Your opinion: Is TSA getting out of hand?

[Darth Avlectus]

About as lively as roadkill around here. Time to liven things up a bit.

 

We've heard all about it these past couple weeks, TSA and their new "screening methods" to be implemented (courtesy underwear bomber) this holiday season. Everybody is talking about it.

 

(Anybody here traveling for the holidays?)

 

So what do you think?

[Samuel Dravis]

Frankly, I don't see why it's acceptable to be molested by poorly paid TSA agents when you don't have to endure that kind of treatment simply getting into your own car, which is a bit more dangerous than flying on an airplane, even considering terrorism. I'm not traveling by air in the near future, nor do I plan to. I've recently traveled by rail, though, which was very pleasant. If one were really concerned about people getting killed by terrorists, one would petition the government to prevent all mass gatherings, protests, or any other activity in which it is easy to kill many people. However, that is not done. As such, I believe that the TSA's job is simply "security theater" -- in which the appearance of security is given, but where one's actual safety on a personal basis is not really affected.

 

To be honest, I think that terrorism hysteria has reached such extremes that is no longer relevant to the real world. Such measures that the TSA says are "necessary" are not even required by Israel, which is a far more common target of terrorism than the US. To be afraid of air travel by terrorism you must also be (rather more) afraid of the simple act of getting into a car -- and I'm not sure that's a real consideration by anyone. The TSA simply produces these procedures in a CYA maneuver. Personally, I will not use air travel until the TSA becomes significantly more reasonable in its restrictions.

 

Pilots being terrorists? Seriously? If they're in control, there's nothing that can be done to stop them from crashing the plane. Honestly, what is the purpose of screening them for explosives every time they get on a plane when their position makes such possession of such explosives superfluous?

 

3 year olds being having concealed explosives on their persons? Sure, it is possible: but fantastic reasons can be invented for any scenario, no matter how extreme. Even if this has happened before (which it has, I might add), there is simply no accounting for crazies. Which is what terrorists are. Crazies. One shouldn't account for them as a credible threat against anything. If they do happen to attack something successfully, it should be taken note of-- but people should not be molested to accommodate a marginal increase in the threat of terrorists taking over a plane. Hardened cockpit doors seem to have taken care of most of the threat in this regard.

 

Of course, I understand why this is happening-- like I said, it is a CYA maneuver -- but I don't see why government agents should be responsible for the unforseeable (which is, after all, crazies). So anyone holding the government responsible for people who are insane and do insane things should be treated as they really are-- people with ridiculously unreasonable expectations of air travel and the government. As soon as "victory against terrorism" is defined as "0 people killed by terrorism", the terrorists really have won. There is danger in everything; it is the mark of the mature person to put it into perspective. I think our government is failing in its duty to do so... and citizens who expect such a track record are simply the victims of fearmongering.

[mimartin]

Is TSA getting out of hand?

No, they have been out of hand for years.

 

07/05/2010

 

Voted "NO" in the poll, but not because I believe TSA is out of hand, but because I know they have been out of hand for years.

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^Missed that one. I'll check it out...

 

Frankly, I don't see why it's acceptable to be molested by poorly paid TSA agents when you don't have to endure that kind of treatment simply getting into your own car, which is a bit more dangerous than flying on an airplane, even considering terrorism.

Oh I don't think it is acceptable, personally. Where it was only a ...nuisance before, it is now bordering on atrocious. Oh and uhh, don't wear even rubberized stud bracelets and sport a freeflowing long mop, seems that missouri airport security lackeys love to pull you aside and harass you a little extra b/c you're a California headbanger, and they aren't beyond stealing things blind, either.

 

As Lloyd Christmas said: "Statistically you're more likely to get killed on the way to the airport." lol

 

Or how you're not allowed to bring even small energy drinks onboard.

