Airport Security
I wasn't going to link to this whole debacle about the back-scatter imaging machines being installed into airports as it started picking up steam last week. I figured it was just more ridiculous airline security stuff that intelligent people would shake their heads about but that no one would actually do anything about.
However, as more stories have come out, it is clear this is quickly becoming quite the uproar, and I think with this building momentum we have the potential to actually get something about this changed. I don't want to just get rid of the back-scatter machines, I want to get rid of having to take off my shoes, or having to take my laptop out of my bag, or having to put all my toiletries (if I carried them) in a tiny zip lock bag. American airline security is a joke and these practices are just hurting travellers.
What could be different you ask? Read about how an Israeli airport does security. The most telling part was when the Canadian airport manager was asked what they would do if they found something that looked like a bomb in some luggage:
"I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with play-doh in it and two pens stuck in the play-doh. That is 'Bombs 101' to a screener. I asked Ducheneau, 'What would you do?' And he said, 'Evacuate the terminal.' And I said, 'Oh. My. God.'
"[...] Do you know how many people are in the terminal at all times? Many thousands. Let's say I'm (doing an evacuation) without panic — which will never happen. But let's say this is the case. How long will it take? Nobody thought about it. I said, 'Two days.'"
And how the Israeli airport would handle it?
"First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away.
"Second, all the screening areas contain 'bomb boxes'. If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation."
In short, American (and Canadian) airports spend a lot of time with security "theatre" but just end up slowing passengers down and creating large groups of people that terrorists could easily target without having to, you know, actually go through security. And our airports can't even efficiently or safely handle actual crisis scenarios. Does that make any sense?
Anyway, back to the back-scatter machines:
If you don't like the machines, you can "opt out" by getting a pat-down instead:
At BWI, I told the officer who directed me to the back-scatter that I preferred a pat-down. I did this in order to see how effective the manual search would be. When I made this request, a number of TSA officers, to my surprise, began laughing. I asked why. One of them -- the one who would eventually conduct my pat-down -- said that the rules were changing shortly, and that I would soon understand why the back-scatter was preferable to the manual search. I asked him if the new guidelines included a cavity search. "No way. You think Congress would allow that?"
I answered, "If you're a terrorist, you're going to hide your weapons in your anus or your vagina." He blushed when I said "vagina."
"Yes, but starting tomorrow, we're going to start searching your crotchal area" -- this is the word he used, "crotchal" -- and you're not going to like it."
"What am I not going to like?" I asked.
"We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained.
"Resistance?" I asked.
"Your testicles," he explained.
Here are some stories about people's experiences travelling through security:
- "Heads up, got a cutie for you"
- 17 year old girl not wanting to travel because of the choice between being seen naked or being felt up.
- A person refused either option and was (justifiably) not allowed to fly.
And just in case you aren't convinced about how invasive these machines are:
I’m getting a lot of questions about the new security regime, including some pointed ones from women. Do the imagers, for example, detect sanitary napkins? Yes. Does that then necessitate a pat-down? The T.S.A. couldn’t say. Screeners, the T.S.A. has said, are expected to exercise some discretion.
Do you trust the people working at the airport to keep the naked pictures of you private? Well, it turns out that people operating a back-scatter machine in Florida kept all the images (35,000 of them) when they weren't supposed to. What's to stop others?
Pilot unions are encouraging pilots to opt out of the machines over health concerns.
Well, people are getting feed up and are organizing a boycott of the machines on November 24th. November 24th being one of the biggest travel days of the year. Basically, they want to disrupt travel so that the people in charge (hopefully) start to realize that something needs to be changed. Thus far it appears to be working, at least TSA people are noticing. They aren't yet willing to admit they are making a mistake, though.
A commenter raises an interesting point though:
Not sure causing super-massive delays on the busiest travel day of the year will have the desired effect. Frustrated, flight-missing passengers may be more angry with protestors than with TSA, and the whole thing might backfire. Maybe just weekly opt-outs on, say Wednesdays, would work so people would start scheduling around them and upsetting the larger infrastructure. That might bring the airlines (who might have more clout) down against the situation with greater force, no?
