Airport Screening Procedures

[spartasman]

There has been a lot of hubbub over the new x-ray scanners and pat-downs at airports in the US. Just in case anybody hasn't heard of this, here are a few quick links here and here.

I personally question the health risks these machines pose, and even though only one of them uses x-rays I still can't quite wrap my head around a technology that can scan a persons body without using SOME form of radiation, even if it is benign. I can understand why they feel the need to implement the machines and pat downs, but I still feel its a bit of an over-reaction to any actual threat a terrorist plot might pose.

What does everyone else think?

[Kyler]

I do not issue with the new security procedures, though I have not yet personally dealt with them.

When the "Shoe Bombing" incident occurred people complained about taking off their shoes,
When liquid explosive were found, fliers were limited in the amount of liquid they could bring on board
an aircraft, all those instance people have eventually come to get used to them.

From what I have read these scanners use a considerably less amount of radiation than X-Rays or
other types of scanners. Their probably not much worse than having a cellphone stuck on the side
of your head all day.

My advice is be nice to the TSA agents and they will be nice to you so your screen will go a lot faster.
Plus always follow the advice, get there early so can get through screening and have plenty of time to
get to your flight.

[Mr Bean]

Kyler makes my point for me by accident.

How many times have boxed cutters been used to take over a plane? Once on 9/11 and since then? Zero
How many shoe bombings have we had? Zero as it was stopped by passengers
How many underpants bombings have we had? Zero was it was stopped by passengers

How many attacks have been stopped by TSA's after the fact rule changes? Zero
Because Terrorists are not idiots once an idea has been used they use a new one. And laugh their asses off as we come up with new security rules to stop the old method of attack.

When I started flying twenty years ago it took 30 minutes from curb side to be outside my gate even in a place like Dullus or Reagan. After 9/11 that jumped to an hour minimum and depending on the airport sometimes and hour an a half. Flying today it's close to two hours minimum and most airports.

None of these new security rules have made us safer, only more inconvenienced. Further the TSA rules have gone far past the bullshit level.
As for heath risks? Nonexistent, privacy risks however? We know those scanners take pictures and those pictures are saved. We know this because reporters managed to get ahold of some despite TSA claiming they were never any pictures taken by the scanner then saying the pictures were soon after deleted.

Why the hell is the TSA taking notes from our Prison system on what to do when entering someone into a Supermax and using that to screen people getting a Delta flight.
You damn well know the next terrorist bombing is going to be rectum based, and I'll bet the TSA trys to offer free manditory colon screening for all passengers.

[General Zod]

It's nothing short of ridiculous security theater performed by knuckle draggers that don't seem capable of exercising any judgment whatsoever. What kind of idiot decides a three-year old is a potential security threat who needs to be groped?

[adam_grif]

How many times have boxed cutters been used to take over a plane? Once on 9/11 and since then? Zero
How many shoe bombings have we had? Zero as it was stopped by passengers
How many underpants bombings have we had? Zero was it was stopped by passengers

How many attacks have been stopped by TSA's after the fact rule changes? Zero

I believe this is called "fighting yesterday's war", however the point remains that if these measures were not implemented, they may try to use them again. The reason we don't see repeats of the same attack is because they put measures in to stop them, and the public knows this, which means the people planning future attacks know this.

[General Zod]

The reason we don't see repeats of the same attack is because they put measures in to stop them, and the public knows this, which means the people planning future attacks know this.

Except the measures they've put in place have repeatedly failed to catch fake bombs and other items by undercover detectives. Oops.

Instead of all this useless security theater we could be using basic x-ray machines and have a federal agent on every commercial flight to ensure public safety. Which would surely be less expensive than all the bullshit the TSA puts people through.

[Alyeska]

Half the TSA procedures are deliberately useless. Or rather they know they pose no security benefit but are done purely for public visibility to convince travelers its safe.

[Simon_Jester]

There has been a lot of hubbub over the new x-ray scanners and pat-downs at airports in the US. Just in case anybody hasn't heard of this, here are a few quick links here and here.

I personally question the health risks these machines pose, and even though only one of them uses x-rays I still can't quite wrap my head around a technology that can scan a persons body without using SOME form of radiation, even if it is benign. I can understand why they feel the need to implement the machines and pat downs, but I still feel its a bit of an over-reaction to any actual threat a terrorist plot might pose.

What does everyone else think?

Terahertz "radiation" is radiation only in the sense that light or heat is. It's not that it's dangerous, it's that it's bloody intrusive. X-rays aren't used at all; they have a different purpose. X-rays see through everything but dense metal and bone; terahertz waves stop at the skin after passing through clothing.