 

I'm not traveling by air in the near future, nor do I plan to. I've recently traveled by rail, though, which was very pleasant. If one were really concerned about people getting killed by terrorists, one would petition the government to prevent all mass gatherings, protests, or any other activity in which it is easy to kill many people. However, that is not done. As such, I believe that the TSA's job is simply "security theater" -- in which the appearance of security is given, but where one's actual safety on a personal basis is not really affected.

 

I remember it was in the news (sometime before 2008) some guy was independently testing out the whole system awhile back and found several flaws. When he came to them and told them, they wanted to grind his bones rather than hire him--don't know of the outcome. It's ridiculous, though.

 

Hell, it's mind boggling how we have so much put into just the airports where they could just simply walk right over the borders with no questions asked.

 

To be honest, I think that terrorism hysteria has reached such extremes that is no longer relevant to the real world. Such measures that the TSA says are "necessary" are not even required by Israel, which is a far more common target of terrorism than the US.

 

Agreed, it's overblown. Not to mention some of that funding could be better used elsewhere, even security wise. Here's an idea: use that additional funding to pay our vets what we rightfully owe them--just saying.

 

I was a libertarian before I was anything else (I've merely gone from being an extreme left green party to a now medium right independent) and I was criticizing this whole thing once I understood it permanently took away rights and freedoms, still do in fact. In turn it is giving the general population more of a hassle than people actually fitting the terrorists lineup in all its forms.

 

Now for having a cricket sized pocket knife on your keychain you'll be arrested and jailed for felony weapons possession. OK, I'm pretty sure most people can't kill anyone with a little blade not even 2" long and maybe half inch wide, 10 sheets of paper thick.

 

Oh wait, that's right the dreaded box cutters. How could I forget?

 

To be afraid of air travel by terrorism you must also be (rather more) afraid of the simple act of getting into a car -- and I'm not sure that's a real consideration by anyone. The TSA simply produces these procedures in a CYA maneuver. Personally, I will not use air travel until the TSA becomes significantly more reasonable in its restrictions.

 

Yeah. Both my trips to Missouri have been by airplane and looking back both had weird, *stupid* little incidents in the airport terminals. Now that I think about them, one was obviously some hick messing with me b/c I'm a CA headbanger, and the other was an "accident" which they forcefully defended with vague reasoning and implied threat of more procedure. (IMO it's a redundancy "shadow policy" that works rather well to invent reasons for interrogation and easy labeling of "suspicious" for regular people.)

 

Pilots being terrorists? Seriously? If they're in control, there's nothing that can be done to stop them from crashing the plane.

Unless that icy blue eyed "Fonz" haircutted air marshal can get into the cockpit and also has piloting skills--by then, it's already too late, though. A little mental health evaluation screening in job application and interview presumably would take care of this and if I'm not mistaken this is the case as piloting is serious business.

 

Honestly, what is the purpose of screening them for explosives every time they get on a plane when their position makes such possession of such explosives superfluous?

 

3 year olds being having concealed explosives on their persons? Sure, it is possible: but fantastic reasons can be invented for any scenario, no matter how extreme. Even if this has happened before (which it has, I might add), there is simply no accounting for crazies. Which is what terrorists are. Crazies. One shouldn't account for them as a credible threat against anything. If they do happen to attack something successfully, it should be taken note of-- but people should not be molested to accommodate a marginal increase in the threat of terrorists taking over a plane. Hardened cockpit doors seem to have taken care of most of the threat in this regard.

 

Don't forget, granny might have something in her dress as well.

 

No wait, I know, let's see if those cards in your wallet are real or if one is made from plastic explosive.

 

What about this magnesium block on your keys? You might try to start a fire! (Nevermind the smoke alarms are the most sensitive anywhere and the penalty is hefty for smoking onboard.)

 

Of course, I understand why this is happening-- like I said, it is a CYA maneuver -- but I don't see why government agents should be responsible for the unforseeable (which is, after all, crazies). So anyone holding the government responsible for people who are insane and do insane things should be treated as they really are-- people with ridiculously unreasonable expectations of air travel and the government.

