TSA: Proper Procedures Followed in Child Pat-Down

[Broomstick]

P.S. Jesus Christ it's a pisser that I even have to think that way in free-free, non-repressive America.

Except that's not what America is anymore, and hasn't been for nearly 10 years now.

[Count Chocula]

True, but it's still a pisser. You could argue that the repression started with Wilson's imprisoning of journalists, or the WWII Japanese concentration camps in the US, but that's a topic for another thread. I think the overall point remains, though: shit like this doesn't happen by accident, and it (usually in the US) doesn't happen overnight. See frog in the pot analogy. AND, it usually does NOT include the lower end staff/people at the pointy end, which is why I don't hate TSA personnel individually or as a group.

[Thanas]

Holy shit, Zed! There seems to be an adversarial relationship between the brass and the folks on the screening lines. It sounds, to this frequent flier, like the TSA upper-uppers are wayyy too hung up on lawsuit-fear and political correctness. Feel free to not reply if to reply would be above your pay grade or draw unfavorable attention.

P.S. Jesus Christ it's a pisser that I even have to think that way in free-free, non-repressive America.

For once, we are actually of the same opinion.

I know that the TSA has made me determined to travel to the USA as little as possible and my vacations will no longer be spent there. Previously I used to fly to the USA to visit friends/relatives and/or for work reasons at least once a year, now I'll be cutting that down to "I absolutely have to go due to work reasons".

[Akhlut]

Have you thought about flying into the US, then driving out to Canada or Mexico to fly back to Germany? If you have the time, that might not be a completely horrific idea, especially on one of your extra-long European vacations.

[Thanas]

Have you thought about flying into the US, then driving out to Canada or Mexico to fly back to Germany? If you have the time, that might not be a completely horrific idea, especially on one of your extra-long European vacations.

No, I am not going to waste one day on that. My extra-long vacations are cut short by work and study demands, which means my vacations tend to be 3-5 days maximum per year.

[Count Chocula]

Akhlut, that's actually not a bad idea at all. I've been all over Canada from eastern Ottawa province as far as Regina, and I've found that Canadians are almost universally friendly, to (gasp!) a Southern USA kind of "say howdy to strangers" hospitality. Plus, their customs procedures are very reasonable and rational. Toronto in the summertime is a nice place to visit.

[Simon_Jester]

The metal detectors started getting silly when they made everyone take off their shoes and such- I'd say that was the tipping point.

I can understand taking off shoes, at least for adults, to go through metal detectors. The pair of boots I wore to go to Florida have a steel plate in the sole and a bunch of metal loops for the bootlaces, so it's just going to set the damn thing off and cause problems. I don't think that's entirely unreasonable.

If the shoes are made of metal, fair enough... but most shoes don't, and yet everyone is required to take them off, all because of one guy ten years ago who snuck a few ounces of explosive in his shoes.

This is the ultimate in asymmetric warfare: one man does one thing one time, and six billion people* over a decade have to go out of their way to prove they're not doing the same thing.

*The number of passengers flying in the US per year for ten years or so; obviously this includes a lot of people flying more than once a year.

Akhlut, that's actually not a bad idea at all. I've been all over Canada from eastern Ottawa province as far as Regina, and I've found that Canadians are almost universally friendly, to (gasp!) a Southern USA kind of "say howdy to strangers" hospitality. Plus, their customs procedures are very reasonable and rational. Toronto in the summertime is a nice place to visit.

I know people who do this too.

[Akhlut]

The metal detectors started getting silly when they made everyone take off their shoes and such- I'd say that was the tipping point.

I can understand taking off shoes, at least for adults, to go through metal detectors. The pair of boots I wore to go to Florida have a steel plate in the sole and a bunch of metal loops for the bootlaces, so it's just going to set the damn thing off and cause problems. I don't think that's entirely unreasonable.

If the shoes are made of metal, fair enough... but most shoes don't, and yet everyone is required to take them off, all because of one guy ten years ago who snuck a few ounces of explosive in his shoes.

This is the ultimate in asymmetric warfare: one man does one thing one time, and six billion people* over a decade have to go out of their way to prove they're not doing the same thing.