I think the whole thing is an extreme example of a violation of citizens' privacy, myself. But there is no health risk, and the idea that there is one represents a misunderstanding of the word "radiation." "Radiation" does not mean "dangerous." It means "thing that radiates," in the sense of "moves outward from a central source in straight lines, usually at high speeds."

Half the TSA procedures are deliberately useless. Or rather they know they pose no security benefit but are done purely for public visibility to convince travelers its safe.

While simultaneously harassing travellers and thus making them less interested in flying at all?

There is a near-zero chance of being murdered by terrorists on a plane. There is a 100% chance of having to pass through a TSA checkpoint to get there. The TSA is deterring me from flying far more effectively than the terrorists would.

I have already chosen not to get on a plane because I could just as well take a train to get somewhere and I didn't want to stand in line for the privilege of having my fatty nerd self passed through a terahertz scanner; I have never chosen not to get on a plane for fear of terrorist attacks.

[General Zod]

I think the whole thing is an extreme example of a violation of citizens' privacy, myself. But there is no health risk, and the idea that there is one represents a misunderstanding of the word "radiation." "Radiation" does not mean "dangerous." It means "thing that radiates," in the sense of "moves outward from a central source in straight lines, usually at high speeds."

One or two uses might not be a problem. The health concern is for people who have to pass through it several times a day, such as pilots, which is currently being disputed.

I have already chosen not to get on a plane because I could just as well take a train to get somewhere and I didn't want to stand in line for the privilege of having my fatty nerd self passed through a terahertz scanner; I have never chosen not to get on a plane for fear of terrorist attacks.

Most of us don't have the luxury of time that taking a train requires. Especially if you're going more than a state or two away.

[Zed Snardbody]

It's nothing short of ridiculous security theater performed by knuckle draggers that don't seem capable of exercising any judgment whatsoever. What kind of idiot decides a three-year old is a potential security threat who needs to be groped?

Fuck you. The people in blue don't get to decide what they're going to enforce, when its your job, your paycheck on the line, you do what those people in suits tell you. They tell us everyone get screened if you don't and someone see's its your ass and your badge out the door.

I'm not any more happy about half the shit then you are, but the people at the airports don't get to make policy. Take it up with Washington. Yea it sucks to work at the airport and McDonalds, but that doesn't make the people who work there knuckle draggers.

[General Zod]

It's nothing short of ridiculous security theater performed by knuckle draggers that don't seem capable of exercising any judgment whatsoever. What kind of idiot decides a three-year old is a potential security threat who needs to be groped?

Fuck you. The people in blue don't get to decide what they're going to enforce, when its your job, your paycheck on the line, you do what those people in suits tell you. They tell us everyone get screened if you don't and someone see's its your ass and your badge out the door.

I'm not any more happy about half the shit then you are, but the people at the airports don't get to make policy. Take it up with Washington. Yea it sucks to work at the airport and McDonalds, but that doesn't make the people who work there knuckle draggers.

Really? Even "random" screenings? You can't tell me someone there isn't exercising poor judgment about who does or doesn't get extra attention. Dipshits like this guy certainly don't help the TSA's reputation as knuckle-draggers.

[Broomstick]

I personally question the health risks these machines pose, and even though only one of them uses x-rays I still can't quite wrap my head around a technology that can scan a persons body without using SOME form of radiation, even if it is benign.

If I understand things correctly, you're actually exposed to a greater amount of radiation from traveling at high altitude than from the "pornscan" machines they're using.

My advice is be nice to the TSA agents and they will be nice to you so your screen will go a lot faster.
Plus always follow the advice, get there early so can get through screening and have plenty of time to
get to your flight.

Ha ha ha. You've never flown with someone who invariably sets off metal detectors. My Other Half has a shitload of metal holding his right leg together, enough so it ALWAYS attracts attention from security guards with metal detectors. He'd been denied boarding on one occassion even BEFORE 9/11, since then... he just hasn't even tried to fly (except with me or some other private pilot). No matter what, he's going to attract extra attention. Because I travel with him, I will also get additional attention.

In addition to the search hoopla mentioned, there is now also the issue of names. You see, the TSA has announced that the passenger name on the ticket must now match the name on the person's ID exactly by a particular date. Aside from the issues of airlines printing everything in caps, for decades they've refused to adapt their machines to deal with spaces in names, or hyphens. So if you name falls in that category you're shit out of luck. Are you a Von Somethingorother? Too bad. Are you an O'Connell or O'Brien? Sucks to be you. Hyphen in there anywhere? No flight for you! Excuse me - do I now have to go through the trouble and expense of changing my legal name in order to get on an airplane? The airlines and TSA say they are "working on it".