The status quo is unfortunately more profitable for them. Seriously, can you honestly tell me it isn't?

 

As soon as "victory against terrorism" is defined as "0 people killed by terrorism", the terrorists really have won. There is danger in everything; it is the mark of the mature person to put it into perspective. I think our government is failing in its duty to do so... and citizens who expect such a track record are simply the victims of fearmongering.

Sad but true. Though I think America's population is waking up as people of all persuasions are seeing reason in this. Now just to see if those in charge will listen to us.

[JediAthos]

I've been calling the TSA the Transportation Stupidity Agency for years. That passel of clowns hasn't the slightest clue about what their doing. I'm more qualified to do their job than they are. (10 years of military security training ftw).

 

Are they out of hand? you bet. Washington is full of knee-jerk reactions and the TSA's newest "measures" are just one big knee-jerk reaction. I don't see a need for a pat down to actually touch the genitals. I suppose maybe if the person is wearing extremely loose clothing, but otherwise examination (it's called attention to detail) and a pat down of the inner thigh should be sufficient.

 

As for the body scanners...I've been through one and while I wasn't pleased about it I didn't give the agent a hard time. Without knowing how they work I can't say for sure, but folks who fly frequently enough could be getting a lot of radiation exposure. In the medical imaging industry in which I work (Xray, CT etc...) there is a lot of call to reduce dosage to the patient. I'd be curious to know what kind of dose those things put out.

 

There is a Florida congressman, whose name slips my mind atm, that is calling for airports to privatize security and cut out TSA agents all together. Unfortunately that wouldn't eliminate the goofy procedures, but perhaps it would eliminate some of the attitude problems and "power hungry" government workers.

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^To the best of my knowledge radiation exposure is cumulative. The FDA or NCDRH is supposed to handle measuring radiation exposure and provide guidelines for what levels of exposure are safe.

 

Update:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/129651-gop-lawmaker-full-body-scanners-violate-fourth-amendment

GOP lawmaker: Full-body scanners violate Fourth Amendment

By Elise Viebeck - 11/17/10 10:29 AM ET

 

A GOP lawmaker said Tuesday the full-body scanners now employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) violate the Fourth Amendment to the constitution, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

 

During a one-minute speech on the House floor, Rep. Ted Poe (Texas) also blasted former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as a "political hack" and accused him of profiting from the proliferation of the devices.

 

"There is no evidence these new body scanners make us more secure. But there is evidence that former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff made money hawking these full body scanners," Poe said.

 

He went on to explain that Chertoff, who served under President George W. Bush, had given interviews promoting the scanners while he was "getting paid" to sell them.

 

"[T]he populace is giving up more rights in the name of alleged security. These body scanners are a violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures ... There must be a better way to have security at airports than taking pornographic photographs of our citizens, including children, and then giving apparent kickbacks to political hacks."

 

Chertoff has advocated for the use of full-body scanners since he took his post at DHS in 2005.

 

As of January, his consulting agency, the Chertoff Group, counted among its clients* one of the machines' manufacturers.

 

The group responded with a statement on Wednesday.

 

"The Chertoff Group played no role in the sale of whole body imaging technology to TSA," said spokeswoman Katy Montgomery. "Further, Secretary Michael Chertoff was in no way compensated for his public statements, in which he has consistently expressed long held beliefs in the deployment of effective technologies and techniques that eliminate security vulnerabilities such as those illustrated last year during the terrorist attempt on Christmas Day. Any statements to the contrary are false."

 

—This post was updated at 2:42 p.m.

 

 

* http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/02/group_slams_chertoff_on_scanner_promotion/

Group slams Chertoff on scanner promotion

January 2, 2010

 

WASHINGTON - Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.

 

What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

An airport passengers’ rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff’s use of his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

 

“Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive,’’ said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

 

Chertoff’s advocacy for the technology dates to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government’s first batch of the scanners - five from California-based Rapiscan Systems. Rapiscan is one of only two companies that make full-body scanners in accordance with current contract specifications required by the federal government.