*The number of passengers flying in the US per year for ten years or so; obviously this includes a lot of people flying more than once a year.

Touche. Again, this is an area where a bomb-sniffing dog would be superior. The dog sits by you and does the the signal where he gets a "hit"? Okay, you get searched since the dogs rarely get false positives. Therefore, the only people who take off shoes are people who wear work boots to the airport.

And unlike getting pat-downs from the TSA agent (who is probably not thrilled either), does anyone really feel their dignity getting wounded if a dog goes by them sniffing for a bomb? Maybe a few Muslims who think dogs are extremely unclean, but we also have handheld bomb-sniffing machines that can be used for people who are phobic, allergic, or have extreme religious problems with dogs.

Plus, the dogs can still find out if you have a bomb shoved up your asshole, whereas TSA pat-downs or backscatter scanners will be none the wiser.

And it won't lead to us needing to be cavity searched to fly.

[Simon_Jester]

I am totally on board with the dog plan. Or, hell, with the Israeli "security man looks you in the eye and asks you a few questions about where you're going to check and see if you're nervous" approach.

It's just that the current policy is totally ridiculous. Like the Underwear Bomber. One man sets fire to his own genitals. In response, we dump tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars on NakedCam scanners and start groping millions of people at airport checkpoints.

What. The. Fuck?

If we were fighting a real, competently organized "war on terror," this kind of thing would be regarded as a catastrophic defeat- we wind up expending vast resources and hurting ourselves severely to combat an extremely unlikely form of threat. The mere fact that this is what passes as operational planning in the War on Terror is the best sign that the War is not being taken seriously by the people entrusted with managing it.

[Elheru Aran]

I've been patted down before even when I empty my pants completely and take off my shoes and go through the metal detector. I think I have metal in me somewhere, I'm not entirely sure, but this whole scanner thing annoys me, and getting a pat-down more thorough than a cursory police-style patdown (inside and outside of the legs, waist, under and over arms) isn't something I'm into personally.

And then I see shit like this, and it just makes me want to give up flying entirely. I don't really care about going through the NakedCam, but I wouldn't really be comfortable with my wife or my kids going through it... how the hell do I know they aren't taking screencaps of everybody going through it for evidence and someone's whacking off to them somewhere? I don't, and they aren't really doing much to reassure me that they're doing anything to prevent that. If they want to make travel such a pain that only people who really have to will get on planes, they're sure getting there...

[Themightytom]

And terrorists can just as easily stuff a block of C4 and a detonator into a child's rectum; would you be okay with cavity searches for kids?

..
The Hell They Can??? Do you know something about stuffing things into a child's rectum that I don't???

As I said, there's a certain level where excessive measures are involved that are probably not particularly helpful.

...and you really think we're there? Based on a video of a child being properly searched and causing minimal disturbance as evidenced on that video.

Hell, the TSA isn't even letting us know how effective they are (no new reports of how many auditors slip by with fake bombs or guns or knives) and the only information we have, while being several years old, also paints a grim picture of failure rates of between 40-75% depending on airport combined with scientists saying that things like backscatter scanners can be fooled and pat-downs can be ineffective.

So we have bad information about outcomes. Wouldn't it make more sense to push for good information rather than aborting a process that could be working?

Given that these harsh measures haven't been too effective and can be fooled,

...which you haven't been, as they seem not particularly harsh, and we have no idea how effective they are...

I again ask: how is this more effective then the combo of metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs?

Without a baseline of comparison, how are you expecting a reasonable answer?

If a kid is being used as a mule for explosives, a dog will find that more readily then a backscatter scanner or a pat-down, as well as more reliably (fewer false positives and false negatives; the dogs are exceptionally good at this sort of thing).

Ok prove that, since we can't prove the other side,I'll concede if dogs are that effective based on lack of evidence to argue. But as far as i can tell, its six of one half dozen of the other.

Plus, there's minor considerations like "dignity" and "feelings of intrusion"; most people aren't going to be particularly worried about a beagle or bloodhound going around and sniffing about, whereas people are understandably and justifiably not too pleased about the TSA's current rather invasive procedures.

you're right those ARE minor considerations unless you're allergic to dogs, and in that case fuck you...