When I started flying twenty years ago it took 30 minutes from curb side to be outside my gate even in a place like Dullus or Reagan. After 9/11 that jumped to an hour minimum and depending on the airport sometimes and hour an a half. Flying today it's close to two hours minimum and most airports.

Ha! When I started flying forty years ago as long as you had your ticket in your pocket you could run up to the airplane 30 seconds before they closed the door and just hop on. No metal detectors, no strip searches, nada. Ah, those were the days....

You damn well know the next terrorist bombing is going to be rectum based, and I'll bet the TSA trys to offer free manditory colon screening for all passengers.

I actually fear this. And I fear the American public will actually bend over and submit, and that will be a sad day indeed for this once great nation.

It's nothing short of ridiculous security theater performed by knuckle draggers that don't seem capable of exercising any judgment whatsoever. What kind of idiot decides a three-year old is a potential security threat who needs to be groped?

Fuck you. The people in blue don't get to decide what they're going to enforce, when its your job, your paycheck on the line, you do what those people in suits tell you. They tell us everyone get screened if you don't and someone see's its your ass and your badge out the door.

I'm not any more happy about half the shit then you are, but the people at the airports don't get to make policy. Take it up with Washington. Yea it sucks to work at the airport and McDonalds, but that doesn't make the people who work there knuckle draggers.

I feel bad for you, Zed. Fact is, the way the system is set up you folks being forced to grope three year olds and grannies are also being set up to take the grief for decisions made by people who are thoroughly insulated from the public's warth. Guess they didn't tell you you'd be fall guys as part of your job description, did they?

By the way - in regards to my Other Half's little problem - is there any way to smooth that out? When we inquired we were told the operating surgeon "should have given you a card blah, blah, blah". Well, little detail - the surgery was done, oh, about thirty-five years ago when none of this was a concern. Not only did he not get a little card, said surgeon has passed on to that great OR in the sky. Stupidly enough, no one else seems willing to take an x-ray and issue a "little card" for him. I don't see any way he's getting through TSA checkpoints without special attention, as he lights up metal detectors like Wolverine does. As the TSA keeps making noises about imposing simliar security on trains and inter-urban busses his transportation choices are getting more and more curtailed due to this nonesense. Any thoughts?

Frankly, I do not find getting my genitals groped by a total stranger without being accused of a crime or, better yet, convincted in court, to be at all acceptable. I don't care if the agent IS the same gender I am, it's not acceptable. Assuming the screener is normal human being I don't think they particuarly enjoy the experience either, but they aren't the one getting their testicles or labia rearranged.

But the worst of it? I can't go to an airport, opt for the scanner, then, if "randomly" chosen for a pat down after that, have the option to say "No, I don't want to be groped by a stranger", turn around, and walk out. Once you're in the security line you can't leave it. If you do, the minimum fine is, apparently, something like $10,000. In other words, people are being told to either submit to sexual assault (because that's how a LOT of people view getting someone else's fingers in their crotch without giving consent) or be fined. That is WAY beyond the pale. Congratulations, the government has now criminalized refusal to submit to sexual assault by a Federal employee.

And people wonder why I drive to Buffalo to visit my family rather than fly...

Until this shit is ended (and I'm not optimistic it will be in my lifetime) I don't ever expect to fly commercial ever again.

[aerius]

As a former airport screener (I'm now in management) I can tell you that it won't stop another 9/11. If the terrorists want to hijack or blow up a plane, they'll get the equipment they need past security. The security is only as good as the personnel and procedures, in the US they both suck, up here in Canada it still sucks, it just sucks less. TSA security screening is pretty much a dog & pony show, it's there to give the appearance of security, it's not actually secure. It's like installing some fancy security programs for your computer, and then not entering any passwords for them.

[Simon_Jester]

One or two uses might not be a problem. The health concern is for people who have to pass through it several times a day, such as pilots, which is currently being disputed.

Can you find anything on health hazards from terahertz radiation that isn't from some kooky fringe site?

I suppose it's possible, but I really wouldn't expect it; terahertz signals aren't all that much lower-energy than, say, infrared. And they don't penetrate the skin very well to punch into the body, which is kind of the point of using them in the first place.

Most of us don't have the luxury of time that taking a train requires. Especially if you're going more than a state or two away.

How is this relevant to my point that while terrorists have never deterred me from getting on a plane, the TSA has?

But yes, yes, you can't take the train when you absolutely positively need to be there the same day. You've mentioned this before, as I recall.

I'm still curious though: for what fraction of your travel do you really have to be there the same day? What do you do, anyway?

I personally question the health risks these machines pose, and even though only one of them uses x-rays I still can't quite wrap my head around a technology that can scan a persons body without using SOME form of radiation, even if it is benign.