And I'm not sure what I think. I'm just glad that finally people seem to be doing something. The slow invasion of our rights over the last 9 years has been really frustrating.
I personally like Isaac Schlueter's approach:
I started talking to the family behind me as soon as I got into the security line, a middle-aged couple with 2 adolescent boys and a girl about 4 or 5. They were amused by my shoes, so it wasn’t too hard to strike up a conversation.
“Yeah, it’s messed up. Did you know that the UCSF oncology department thinks they pose a serious health risk, especially to children or anyone at risk for breast cancer?”
“Whoa, no, I didn’t know that!”
I handed the paper to the mom. Bam.
“Oh, honey, you should read this!! … Oh my god…”
Turns out she’s a breast cancer survivor. And her doctor has told her to avoid x-rays, even at the dentist, unless absolutely medically necessary. And she didn’t realize that “millimeter wave digital backscatter detection” used x-rays, because the TSA doesn’t actually put that on the sign.
Also, I really like this little twist about opting out: When choosing the pat down over the machine, wear a kilt and go commando. (The thought being that if you make it as uncomfortable for the TSA people as it is for you, they'll help the revolt)
Anyway, on a more serious note, there is a senate oversight meeting tomorrow on the issue, so if you feel strongly about this call up some representatives (you'll leave a message) and let them know how you feel.
Update: A great site about the whole issue: Fly With Dignity.
16 November 2010 06:59pm UTC • 357 views • 5 comments
Tagged with airportsecurity, backscattermachines, boycott, optout, flying, travel, security
★ ★
Add a comment!
You must be a member to do that! Become a member or login!
← My favorite things: sleepy chatting • Curiosity kept the cat awake →
Subscribe to the feeds:
5 comments
Farluffo the Great
16 November 2010 08:11pm UTC
Wow, great post, Benj! There's a lot to think about here.
Swordsman Satchel
17 November 2010 04:26am UTC
I agree, I shared the main parts with a lot of my friends.
The Anonymous Poppy
17 November 2010 07:02am UTC
My own outrage at the new scanners stems largely from the particular stress, discomfort, and danger that they present for transgender people. Here's one transwoman sharing her misgivings, from a blog post back in January: http://fridaythang.com/blog/2010/01/13/airport-scanners-and-trans-people/
I'm seriously considering making my way home this Christmas by some means other than airplanes if I can't guarantee avoiding the naked pictures vs. groping controversy.
Dread Pirate Benjamin
20 November 2010 08:41am UTC
This page has more links than you could possibly want about this whole issue. Two quotes stood out to me:
If this first one is true, that just doesn't seem right: "I will leave you with this thought: 'It is acceptable and encouraged that a TSA government official can do something to an American citizen that US military personnel cannot do to a member of the Taliban.'"
From someone in the Netherlands: "Marijn Ornstein said: 'If you look at all the recent terrorist incidents, the bombs were detected because of human intelligence not because of screening ... If even a fraction of what is spent on screening was invested in the intelligence services we would take a real step toward making air travel safer and more pleasant.'"
This is about personal rights. This is about the government not being allowed to do whatever they want. You read through these stories about people who don't want to get screened or patted down, measures to prevent terrorism, and these people are (what you could accurately describe as) terrorized by the TSA agents. You basically have no rights once you get in that security line. You can't ask questions, you can't back out. How is this allowed? How is this acceptable?
And now you can opt out by being religious?
The TSA people doing the ground work don't like how things are going either.
If you aren't upset by this, please, please, please click the first link in this comment and read the stories by real people telling how they have been emotionally hurt by these recent changes, or read Poppy's link above.
Peon Peetie
21 November 2010 09:30am UTC
so if i were a muslim woman and wore loose fitting clothing covering nrealy all of my person, i'd have no problem? how does that make sense?