[aerius]

And terrorists can just as easily stuff a block of C4 and a detonator into a child's rectum; would you be okay with cavity searches for kids?

The Hell They Can??? Do you know something about stuffing things into a child's rectum that I don't???

Oh you just wait till they break out the exploding breast & buttock implants, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

[Akhlut]

I only have a phone for internet access now, so no links or anything, but the allergic, phobic, and so on have recourse to bomb-detecting machines. They aren't as quick as dogs, but they are effective and are still more useful than backscatter scanners and pat-downs.

Plus, if a terrorist is ok with blowing up a kid, what makes you think they won't stuff a bomb up a kid's backside? That moral line was passed long ago once they're okay with blowing up the kid. Plus C4 and a few other explosives can be molded into thin charges.

[Themightytom]

I only have a phone for internet access now, so no links or anything, but the allergic, phobic, and so on have recourse to bomb-detecting machines. They aren't as quick as dogs, but they are effective and are still more useful than backscatter scanners and pat-downs.

Plus, if a terrorist is ok with blowing up a kid, what makes you think they won't stuff a bomb up a kid's backside? That moral line was passed long ago once they're okay with blowing up the kid. Plus C4 and a few other explosives can be molded into thin charges.

I don't disagree with the possibility that they "could" do it, I am considering child behavior as a component of viability here.
I disagree with how effectively that pan out, the kid would be walking funny, crying, etc. Something would be visibly wrong to alert security inspectors to look more closely. The whole idea behind smuggling is NOT to draw attention.

[Akhlut]

I only have a phone for internet access now, so no links or anything, but the allergic, phobic, and so on have recourse to bomb-detecting machines. They aren't as quick as dogs, but they are effective and are still more useful than backscatter scanners and pat-downs.

Plus, if a terrorist is ok with blowing up a kid, what makes you think they won't stuff a bomb up a kid's backside? That moral line was passed long ago once they're okay with blowing up the kid. Plus C4 and a few other explosives can be molded into thin charges.

I don't disagree with the possibility that they "could" do it, I am considering child behavior as a component of viability here.
I disagree with how effectively that pan out, the kid would be walking funny, crying, etc. Something would be visibly wrong to alert security inspectors to look more closely. The whole idea behind smuggling is NOT to draw attention.

A child crying at the airport? Perish the thought!

Further, it's not out of the question that the walking part could be completely eliminated by faking a broken leg on the child and just move him/her around with a wheelchair.


Anyway, bomb-dogs are very effective, with Corporal Andrew Guzman saying they are "[t]hey are 98 percent accurate. We trust these dogs more than metal detectors and mine sweepers."

Now, if soldiers in warzones trust dogs to detect bombs and IEDs and trust them more then metal detectors and minesweepers, then I think I'd trust them to a large degree as well.

Plus: bomb-detection machines exist and can be very effective. I do not know how fast they are, though. If they're quick, though, a combination of dogs and machines can virtually eliminate the possibility of explosives and the addition of metal detectors would make it much more difficult to get guns or knives onboard an airplane.

All without needing patdowns or backscatter scanners that make people feel a hell of a lot more violated than walking through what appear to be doorways and having a dog sniff around them.

[Danny Bhoy]

TSA nearest equivalent could be argued to be Customs and Border Protection. In CBP, all the way to Port Director is in uniform. TSA, bottom three ranks, the rest of the staff is plain clothes. The agency is hugely management heavy. I have multiple Deputy Directors for screening at one airport. They don't even work different shifts. They in turn answer to a Assistant Director.

Isn't the practice to have ADs junior to DDs? At least that's the way it is in places like State. Asst Secs junior to Dy Secs.

As a frequent flyer with top-tier elite status on my airline FFP, I find flying in and out of US airports a real PITA, partly because US airports are often third world toilets but mostly because of TSA. Unless I'm gaining a shitload of extra miles or I really have to go stateside for work, I try to avoid the US.