 

Currently 40 body scanners are in use among 19 US airports. The number is expected to skyrocket, at least in part because of the Christmas Day incident. The Transportation Security Administration has said it will order 300 more machines.

 

In the summer, TSA purchased 150 more machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. Rapiscan was the only company that qualified for the contract because it had developed technology that performs the screening using a less-graphic body imaging system, which is also less controversial. (Since then, another company, L-3 Communications, has qualified for future contracts, but no new contracts have been awarded.)

 

-- Washington Post

 

Ugh. Profiting off our scalps, eh? Disgusting. What a pirate.

 

So now the big 4th is being put up as a challenge. Regardless, I think the FDA/NCDRH (or whatever agency is responsible for measurement of these devices' radiation output) ought to investigate and check out these devices if they haven't already. For those who don't travel much it might not bee too big a concern but those who travel all the time it's a big deal.

[JediAthos]

Yes, radiation exposure is cumulative. As a technician I wear a dosimeter and get checked for exposure 3 times a year. My concern is that frequent flyers such as business people etc...may be getting too much exposure regulated or otherwise from these machines. I'm would think the machines had to meet FDA approval before being put into use, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the cumulative exposure couldn't cause issues down the line particularly for children.

 

Regarding the 4th Amendment...I'm not a lawyer, but in continuance with other arguments I've listened to the body scanners and these new "enhanced" pat downs as the TSA calls them certainly seem to skirt the boundaries of what is unreasonable if not exceeding them. There have been spurious legal challenges to the TSA's methods but what needs to happen is a concentrated suit that will make it to the Supreme Court because that is the only way this issue will be resolved unless of course Congress steps in and puts a leash on the TSA, and I'm not even sure they have that kind of authority.

[Darth Avlectus]

So, correct me if I'm wrong: The radiation from these devices even within "acceptable limits" is only figured to account for people who won't be exposed to it on a constant basis? This is essentially one side of what people are complaining about--and who could blame them as it is a rather valid concern. It's an exposure to wavelengths that for its intended purpose irradiates target objects (for capturing). However the exposure has a certain physical effects and it's the effect is cumulative (As opposed to leaving chemicals or pellets or somesuch)?

 

You're an X-Ray tech eh? Bet that job isn't too bad. Had a little interest in it, personally.

 

On the main point: not going for these scans, the other way you go through it is an enhanced "pat down" that is likened to being groped and fondled in "certain areas" of the body.

 

I didn't think much of it a few weeks ago with that pilot, but now that I know more about this whole thing, frankly anyone with a lick of dignity and decency should by all means revolt. It's outrageous. IMO it's Government sponsored sexual molestation.

 

That one guy recorded on the phone "If you touch my junk, I will have you arrested". Really, who can blame him? But of course, he got further scrutinized. Go figure.

[JediAthos]

I'm not sure exactly what the FDA's methods are when they calculate acceptable dose. I know that all of our machines have to be approved by the FDA and dose is just one part of the equation. That said, the occasional healthy traveler probably has little need to worry.

 

Here are the FDA's procedures for security systems: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm227201.htm they don't give actual exposure numbers, but they claim safety is not an issue basically.

 

Yup...I agree with you about the pat downs wholeheartedly. I fly for company business, and I actually have a trip coming up in a couple of weeks. I have admit though that I would certainly rather be scanned than "patted down" and that's probably what I will do when I go through the security line because frankly making a scene at an airport is nothing more than a good way to get yourself arrested.

[Jae Onasi]

Anyone groping my daughter is going to find themselves on the ground, possibly dead.

 

I'd love to know why pilots have to go through the scanners. If they want to crash the plane, for heaven's sake all they have to do is point the nose of the plane into the ground after they've been airborne for any length of time.

[JediAthos]

I saw an article this morning Jae stating that pilots will now be exempt from the scans.

