded onto planes out of public view yet has the capacity to contain weapons far, far larger than any one person could carry?

But, this is a red herring argument. The security at the airport is an attempt to increase actual security. Clearly, without it it would be easier to get bad stuff onto planes, right?

They've made it harder to get a beverage onto a plane. Do you consider beverages to be 'bad stuff'?

Are you saying that the pat downs and screening devices, properly applied, don't make it harder to get contraband items on a plane? It seems as if they do, to me.

They're easily defeated, which is why actual security experts caution against relying on fancy machines. The strip search machine doesn't detect metal. Not to be crude, but it would be extremely easy for me to fit a box cutter in a body orifice and walk right through it. They'd never detect it, not with the naked photo booth and not with the 'pat down'. A good old fashioned magnetometer and bomb sniffing dog are far more effective than the naked photo booth.

If they don't, though, is there any way to improve actual security? And, if so, how?

First you need to prove that 'actual security' needs improvement, and if so in what areas. The 9/11 attack was not a failure of screening. Everything the hijackers carried was an allowed item. The attack was successful because the prevailing attitude toward hijackings were that the plane would make an unscheduled landing somewhere like Cuba and everyone would go home safe. The resolution to that problem was put into action before 10 am on 9/11.

The fact is that attacks on airplanes are incredibly rare. There has never in the history of aviation been a successful bombing of a US domestic airliner by a passenger using an item carried on board. Ever. Although 9/11 was sensational as a single event, it wasn't even significant in terms of the lives lost. The United States will lose an entire 9/11 worth of lives every single month this year in automobile accidents. I don't really think the need to 'improve' aviation security has been satisfactorily demonstrated, and I'm a frequent flyer willing to put my money where my mouth is.

I've said before and will say again, if the price of your freedom from unreasonable strip search and genital grope is that I die in a terrorist attack, I will do it willingly and with no regrets. If my blood has to be spilled so that your children have some modicum of the liberty upon which the United States was founded, then spill it all. And if I should die at the hands of a terrorist, do not use my death to justify the erosion of liberty, because I believe that it is better to live a short, risky life as a free person than a long safe one in a cage.

[Coito ergo sum]

who was it said something about liberties, security and deserving neither? My favorite $100 bill?

Well, it's a pretty broad statement, and isn't meant to require no security at all.

[Svartalf]

I'm going to take a plane in june, and would much rather have gone by train and ship.... plane travelling has become sheer hell since somebody became paranoid about destroying eyesores.

[Coito ergo sum]

the illusion of security.

Nobody wants the mere "illusion" of security.

Then why is there virtually no screening of cargo which is loaded onto planes out of public view yet has the capacity to contain weapons far, far larger than any one person could carry?

I am of the understanding that there is screening of checked bags: http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/screening ... ggage.shtm They hand search some of them too, I believe.

I'm also not against vigorous screening of those items. I don't see them as alternatives.

But, this is a red herring argument. The security at the airport is an attempt to increase actual security. Clearly, without it it would be easier to get bad stuff onto planes, right?

They've made it harder to get a beverage onto a plane. Do you consider beverages to be 'bad stuff'?

No, I consider what might be concealed or masqueraded as a beverage to be bad stuff.

Are you saying that the pat downs and screening devices, properly applied, don't make it harder to get contraband items on a plane? It seems as if they do, to me.

They're easily defeated, which is why actual security experts caution against relying on fancy machines. The strip search machine doesn't detect metal. Not to be crude, but it would be extremely easy for me to fit a box cutter in a body orifice and walk right through it. They'd never detect it, not with the naked photo booth and not with the 'pat down'. A good old fashioned magnetometer and bomb sniffing dog are far more effective than the naked photo booth.

I'm open to anything -- what do you suggest? They have the magnetometer there in addition to the full body scanner. I always walk through the metal detector.

I have no issue with adding bomb-sniffing dogs, but, of course, they can be gotten around too.