[someone_else]

I always thought TSA's work was giving the impression of security to the masses.
And frankly I don't understand the fuss for patdowns (in general, and on children in particular), as long as they are being performed by heterosexuals of the same gender or homosexuals of the opposite gender (so that they don't have any reason to like the procedure).
I would only start to complain for rectum inspections.

Still, smuggling stuff on board has never been overtly complex if you have some ingenuity, time and money.
Closing all the easy holes would require much more thought than the TSA currently shows.
Closing all the holes would require too much money and a complete redesign of most airports.

Like with a friend that bypasses the guards by walking around the building, and gives you whatever you wanted to carry onboard after the check-in. Dunno how good guards are in the US, but here it's an easy trick.
Or the people that mop the building's floors can hide stuff for you in a position after the guards (like bathrooms).

Anyway, this would require a relocation of the guard posts in a place just before going on the aircraft to be busted.
Even then, maybe the aircraft resupply personnel can still smuggle stuff in the aircraft for you.


And c'mon you about stuffing children with explosives, it's relatively easier to have the subject swallow small balls of explosive, like they do to smuggle drugs around. One of the balls contains the detonator, and the other balls will simpathetically detonate when reached by the first ball's shockwave.
Cover them with sugar and it will be relatively easy to turn even other people's childrens into walking bombs by handing out such things as candies.

And what about fooling dogs and machines?
You fill the airport's ventilation system with powdered explosives (or place them in the stuff used to mop the floors, or make sure there is loads of such smell around in some other way) and laugh when the dogs sniff explosives everywhere and become useless.

[Broomstick]

I always thought TSA's work was giving the impression of security to the masses.
And frankly I don't understand the fuss for patdowns (in general, and on children in particular), as long as they are being performed by heterosexuals of the same gender or homosexuals of the opposite gender (so that they don't have any reason to like the procedure).
I would only start to complain for rectum inspections.

That is YOU. Other people feel differently. Some people object to ANY stranger, regardless of sex or orientation, touching them. You don't have to understand why, just accept that it is.

Another thing is that, until the TSA came along, this level of personal inspection was reserved for criminals. Now, all citizens are being subjected to it, regardless of guilt or innocence. This has led to a perception of harassment, punishment for flying, and extreme discomfort among many.

Then there are those of us who want real security and not an expensively maintained theatrical depiction of security.

[someone_else]

That is YOU. Other people feel differently. Some people object to ANY stranger, regardless of sex or orientation, touching them. You don't have to understand why, just accept that it is.

Can I mantain my own view? (that such feelings are irrational nonsense that they must grow out of)

If you want safety you have to give up your privacy somehow. That's a given in any security system. You may make a system that gives the illusion of privacy (do their job without anyone noticing), but thats a privacy violation nontheless.

The only thing worth enraging about of TSA is that it is a privacy violation for the hell of it. It's a plan slap on your face, just for show.

[Akhlut]

I always thought TSA's work was giving the impression of security to the masses.
And frankly I don't understand the fuss for patdowns (in general, and on children in particular), as long as they are being performed by heterosexuals of the same gender or homosexuals of the opposite gender (so that they don't have any reason to like the procedure).
I would only start to complain for rectum inspections.

You don't understand why a parent would have a problem with a complete and utter stranger rubbing their child's chest and groin?

Or why a regular person would have a problem with someone doing that to them, regardless of the TSA agent's like or dislike of the procedure?

Further, while flying might be a privlege in the US, the Fourth Amendment certainly isn't, especially given that for police officers to engage in equivalent searches, they must be able to articulate why that person in specific was acting in a suspicious manner that would lead the officer to reasonably believe the person was trying to engage in criminal activity. Simply flying on a plane, which over 99.99999% of passengers do instead of terrorizing the plane, would not pass that test, methinks.

And c'mon you about stuffing children with explosives, it's relatively easier to have the subject swallow small balls of explosive, like they do to smuggle drugs around. One of the balls contains the detonator, and the other balls will simpathetically detonate when reached by the first ball's shockwave.
Cover them with sugar and it will be relatively easy to turn even other people's childrens into walking bombs by handing out such things as candies.