If I understand things correctly, you're actually exposed to a greater amount of radiation from traveling at high altitude than from the "pornscan" machines they're using.

For any definition of "radiation" that implies that radiation is harmful, this is true.

Terahertz scanners aren't really more dangerous than, say, having a heat lamp in the room. That is "radiation" in the sense that the lamp "radiates" (mostly infrared), but it's not going to fry your DNA or give you cancer.

Ha ha ha. You've never flown with someone who invariably sets off metal detectors. My Other Half has a shitload of metal holding his right leg together, enough so it ALWAYS attracts attention from security guards with metal detectors. He'd been denied boarding on one occassion even BEFORE 9/11, since then... he just hasn't even tried to fly (except with me or some other private pilot). No matter what, he's going to attract extra attention. Because I travel with him, I will also get additional attention.

In addition to the search hoopla mentioned, there is now also the issue of names. You see, the TSA has announced that the passenger name on the ticket must now match the name on the person's ID exactly by a particular date. Aside from the issues of airlines printing everything in caps, for decades they've refused to adapt their machines to deal with spaces in names, or hyphens. So if you name falls in that category you're shit out of luck. Are you a Von Somethingorother? Too bad. Are you an O'Connell or O'Brien? Sucks to be you. Hyphen in there anywhere? No flight for you! Excuse me - do I now have to go through the trouble and expense of changing my legal name in order to get on an airplane? The airlines and TSA say they are "working on it".

Aaaand this is the other side of the problem. The management of the TSA (no Zed I don't mean you) seem to be totally disconnected from the amount of trouble they make for the average citizen who flies, and even more disconnected from the amount of trouble they make for minorities: not so much the conventional minorities (except Arabs, obviously), but "new" minorities: the minority of people with a hyphen, an "O" or a "von" in their name. The minority of people who have medical implants. The minority of people who carry sensitive materials they can't afford to have random undertrained, underpaid guys rifling through when said guys feel no motive not to damage things. The minority of people who happen to share the same name as some criminal who's on a TSA list.

That's a big part of the problem with the agency- by the time you list all the groups of people who have truly serious problems because of the TSA's policies, it becomes obvious that whoever sets the policies isn't thinking things through... which ought to be a prerequisite for security planning; you cannot defend yourself without thinking about your defenses. And these same policy-makers compound the failure to think things through by ignoring the consequences of their own mistakes by shuffling them off onto the passengers (and the guys actually running the checkpoints).

They can make the lines at the airport longer, deter people with 'funny' names from flying, deter people with leg braces from flying, and so on at no direct cost to themselves. They're immune from punishment or even serious criticism for doing it. And it creates the impression that they're doing a job, even if not their job. So they it, regardless of how that squares with their mission of making flying safe for the American people.

At which point it becomes pretty clear, I'd argue, that the TSA is incapable of doing its job because of problems with the high-level management. They cannot secure the aviation industry from terrorism, and when they try, they just contribute to the industry slowly being choked to death as more passengers quit flying.

...As the TSA keeps making noises about imposing simliar security on trains and inter-urban busses his transportation choices are getting more and more curtailed due to this nonesense. Any thoughts?

I hadn't heard about the train and bus thing; please tell me more.

[Kyler]

Ha ha ha. You've never flown with someone who invariably sets off metal detectors. My Other Half has a shitload of metal holding his right leg together, enough so it ALWAYS attracts attention from security guards with metal detectors. He'd been denied boarding on one occassion even BEFORE 9/11, since then... he just hasn't even tried to fly (except with me or some other private pilot). No matter what, he's going to attract extra attention. Because I travel with him, I will also get additional attention.

In addition to the search hoopla mentioned, there is now also the issue of names. You see, the TSA has announced that the passenger name on the ticket must now match the name on the person's ID exactly by a particular date. Aside from the issues of airlines printing everything in caps, for decades they've refused to adapt their machines to deal with spaces in names, or hyphens. So if you name falls in that category you're shit out of luck. Are you a Von Somethingorother? Too bad. Are you an O'Connell or O'Brien? Sucks to be you. Hyphen in there anywhere? No flight for you! Excuse me - do I now have to go through the trouble and expense of changing my legal name in order to get on an airplane? The airlines and TSA say they are "working on it".

All I can say is that airport security makes it damn near impossible for some people to fly. I've heard stories just like you and your husbands for many years. It is also unfortunate that certain airports the TSA's agent are considerably less helpful especially in you & your husband case.

I haven't had to deal with the name issue, but with my first name being Kyler, eventually someone will make a misstake and cause problems. Cause nearly no one can't get my name right the first time they meet me.