If they don't, though, is there any way to improve actual security? And, if so, how?

First you need to prove that 'actual security' needs improvement, and if so in what areas.

That has been proved many times over the years, with respect to people getting stuff through and onto planes.

The 9/11 attack was not a failure of screening. Everything the hijackers carried was an allowed item.

They aren't now, though. That's the improvement.

The attack was successful because the prevailing attitude toward hijackings were that the plane would make an unscheduled landing somewhere like Cuba and everyone would go home safe. The resolution to that problem was put into action before 10 am on 9/11.

Sure, that turned out to be a problem. So, now there is no choice but to (a) keep the bad guy off the plane in the first place, and (b) keep his tools off the plane in the second place.

The fact is that attacks on airplanes are incredibly rare. There has never in the history of aviation been a successful bombing of a US domestic airliner by a passenger using an item carried on board. Ever. Although 9/11 was sensational as a single event, it wasn't even significant in terms of the lives lost. The United States will lose an entire 9/11 worth of lives every single month this year in automobile accidents. I don't really think the need to 'improve' aviation security has been satisfactorily demonstrated, and I'm a frequent flyer willing to put my money where my mouth is.

That's fine, but what does that lead you to conclude in terms of what we should have as airport security?

I've said before and will say again, if the price of your freedom from unreasonable strip search and genital grope is that I die in a terrorist attack, I will do it willingly and with no regrets. If my blood has to be spilled so that your children have some modicum of the liberty upon which the United States was founded, then spill it all. And if I should die at the hands of a terrorist, do not use my death to justify the erosion of liberty, because I believe that it is better to live a short, risky life as a free person than a long safe one in a cage.

This seems to me to be an overreaction to what amounts to a grayed out sort of blobby image that is vaguely humaniform, and a quick pat down before one voluntarily takes an airplane flight. There seems to be far more invasions on our fundamental liberties going on in the country than that. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[mozg]

I am of the understanding that there is screening of checked bags: http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/screening ... ggage.shtm They hand search some of them too, I believe.

I'm also not against vigorous screening of those items. I don't see them as alternatives.

I am not talking about checked bags. I am talking about cargo, which is still put on passenger planes, and is largely not screened at all, ever.

No, I consider what might be concealed or masqueraded as a beverage to be bad stuff.

There is no realistic chance of anyone using a BLE to take down a plane in flight. It is not as easy to mix those as Die Hard would have you believe.

[/quote]I'm open to anything -- what do you suggest? They have the magnetometer there in addition to the full body scanner. I always walk through the metal detector.[/quote]

Then you've been lucky, because it's not generally left up to the passenger to just say 'Oh, no X-ray for me, I'll take the metal detector instead.' If you get picked for the strip search, your only other option is grope.

I have no issue with adding bomb-sniffing dogs, but, of course, they can be gotten around too.

There is no such thing as absolute safety. Absolute safety is not my goal. I would be perfectly fine with the exact same metal detector and bag x-ray we had on 9/11.

That has been proved many times over the years, with respect to people getting stuff through and onto planes.

And yet the actual incidence of passenger death from terrorist contraband is infinitesimal. You have a much higher chance of being killed in a car accident on your way to the airport.

Sure, that turned out to be a problem. So, now there is no choice but to (a) keep the bad guy off the plane in the first place, and (b) keep his tools off the plane in the second place.

A problem that was solved less than an hour after the passengers discovered it was a problem.

That's fine, but what does that lead you to conclude in terms of what we should have as airport security?

Magnetometer and bag x-ray.

This seems to me to be an overreaction to what amounts to a grayed out sort of blobby image that is vaguely humaniform, and a quick pat down before one voluntarily takes an airplane flight. There seems to be far more invasions on our fundamental liberties going on in the country than that. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

If I can tell from the image produced that the person whose image it is was not circumcised and that it's hanging to his left, that is hardly a 'blobby image that is vaguely humaniform', it's a strip search.