The point is that those can plausibly be detected by a dog or a explosive-sniffing machine, not by patdowns and backscatter scanners.

And what about fooling dogs and machines?
You fill the airport's ventilation system with powdered explosives (or place them in the stuff used to mop the floors, or make sure there is loads of such smell around in some other way) and laugh when the dogs sniff explosives everywhere and become useless.

The airport would be in shutdown then, no one would fly, and then they'd install airscrubbers into the ventilation system once that was figured out to be the problem. Hell, they'd probably ground all flights from that airport that day and reroute all incoming planes to nearby airports, too. In short, it'd be complete chaos, but it wouldn't result in an airplane exploding, in all likelihood.

[Simon_Jester]

I always thought TSA's work was giving the impression of security to the masses.
And frankly I don't understand the fuss for patdowns (in general, and on children in particular), as long as they are being performed by heterosexuals of the same gender or homosexuals of the opposite gender (so that they don't have any reason to like the procedure).
I would only start to complain for rectum inspections.

You don't understand why a parent would have a problem with a complete and utter stranger rubbing their child's chest and groin?

Or why a regular person would have a problem with someone doing that to them, regardless of the TSA agent's like or dislike of the procedure?

Further, while flying might be a privlege in the US, the Fourth Amendment certainly isn't, especially given that for police officers to engage in equivalent searches, they must be able to articulate why that person in specific was acting in a suspicious manner that would lead the officer to reasonably believe the person was trying to engage in criminal activity. Simply flying on a plane, which over 99.99999% of passengers do instead of terrorizing the plane, would not pass that test, methinks.

You can probably tack on another "nine" to that.

There have been roughly six billion passenger boardings in the United States since 9/11. Including the 9/11 attackers, there have been something like 25 terrorists- the twenty 9/11 hijackers, the Shoe Bomber, the Underwear Bomber (who really shouldn't count, but we're in paranoiac "hysteria is the best defense against terror!" mode. Um... not remembering any others, but screw it I'll assume they exist. Hell. Call it 30 terrorists out of six billion boarding passengers.

That means that 99.9999995% of passengers boarding a plane are not terrorists.

Or, the other way around, there is a 0.0000005% chance of any given person boarding a plane being a terrorist. Everything a passenger is subjected to since 9/11, all the people turned back at the gate because they have the same name as someone who was arbitrarily dumped on a watch list, all the people who can't fly because the TSA won't believe their prosthetics aren't bombs, all the people who've been groped or made to walk through nakedcams, all the people whose property has been damaged in the process of searches...

All of that was on the basis of the 0.0000005% chance of that person being a terrorist.

It's kind of sobering when viewed that way.

And what about fooling dogs and machines?
You fill the airport's ventilation system with powdered explosives (or place them in the stuff used to mop the floors, or make sure there is loads of such smell around in some other way) and laugh when the dogs sniff explosives everywhere and become useless.

The airport would be in shutdown then, no one would fly, and then they'd install airscrubbers into the ventilation system once that was figured out to be the problem. Hell, they'd probably ground all flights from that airport that day and reroute all incoming planes to nearby airports, too. In short, it'd be complete chaos, but it wouldn't result in an airplane exploding, in all likelihood.

Also, something_else is getting waaay too 'cute' with this kind of plan. That's the sort of thing that works more effectively in a movie than in real life, because in practice schemes like that tend to rely very heavily on the person who came up with them being smart enough to remember all the complicating variables. Like, getting access to the ventilation system. And not being spotted doing so. And, yes, the airport security people responding to "every person we check smells like bomb" by saying "oh, well, our security's on the fritz, let's just forget that and let everyone through."

It relies on him having all the brains, and his opponent having no brains. Not good.

[Broomstick]

That is YOU. Other people feel differently. Some people object to ANY stranger, regardless of sex or orientation, touching them. You don't have to understand why, just accept that it is.

Can I mantain my own view? (that such feelings are irrational nonsense that they must grow out of)

Yes, you are permitted to maintain your own (erroneous, in my assessment) viewpoint. It's called agreeing to disagree.

If you want safety you have to give up your privacy somehow.