 

WASHINGTON – The Transportation Security Administration says airline pilots will be allowed to skip some physical security checks at airports.

 

Pilots have complained about being held up in airport security lines with travelers, and forced to go through screening.

 

TSA now says that pilots traveling in uniform or on airline business will see immediate changes in their screening at airport checkpoints, according to an agency press release.

 

Earlier this week, TSA administrator John Pistole told lawmakers the agency was working with airline pilots on a new plan for their screening requirements.

 

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20101119/ap_tr_ge/us_travel_brief_airport_security_pilots

 

So at least there is some sense beginning to show, but as I said Congress needs to step in and put a leash on the TSA. I'm sure they're subject to Congressional oversight just like every other agency.

[Darth Avlectus]

Here are the FDA's procedures for security systems: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm227201.htm they don't give actual exposure numbers, but they claim safety is not an issue basically.

 

"In 42 minutes of living you're exposed to more background radiation than from a general use X ray."

 

Don't you just love how they skirt the issue? Says nothing about the cumulative effect of that or any other type of radiation specific to these machines.

 

They more or less say without saying "you could walk through one of these scans every hour and be just fine". Well, if its danger level is so overblown, then why isn't everyone making fully developed photos of their innards with higher exposures to x-ray machines?

[JediAthos]

The biggest difference between these machines and your standard medical imaging x-ray machine is that the radiation from the security scanner is not penetrating the skin as a medical x-ray machine does.

 

That, however, imo does not make them safer. At the same time this article seems to support the TSA and FDA's assertion that the machines are safe.

 

 

With the big holidays just around the corner, thousands of folks are about to get their first taste of the TSA's new virtual strip search machines - X-ray body scanners. Privacy issues may be the main concern for most people, but the safety of these things has some people worried.

 

Back in April, a group of UCSF professors with a range of expertise in x-rays and biology wrote a letter to White House advisor John Holdren (PDF) raising some potential safety concerns about the TSA's X-ray scanners. The gist of the letter was not to make accusations, but to raise key questions about safety that should be answered before these things went into wide use. The questions certainly had me a little worried, in part because of the government's history of safety screw-ups. As the UCSF professors wrote:

 

We would like to put our current concerns into perspective. As longstanding UCSF scientists and physicians, we have witnessed critical errors in decisions that have seriously affected the health of thousands of people in the United States. These unfortunate errors were made because of the failure to recognize potential adverse outcomes of decisions made at the federal level. Crises create a sense of urgency that frequently leads to hasty decisions where unintended consequences are not recognized. Examples include the failure of the CDC to recognize the risk of blood transfusions in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, approval of drugs and devices by the FDA without sufficient review, and improper standards set by the EPA, to name a few. Similarly, there has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations. We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted. Modifications that reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible.

 

 

 

Back in October, the FDA responded to the concerns raised in the letter. Their response was essentially this:

 

1. X-ray body scanners for security purposes are not new, and the FDA has been on this issue for nearly two decades. Manufacturers of these devices are regulated by the FDA. A variety of independent, outside committees have examined the safety issues.

 

2. The specific safety concerns raised in the UCSF letter have been addressed:

 

- The X-ray output of these machines and the effective dose to the skin and other organs has been measured/estimated/modeled, and they fall within long-established safety guidelines.

 

- The machines have safety features to prevent a stalled scan from zapping one small part of your body with a massive dose of radiation.

 

- TSA screeners can't control the speed of the scan, and therefore can't cause the scanner to go over your groin more slowly, for example. Your future children are likely safe.

 

Here's the FDA's conclusion:

 

This technology has been available for nearly two decades and we have based our evaluation on scientific evidence and on the recommendations of recognized experts. Public meetings were held to discuss these products with FDA’s advisory panel (TEPRSSC), and the American national radiation safety standard was available for public comment both before its initial publication and before its recently published revision. There are numerous publications regarding the biological effects of radiation and the appropriate protection limits for the general public that apply to these products. As a result of these evidence-based, responsible actions, we are confident that full-body x-ray security products and practices do not pose a significant risk to the public health.