[Coito ergo sum]

I am of the understanding that there is screening of checked bags: http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/screening ... ggage.shtm They hand search some of them too, I believe.

I'm also not against vigorous screening of those items. I don't see them as alternatives.

I am not talking about checked bags. I am talking about cargo, which is still put on passenger planes, and is largely not screened at all, ever.

From what the TSA says, that's not correct:

50 percent of air cargo on passenger carrying aircraft is screened. One hundred percent of the cargo on 96 percent of the flights originating in the United States is now screened. Eighty-five percent of the passengers flying each day from U.S. airports are on planes where all of the cargo has been fully screened.

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/ai ... index.shtm

I'm also of the understanding that they've been continually beefing up security screening, and I don't oppose it. Again, these are not either-or efforts.

No, I consider what might be concealed or masqueraded as a beverage to be bad stuff.

There is no realistic chance of anyone using a BLE to take down a plane in flight. It is not as easy to mix those as Die Hard would have you believe.

With all due respect, the danger really isn't those things that we can all imagine as realistic. The danger is the stuff that someone comes up with that's new.

I'm open to anything -- what do you suggest? They have the magnetometer there in addition to the full body scanner. I always walk through the metal detector.[/quote]

Then you've been lucky, because it's not generally left up to the passenger to just say 'Oh, no X-ray for me, I'll take the metal detector instead.' If you get picked for the strip search, your only other option is grope.[/quote]

Well, I've done both, let me put it that way. Neither one is more intrusive than the other. I just stand there. If some joker in another room sees the outline of my grayed out body with my face obscured, who cares?

I have no issue with adding bomb-sniffing dogs, but, of course, they can be gotten around too.

There is no such thing as absolute safety. Absolute safety is not my goal. I would be perfectly fine with the exact same metal detector and bag x-ray we had on 9/11.

I'd be perfectly fine with the metal detector and the full body scanner.

That has been proved many times over the years, with respect to people getting stuff through and onto planes.

And yet the actual incidence of passenger death from terrorist contraband is infinitesimal. You have a much higher chance of being killed in a car accident on your way to the airport.

So what? The damage done by a terrorist attack extends far beyond the persons injured or killed in the actual event. The few thousand deaths on 9/11/01 shook the world economy and sent the world to war for the last 10 years. There is a difference between accidents and acts of war.

Sure, that turned out to be a problem. So, now there is no choice but to (a) keep the bad guy off the plane in the first place, and (b) keep his tools off the plane in the second place.

A problem that was solved less than an hour after the passengers discovered it was a problem.

I don't see as how the problem was solved. What do you mean?

That's fine, but what does that lead you to conclude in terms of what we should have as airport security?

Magnetometer and bag x-ray.

Well, I don't think that goes far enough. The reason for the other device is because not everything that needs to be kept off the plane shows up on metal detectors.

This seems to me to be an overreaction to what amounts to a grayed out sort of blobby image that is vaguely humaniform, and a quick pat down before one voluntarily takes an airplane flight. There seems to be far more invasions on our fundamental liberties going on in the country than that. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

If I can tell from the image produced that the person whose image it is was not circumcised and that it's hanging to his left, that is hardly a 'blobby image that is vaguely humaniform', it's a strip search.

The way it is set up doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[mozg]

The way it is set up doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

So long as your position is that a strip search of a person without any probable cause is reasonable, we have no common ground from which to discuss anything.

[Coito ergo sum]

The way it is set up doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

So long as your position is that a strip search of a person without any probable cause is reasonable, we have no common ground from which to discuss anything.

I guess I don't view it as a strip search. If that's a strip search, then arguably a metal detector that you walk through is a strip search.

A search doesn't necessarily need probable cause to be reasonable, anyway. Stop and frisks, for example, don't need probable cause.

The scanner, to me, occupies a different spot than a strip search or a mere metal detector. It's in between.