I'd prefer to keep a certain level of privacy even if that means a slightly greater risk. Can you understand that? Of course, I'd be the first to admit I probably have a higher than average risk tolerance.

[That's a given in any security system. You may make a system that gives the illusion of privacy (do their job without anyone noticing), but thats a privacy violation nontheless.

Perhaps I'd be more amenable to the reduced privacy if we had more than the mere appearance of security.

The only thing worth enraging about of TSA is that it is a privacy violation for the hell of it. It's a plan slap on your face, just for show.

Yes. And it makes me FURIOUS.

[Themightytom]

A child crying at the airport? Perish the thought!

Further,

Um wait a minute, we didn't go anywhere, all you did was mock my observation that a noisy child attracts attention, not disprove it.

it's not out of the question that the walking part could be completely eliminated by faking a broken leg on the child and just move him/her around with a wheelchair.

Ok um... have you ever tried to board a plane in a wheelchair? it's more conspicuous than you would imagine.

Anyway, bomb-dogs are very effective, with Corporal Andrew Guzman saying they are "[t]hey are 98 percent accurate. We trust these dogs more than metal detectors and mine sweepers."

Well that is not exactly a nonobjective opinion, i was looking for a third party study.
http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2010 ... ctive.html

here's a blog. It means nothing, but it contradicts yours.

Now, if soldiers in warzones trust dogs to detect bombs and IEDs and trust them more then metal detectors and minesweepers, then I think I'd trust them to a large degree as well.

They could just as well be affectionate towards the dog.

Plus: bomb-detection machines exist and can be very effective. I do not know how fast they are, though. If they're quick, though, a combination of dogs and machines can virtually eliminate the possibility of explosives and the addition of metal detectors would make it much more difficult to get guns or knives onboard an airplane.

See you beat me to raising the obvious flaws. I can handle my own damn argument thank you

All without needing patdowns or backscatter scanners that make people feel a hell of a lot more violated than walking through what appear to be doorways and having a dog sniff around them.

Nothing makes people vigilant like reminding them the kid kicking their seat might have a bomb up his ass. makign security as intrusive and obvious as possible has it's own merits, or do you think police officers pull people over in awkward places to slow down traffic is just a coincidence. it's typically a "Slow Down Fucker, This Could Be You."

[Simon_Jester]

Tom, why am I going to be less "vigilant" when there are six guards and a dog sniffing everybody than when I'm worried about my kid being groped at the security checkpoint?

See, you talk about vigilance; have you ever heard of hypervigilance? There's such a thing as being too vigilant, too paranoid, too on edge, endlessly expecting the attack that never comes and never will come, and endlessly overreacting to every little thing as if the world was about to come to an end.

American airline passengers have been about as vigilant as anyone could reasonably expect them to be, ever since 9/11. For fuck's sake, of the two people who've even tried bombing an airplane in the US in the past decade, both were stopped by passengers, not by the TSA, even though in neither case did the TSA make any effort to alert people to the category of threat.

At what point is it simply insanity for us to expect every person to devote time and energy to the one in a hundred million chance that there's a terrorist on the plane? What shouldn't we do in the name of making them just that bit more paranoid? Do we really expect them to worry that anyone and everyone in the plane, including small children and little old ladies, could be a suicide bomber with a bunch of explosives stuffed up their rectal cavity?

How do we distinguish between a belief that extreme and actual mental illness- paranoia, the belief that we are constantly beinig harassed by enemies even when there are no enemies and no one has attacked us in years?

As with so much else I've heard about airline security since 9/11, I keep wanting to ask: where's the limit? How much are we willing, and intending, to do in order to achieve some tiny part-per-billion incremental improvement in our safety against a threat that hardly ever materializes?

[someone_else]

I'd prefer to keep a certain level of privacy even if that means a slightly greater risk. Can you understand that? Of course, I'd be the first to admit I probably have a higher than average risk tolerance.

Sure I understand. The risk in this case is also pretty small. It's far far easier to end up in a plane that naturally crashes killing everyone inside than having a terrorist on board that kills everyone inside.