Overall as many memebers have posted, the current security system is really just a big dog & pony show for the stupid public to feel safe. TSA has been tested numerous times and has been found to large numbers of security breaches. If terrorists really wanted to take down an airliner, they would find away. The recent scare with Fedex & UPS is a good example. Most people don't realize a lot of mail & packages are carried by commerical aircraft as well. So the recent bomb scare could have easily involved a plane from American Airlines or Southwest.

Again I say always try to be nice to TSA agents. Some agents are definitely not very smart but most are people just working a regular job. Though some agents definitely seem to think their little badge gives them a lot of power. My best examples of this was when in college I was flying to Ellsworth AFB from my home town of Evansville, IN under orders for ROTC. I went through the normal scanning process. The TSA agent working the X-Ray scanner says he wants to go through my luggage. I produce my military orders and remind him that it is against Federal Law to search anyone traveling under military orders. He bluntly responds, "Do you want to get on the airplane?" I did not have time to argue with him since my flight boarded in a few minutes. I did tell my ROTC commander when I returned to school, she promptly wrote a letter to the manager of TSA at EVV Regional Airport.

Cause pissing off security screeners just gets you into trouble. My Aunt learned her lesson the hard way after the Lockeribe Bombing in the 80's. She was going through the increased security after bombing, and was pissed it was taking so long. In the process she made a smart ass remark to a screener about having a bomb in her luggage. She spent the next 24 hours in room with a couple of FBI agents. Dumbass move on my aunts part, but like I say be nice and you'll get through it much quicker most of the time.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is that this is a blatant intimidation tactic: Say nothing about how fucked up the system is, be careful what you say and do, or we'll make it EVEN WORSE for you.

While I don't approve of being willfully rude to people, I think that this is a really stupid and dangerous mindset for us to get into. Because when you condition people to say nothing to the checkpoint guards, to submit to whatever intrusions they feel they have the right to inflict on you, and above all to never answer back... you're setting those people up to be tyrannized: literally, to have power exercised over them in an arbitrary and cruel fashion.

As it stands, there's a real danger that this kind of security checkpoint-enforcement will expand to the point where it's practically impossible to travel (or, hell, send things through the mail) without planning every move of the trip around the risk that government internal security agents will take it into their heads to make trouble.

Where does it stop? With a Soviet-style internal passport needed as permission for citizens to travel? Hell, arguably we're already there, only with a driver's license instead of a formal passport.

Does it end with so many things listed as contraband that it becomes practically impossible to send solids, liquids, or gases through the mail? Does it end with a significant fraction of all property that moves long distances being effectively vandalized when people take it into their heads to open it because the funny-shaped metal object inside might- might!- be some kind of dangerous device?

So I don't really like the idea that we should be universally submissive to this kind of thing, or that we should encourage each other to be submissive. It's already gone very, very far, and there's no reason to suppose it won't go farther unless popular opposition to the system reaches a level where it overwhelms the bureaucratic and "security at all costs!" pressures holding it in place.

[someone_else]

Huh. Smokescreen, smokescreen and even more smockescreen.

Here has been repeatedly tested that any moron can go and piss on the landing gear of an aircraft without being even looked at. Three different international airports.

The same guy, after peeing, can go smuggle whatever the fuck he wants to people that have already passed the "security" scannings. From a cutter to an SMG to a whole bag full of Boomy-stuff. The same three different international airports.

A guy in my class, when we got back from Prague, had something like 4 kg of cannabis in his bag (and looked rather anxious about it he should have smoked some before flight), another crazed guy had a couple arm-long stainless steel machete/cutlass and a fuckton of bladed stuff like shurikens and ninja weapons.
Both in the bags that went in the baggage section of the aircraft, but was supposedly not allowed.

We were all forbidden to carry lighters. Since lighters are DEADLY.
This supposedly "security" is only mockery and waste of money and time. Nothing more.

But the problem is mostly in the people. If the organization or the guards suck, tech gimmicks are irrelevant.

[General Zod]

How is this relevant to my point that while terrorists have never deterred me from getting on a plane, the TSA has?

The point was that choosing to use alternate modes of transportation isn't an option for most people and not a viable solution. A number of the client managers at my job fly several times a week.

But yes, yes, you can't take the train when you absolutely positively need to be there the same day. You've mentioned this before, as I recall.

I'm still curious though: for what fraction of your travel do you really have to be there the same day? What do you do, anyway?

You obviously don't live in the mountain states, where traveling anywhere by train is a day at minimum and at least two days if you plan to go anywhere interesting. In any case I have to travel at least once a year for work, which involves not doing it on my own schedule. But maybe your time is worthless enough you don't have a problem spending two of your vacation days cooped up in a metal box doing nothing in order to get from point a to point b.