Strangely, ARS Technica claims that this response is merely a brush-off:

 

But, in the FDA's response, the agency gave the issues little more than a data-driven brush off. They cite five studies in response to the professors' request for independent verification of the safety of these X-rays; however, three are more than a decade old, and none of them deal specifically with the low-energy X-rays the professors are concerned about. The letter also doesn't mention the FDA's own classification of X-rays as carcinogens in 2005.

 

I can't agree. I find the FDA convincing in this case. First, the FDA does not just cite older studies; they also cite later reports from the assessment committees mentioned in the FDA's letter. But they are justified in citing the older studies. Here's why: radiation biology (not to mention the physics of x-rays) is an old and well understood science. Since the beginning of the Manhattan Project (at least), the biological effects of radiation have been a subject of intense scrutiny. We know how to measure exposure, what the likely effects of various doses are, etc. You don't need new studies to reinvent the wheel.

 

Second, the FDA provided a detailed response to all of the hardware/softwaredevice concerns raised in the letter, and basically stated that it's been regulating machines like these for decades. Maybe you don't believe the FDA and think the standards it sets are incorrect/unenforced/whatever, but that's a different argument.

 

Third, why should the FDA have to mention in the letter that X-rays are classified as a carcinogen? Isn't that why it's regulating these devices in the first place?

 

The FDA's response is thorough and convincing, with the appropriate references to where you can go for more details. Next time you get screened at the airport, worry about the privacy aspect of this virtual strip search, but not about the safety.

 

 

*source* http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/airport_body_scanner_wont_give_you_cancer

 

I don't know much about the website but the article doesn't seem heavily slanted though the author does give his opinion.

[The Doctor]

The term "gate rape" comes to mind.

[Q]

The Testicle Stroking Agency is an absolute necessity because the illusion of security must be maintained at all costs.

[Tommycat]

Interestingly enough, I don't blame the agents so much as the agency. Trust me, they don't want to touch your tender bits any more than you want them touched. Personally I don't mind being nekkid scanned(I've already been seen nekkid on the intarwebz). But the idea of a child getting either nekkid scans or felt up disgusts me to no end. Quite frankly I think that the new scans and pat downs go way too far.

[urluckyday]

I read this story today...a man ejaculated when a TSA agent was feeling him up (obviously near the groin area), and he had a history of sexual problems...what do they do? They arrested him. I understand that we can't have people go around being perverted about it...but this guy had sexual issues (and a medical history of it), and he gets arrested. After I read that...I realized it was out of hand.

[Darth Avlectus]

No I think that was actually a gag.

 

Original article

http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573

Skeptical take

http://www.urbanswirl.com/news/opinion/3094-man-ejaculates-during-tsa-pat-down.html

 

Though at this rate it probably won't be too long until that's pretty much reality.

 

Still, a good lol.

[urluckyday]

No I think that was actually a gag.

 

Original article

http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573

Skeptical take

http://www.urbanswirl.com/news/opinion/3094-man-ejaculates-during-tsa-pat-down.html

 

Though at this rate it probably won't be too long until that's pretty much reality.

 

Still, a good lol.

 

 

lol that's what I get for not actually checking where it was from. My friend sent it to me...my fault

[Jae Onasi]

Trust me, TSA agents are about as sexy as Jabba the Hutt.

[Q]

If male air travelers want to passively protest what the TSA is doing, might I suggest taking a Viagra before heading to the airport?

[Totenkopf]

some airports consider ditching TSA...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123005225.html?hpid=topnews

[Darth Avlectus]

Wow. Talk about galvanizing incentives for fervor and zeal in the pace of work.

 

Yeah, I'd ditch TSA too. Not that this should be much of any surprise. Though, I am looking into the allegations of their "X-ray vans". Have not found much yet, but if that's true, TSA is going overboard and overkill--we don't need them on the roads too, that's what highway patrol is for.