I think that the modifications they already did to plane's flight cabin, plus a couple armed guards (decently trained, not like the ones in banks) disguised as passengers would be more than enough to stop the average random fuckers without the need for all this pointless show.

To stop real terrorists like the guys of 9/11 you have to rely mainly on intelligence agencies (active defenses). Those had plenty of money, time and brains. If you want to make airplanes passively safe against them, you'd have to make every airport building a Fort Knox with full-digestive system (you can gulp down the explosives as well as placing them in the rectum), vaginal and implant inspections.

Not that intelligence agencies don't violate privacy, it's just that they don't get caught doing it so easily.

You don't understand why a parent would have a problem with a complete and utter stranger rubbing their child's chest and groin? Or why a regular person would have a problem with someone doing that to them, regardless of the TSA agent's like or dislike of the procedure?

I attempted humor above, I'll clarify. I easily understand why, but I don't agree with the assumption that such feeling is the right reaction.
It depends from what you get from that. If it increases security it may be worth it. If it is just for show it's a waste of time.
But again, I have really nothing to hide. They can pull out my wang and play with it for the hell I care. My "discomfort" meter starts with anal inspections.
And frankly, even if the guard is a Pedo, he must still follow the procedure under your eyes in a crowded place, with other guards (unlikely to be pedos themselves) looking too.

I tend to assume the guards as civil human beings, with a decent training and not particularly happy of what they are doing. Because we all live in a more or less civil place. If the same was done, say in Burkina Faso Airport by random smiling morons with a gun, I would be worried.

Yes, I encountered my fair share of abusive police/customs/guard guys, but I don't assume all security personnel must be like them.

Simply flying on a plane, which over 99.99999% of passengers do instead of terrorizing the plane, would not pass that test, methinks.

Maybe all this is to keep safer the people on skyscrapers. An airplane can kill much more people than its own passengers.
Which means, ok, the risk is very low, but if it happens, you're looking at a huge pile of bodies.
I'll leave the "is it worth it?" assessment of such threat to the more math-inclined.

The airport would be in shutdown then, no one would fly, and then they'd install airscrubbers into the ventilation system once that was figured out to be the problem. Hell, they'd probably ground all flights from that airport that day and reroute all incoming planes to nearby airports, too. In short, it'd be complete chaos, but it wouldn't result in an airplane exploding, in all likelihood.

I'd like to know what professionals will do in case all dogs sniff explosives everywhere. Without hindsight telling the real cause. (like that guy in the first posts of this thread)

Also, something_else is getting waaay too 'cute' with this kind of plan.

You looked at the 9/11 guys plan? Does it seem easy to implement for you? My plan is crap since I made it in 10 seconds and without having a look at the airport I need to fool (the "battleground" so to speak). But any real terroristic attack has going to be horribly complex and very risky as well.
They even planned redundancy in case of losses.

Still, my main card is having a friend smuggle stuff beyond the guard post, someway (the fault exploited to do so depends from the airport, and trust me, most airports I've been into have a looong list of such faults), and I go take that up after they finished my satisfactory rectum inspection.

Also, I'm someone_else. Or should I have to call you Simon_Pester?

Um wait a minute, we didn't go anywhere, all you did was mock my observation that a noisy child attracts attention, not disprove it.

That's probably because you failed to understand the sarcasm.
Children cry with an alarming frequency. Anywhere. Anytime. For any reason.
A child crying is a frequent annoyance for a guard, it is going to get ignored (if it isn't his children or related to him somehow).

As with so much else I've heard about airline security since 9/11, I keep wanting to ask: where's the limit? How much are we willing, and intending, to do in order to achieve some tiny part-per-billion incremental improvement in our safety against a threat that hardly ever materializes?

The point is that even with the current procedures, real professional terrorists (like the 9/11 guys) will still get on the plane without problems.
All this fuss stops the random insane fuckers at best. And sometimes not even those (the ones stopped by passengers).
TSA is there to give the impression of security, and to do so it employs obvious and invasive (relatively) procedures, just for show.

So your question becomes:
How can we stop the hysteria before they start looking up your ass?

As always, the real problem is far easier to solve than convince the public that it has been solved. Fukushima anyone?