[Kyler]

Simon_Jester,

I completely understand your feelings. Since most of us who travel want to get to our destinations as quickly as possible we don't want to argue with the rude or intimidating TSA screeners. My best advice if a really bad situation occurs and you have time talk to a manager; if you don't, get the screeners names and talk to manager when you get home or write a letter.

The system is far from perfect, but for most people it is unfortunate that we have to forgot about TSA issues so we can move forward with our travel. That's where TSA has an advantage, because if the travler has a problem most are limited to the amount of time they have to deal with it. I never met a person who has been mistreated by a TSA screener and then purposefully missed their flight to deal the problem. I am sure a few people have, but again in most cases people just want go on to the plane so they can get to their destination.

An example of why being nice helps. I was returning to college from visiting family for Thanksgiving. I was standing at the gate waiting to board the flight. A TSA screener was waiting to start doing the random screening. I started a convesation with her, and we talked for about 15 minutes. When the airline was getting ready to start boarding, and she asked if I would consent to a search. I asked her why. She said anyone that gets randomly screened can get aboard the airplane before anyone else. So I let her search my carryon, and got aboard 20 minutes before any of the other coach travelers.

[General Zod]

Neat little article by Penn Jilette about a recent airport encounter. Well worth a read so I'm going to go and post it.

Last Thursday I was flying to LA on the Midnight flight. I went through security my usual sour stuff. I beeped, of course, and was shuttled to the "toss-em" line. A security guy came over. I assumed the position. I had a button up shirt on that was untucked. He reached around while he was behind me and grabbed around my front pocket. I guess he was going for my flashlight, but the area could have loosely been called "crotch." I said, "You have to ask me before you touch me or it's assault."

He said, "Once you cross that line, I can do whatever I want."

I said that wasn't true. I say that I have the option of saying no and not flying. He said, "Are you going to let me search you, or do I just throw you out?"

I said, "Finish up, and then call the police please."

When he was finished with my shoes, he said, "Okay, you can go."

I said, "I'd like to see your supervisor and I'd like LVPD to come here as well. I was assaulted by you."

He said, "You're free to go, there's no problem."

I said, "I have a problem, please send someone over."

They sent a guy over and I said that I'd like to register a complaint. I insisted on his name and badge number. I filled it out with my name. The supervisor, I think trying to intimidate me, asked for my license, and I gave it to him happily as he wrote down information. I kept saying, "Please get the police," and they kept saying, "You're free to go, we don't need the police." I insisted and they got a higher up, female, supervisor. I was polite, cold, and a little funny. "Anyone is welcome to grab my crotch, I don't require dinner and a movie, just ask me. Is that asking too much? You wanna grab my crotch, please ask. Does that seem like a crazy person to you?" I had about 4 of them standing around. Finally Metro PD shows up. It's really interesting. First of all, the cop is a BIG P&T fan and that ain't hurting. Second, I get the vibe that he is WAY sick of these federal leather-sniffers. He has that vibe that real cops have toward renta-cops. This is working WAY to my advantage, so I play it.

The supervisor says to the cop, 'He's free to go. We have no problem, you don't have to be here." Which shows me that the Feds are afraid of local. This is really cool. She says, "We have no trouble and he doesn't want to miss his flight."

I say, "I can take an early morning flight or a private jet. " The cop says, "If I have a citizen who is saying he was assaulted, you can't just send me away."

I tell the cop the story, in a very funny way. The cop, the voice of sanity says, "What's wrong with you people? You can't just grab a guy's crank without his permission." I tell him that my genitals weren't grabbed and the cop says, "I don't care, you can't do that to people. That's assault and battery in my book."

The supervisor says that they'll take care of the security guy. The cop says, "I'm not leaving until Penn tells me to. Now do you want to fill out all the paper work and show up in court, because I'll be right there beside you."

The supervisor says it's an internal matter, and they'll take care of it. "If you want to pursue this, we're going to have to go through the electronic evidence."

I say, "You mean videotape? Yeah, go get it."

She says, "Well, it'll take a long time, and you don't want to miss your flight. We have no problem with you, you're free to go."

The cop says, "Your guy grabbed his crank. That ain't right."

So, I fill out all the paper work and insist on a number to call to register a complaint. She says that I filled out a complaint, and I say, "I want more, give me another number. " She gives me a number that I find out later has been disconnected. I leave. I have a card with the name and number on it and the bad 800 number for the FAA.

My flight is way delayed, so I go to Burger King with Glenn - and all the feds are now off duty and at BK and sneering at us.

The next day the woman in charge of public relations calls me to "do anything to make my McCarran experience more enjoyable." I was a little under the weather with allergies and busy, so I didn't call back until yesterday.

It took some phone tag, but I finally got the woman on the phone. I was very cool and sweet. I explained the problem. "Do you allow your crotch to be grabbed without being asked?" I didn't exaggerate, I said that there was nothing sexual, I wasn't hurt, and it wasn't my genitals. I just said it was wrong. She said "Well, your feedback is really important because most people are afraid of us." She said, "I'd love to meet you so we could clear this up, and everyone wants to meet a celebrity." She said she had watched the videotape and there was no sound, but she saw him reach around. She said she couldn't tell me what was being done to him but . . . and I stopped her and said, she shouldn't do anything wrong.

I said that I had talked to two lawyers and they said it was really a weird case because no one knows if he can be charged with assault and battery while working in that job. But I told her, that some of my lawyer friends really wanted to find out. She said, "Well, we're very new to this job . . ." and I said, "Yeah, so we need these test cases to find out where you stand."

She said, "Well, you know a LOT about this." I said, "Well, it's not really the right word, but freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more of it."

She said, "Well, the airport is very important to all of our incomes and we don't want bad press. It'll hurt everyone, but you have to do what you think is right. But, if you give me your itinerary every time you fly, I'll be at the airport with you and we can make sure it's very pleasant for you."

I have no idea what this means, does it mean that they have a special area where all the friskers are topless showgirls, "We have nothing to hide, do you?" I have no idea. She pushes me for the next time I'm flying. I tell her I'm flying to Chicago around 2 on Sunday, if she wants to get that security guy there to sneer at me. She says, she'll be there, and it'll be very easy for me. I have no idea what this means.

I tell her that I'm still thinking about pressing charges, and I don't just care about me, it's freedom in general. I say the only thing that was good about it, was that while they were dealing with me, maybe they weren't beating up people in wheelchairs. It was amazing. All she was trying to do was make me happy. She said she'd burned a CD ROM of my video and it was being sent all around and they were going to change their training. She said, "We're federal employees, we're working for you, you pay us and we want customer satisfaction. It doesn't matter what the law is, we have to make you very happy so your flying experience is a pleasurable one, and most people don't give us this kind of intelligent feedback."

So, that was it. I'm flying on Sunday, I have no idea what will happen. How crazy is this? Do I really have some sort of mysterious VIP status to shut me up? Should I press charges? She said she was going to talk to the cop. I said he didn't see anything. She said, "Well, he may be able to see the forest for the trees, because he was right there." I quoted his "crank" comment and she laughed and then knew that was a very bad sign. I said, "He'll tell you I was polite, cold, angry, and funny" - that's more than should be expected of me. I still don't know what I'm going to do, but my advice to everyone is complain all you can and call the cops. I think it might make a little difference. Maybe you can become a VIP too.

[CaptJodan]

While not the sole problem by any means, I think one of the biggest problems with how this is all being handled is the public's general opinion about safety. Americans seem to be under the delusion that nothing bad should ever happen to them, ever. It's this "make me safe at any cost" attitude that seems to continue to grow with every attack or failed attack by a terrorist group. Nevermind the odds against you being on that flight that is hijacked...the odds are probably just as bad if not worse than the likelihood of the plane going down in flames on its own. People just want to feel 100% safe when they fly, and so the government gives them that. Not a real solution, but a draconian "police state" style pat down or porn screening that says "see, we care. We really...really care."

[Cecelia5578]

Bruce Schneier is fond of pointing out that only two things have been implemented post 9/11 that actually matter-reinforced cockpit doors and passengers now know to fight back.

Honestly, the stupid ban on carrying on liquids really killed airline flight for me. I used to fly all the time with just carry on luggage-now, unless I want to spend a small fortune on toiletries at my destination then have to throw them away, having to check luggage adds to the misery of waiting at an airport.

To me, (and no offense to anyone personally who works in airport security) a lot of what is fucked up with these TSA stories is that TSA personnel are exercising very poor judgment. Its not the groping or the body scan per se, its the agents who blow their lids and freak the fuck out over every perceived infraction, make lewd comments towards women and minorities, display a stunning lack of common sense with people like Broomsticks hubby, etc etc etc.

I'm surprised no one has pointed out another very bad downside of the TSA's useless security theatre-the long, long lines at security checkpoints are very vulnerable to terrorists themselves.

[General Zod]

Honestly, the stupid ban on carrying on liquids really killed airline flight for me. I used to fly all the time with just carry on luggage-now, unless I want to spend a small fortune on toiletries at my destination then have to throw them away, having to check luggage adds to the misery of waiting at an airport.

The hilarity is that it's not even carrying liquids on board that's banned. You just can't bring liquids through the checkpoints. You can pick up a bottle of soda or water or whatever at the shops in the secure area before boarding and bring it on no problem.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon_Jester,

I completely understand your feelings. Since most of us who travel want to get to our destinations as quickly as possible we don't want to argue with the rude or intimidating TSA screeners. My best advice if a really bad situation occurs and you have time talk to a manager; if you don't, get the screeners names and talk to manager when you get home or write a letter.

I don't think you understand what I'm getting at: it's not that I say "we should be confrontational at TSA checkpoints" because there are obvious problems with doing that.

It's that I say that this is a really bad habit for the country for us to get into: "smile and nod at the man in uniform who randomly decides to check and make sure you aren't smuggling drugs through his checkpoint in your crotch, because if you're impolite he'll just make more trouble for you and then you'll really be sorry."

The fact that it's still a rational calculation to make, that you will regret confronting the TSA when they do things you don't like and will be rewarded (so to speak) for being nice to them... that is itself a problem with the system. Because there does have to be resistance to this at some point. The resistance really ought to be political: people pushing to get rid of the TSA, in much the same sense that people pushed to end Prohibition.

But to do that, we have to recognize that the TSA is not an unavoidable, natural part of our existence. We have to decide whether or not it should exist, and we should never forget that we are making a very significant concession by keeping it in existence. Or that we're making that concession without getting as much as we'd like back for it.

How is this relevant to my point that while terrorists have never deterred me from getting on a plane, the TSA has?

The point was that choosing to use alternate modes of transportation isn't an option for most people and not a viable solution. A number of the client managers at my job fly several times a week.

OK, that may have been your point, but it is at best an unrelated tangent to what I was saying in the first place.

There are already people who simply don't fly if they can help it. They don't fly when they take a vacation, even if that means not being able to go very far, because flying is more trouble than it's worth for them.

There are, of course, business fliers who have 'no choice...' but then again, the economy existed before civil aviation. There will always be people who travel a lot as part of their jobs, the number of those people is not fixed by the laws of nature. Make flying a costly and nasty exercise for them, and their numbers will shrink, if nothing else because you have to pay them more to get them to put up with the crap they go through at the airport every week. They'll work harder to find ways to avoid having to fly, or to avoid having to fly as often.

For that matter, they may find other jobs entirely, at which point the company that relies on being able to get its employees to fly several times a week may simply go out of business- because they can't pay people enough to get them to agree to a rectal examination every time they get on a plane in the wake of the Ass-Bomber Plot of 2019.

And if you say "that's bad for the economy..." that's my point. The harder it is to fly, the more humiliating and time-wasting airport security becomes, the greater the drag on the aviation industry and everything that depends on it. More people will be deterred from flying: they'll drive, they'll take the train, they'll satisfy themselves with teleconferencing, or they'll just not do whatever it was that would force them to get on a plane.

And ultimately, this effect can be far larger than any deterrent effect that might come from the fear of terrorists. Airplanes being hijacked in the 1970s didn't stop people from flying. Airplanes being blown up in the 1980s didn't stop people from flying. The TSA probably won't stop people from flying either, but it can still damage the industry by deterring individual people from flying, on a one for one basis.

So I don't understand what your problem is with me saying "Instead of flying, I decided to take the train to Albuquerque instead." I don't understand why you feel a need to bawl me out for daring to suggest that I, specifically and personally, took an alternative that isn't universally available to everyone for everything they might want to do.

Especially not when I merely gave that as a casual example of a general problem: the TSA deterring people from flying.

You obviously don't live in the mountain states, where traveling anywhere by train is a day at minimum and at least two days if you plan to go anywhere interesting. In any case I have to travel at least once a year for work, which involves not doing it on my own schedule. But maybe your time is worthless enough you don't have a problem spending two of your vacation days cooped up in a metal box doing nothing in order to get from point a to point b.

I wasn't on vacation, and I didn't get to decide when I needed to be there. I was traveling to a conference; I scheduled the train trips during the weekends before and after it.

Fuck, even then the train was nice enough that I considered it to be vacation time, almost: there was actual scenery, and it was a much nicer metal box to ride in than any airplane I've ever been on.

But this remains a distraction: the point is that intrusive airline security can deter individuals from flying, thus damaging the aviation industry and the economy, and thus defeating the purpose of making air travel "look safe." It doesn't matter if air travel looks safe if no one is willing to go through the crap they run into while boarding the plane.

[General Zod]

So I don't understand what your problem is with me saying "Instead of flying, I decided to take the train to Albuquerque instead." I don't understand why you feel a need to bawl me out for daring to suggest that I, specifically and personally, took an alternative that isn't universally available to everyone for everything they might want to do.

And I was pointing out that it's not viable for everyone, so why get bent out of shape over it? Frankly you're overreacting.