10 ms·

The Airport Security Grope

162 points by tswicegood 16y ago

tswicegood 16y ago
Not explicitly tech related, but since a lot of tech folk are photographers and we all tend to fly a bit more than the average person, thought it was good info to have here. Just wait until someone tries to smuggle something onboard using their iPad or Kindle. shakes head
- callahad 16y ago
  Or, heaven forbid, in a body cavity.
  - jmaygarden 16y ago
    They probably wouldn't get caught since the pat-down doesn't check for that and they don't have to go through the body scanner.
    - troutwine 16y ago
      The pat-down gloves are sometimes sent through a residue scanner. However, assuming you place the foreign object into the cavity using a surgery setup any residue that _would_ trip the detector is likely to be left on the long discarded prep-clothes.
ScottBurson 16y ago
I think we're at the point where if you offered every traveler a choice of a screened flight or a non-screened flight, most would take the non-screened flight. I suggest we all write our Congresscritters and explain this. I don't think protesting to the TSA, at any level, will accomplish anything at all.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Why should your congresscritter care? At most you represent one vote, and you aren't likely to donate money to them. No if you want to change this, you have to go after the TSA people, not with violence (as tempting as it is, and as deserving of it as they are) but by totally ostraciseing them: if you work in a shop, you don't serve them, if you are a doctor you don't treat them, if you used to have them over for lunch you don't invite them anymore, if their children goes to your children's school you don't talk to them, invite them for birthday celebrations, etc, etc. Then maybe the TSA will learn that they too need other people and can't go around being assholes.
  - rhizome 16y ago
    I'm not sure that treating TSA agents like they treat Middle Easterners is a viable solution. Ressentiment is a ruling-principle of the lowest sort.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      Middle Easterners are born Middle Easterners. TSA agents choose to work for the TSA. These people choose to participate in a bad system. If you make it harder on these people, they're gonna quit and it's going to be harder to hire TSA agents, putting pressure exactly where it needs to go.
      - alexqgb 16y ago
        What you're suggesting is idiotic. These are not dignified, middle-class jobs held by people who have much choice in life. It's work given to people whose entire lives have been defined by bad systems. Schooling, health care, criminal justice - at the low end of the scale they're all maliciously self-serving in a way that middle class people struggle to imagine. If you think being a dick to people whose entire lives have been shaped by a series of collective 'f* yous' form society, then you deserve whatever 'secondary screening' they elect to give you. You really do. And if you genuinely believe that every job is a matter of choice, that people are free to quit if they're at all unaligned with their employer, then you've lived your entire life in an amazingly sheltered and privileged bubble. This makes the image of you (essentially) spitting on the much less fortunate even more appalling. All you're doing is making them even meaner and more defensive - something that's likely to make life harder for everyone else having to deal with them as screeners. I'm not defending what the TSA is doing. It's clearly stupid and awful, and I strongly suspect it's a product of corrupt back-scatter purchasing deals made by craven congressmen in exchange for campaign money and mindless votes. But taking out your anger on the luckless human fodder that these people have insulated themselves with is galacticly uninformed. If this is honestly your approach, just stop.
waterlesscloud 16y ago
I've written to the airline I use for most travel and explained why this holiday season I'll be driving to my destinations. The airlines have the power in this situation, if they protest, this will be changed.
- rhizome 16y ago
  It's a matter of perspective, I imagine, but I don't think the airlines have much power here at all. I think it's reasonable to view US airports as having been nationalized over the past 9 years, so I think elected officials are probably a more-effective vector here.
  - callahad 16y ago
    But who can most effectively lobby the elected officials?
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      Why would you assume that airlines can effectively lobby them? From a government official's perspective, the truth is that when an attack happens, they're going to get blamed. People aren't going to blame the airlines, they're going to blame the government. The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the better protected officials are from blame when the inevitable attacks finally occur. There's nothing an airline official can offer a government to compensate for loss of shielding from blame. As long as Americans are pathetic and fearful, we will have the government we deserve.
      - daten 16y ago
        Too bad the invasions of privacy at TSA checkpoints don't do anything to prevent "attacks". If you're going to cover your ass, at least do it in an effective way that doesn't offend your intelligent voters.
      - StavrosK 16y ago
        The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the larger the shitstorm officials will be in when the inevitable attacks finally occur and people realise the TSA groped their toddlers for nothing.
ChristianMarks 16y ago
Pretty soon they'll be taking random innocent people away--for good. I've stopped flying, myself.
- siculars 16y ago
  I hate to say it but I'm kinda with you. I actually weigh the value of a trip versus the inconvenience of the flight.
- freyfogle 16y ago
  What do you mean soon? The US already holds people indefinitely - see Guantánamo. As to whether these people are innocent or guilty of anything, you might have thought or hoped that's for a judge to decide via a trial, but it doesn't seem to matter.
  - ChristianMarks 16y ago
    My remark was in the context of backroom airport searches by the TSA. I'm aware of the wider context but saw no need to include it or specifically exclude it.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >As to whether these people are innocent or guilty of anything If there is no evidence what so ever of their guilt (and obviously there isn't or they would be tried) why would it be rational to assume they might be guilty?
tomjen3 16y ago
Why do people keep insisting on flying under these conditions? Seriously, you can find pictures of pretty much any place you want online, you can have a video call to the other side of the planet for free through Skype, and you can buy pretty much anything you want online. It makes sense for the photographer, but it makes no sense for most people who fly.
- sanderjd 16y ago
  Simple answer to this question - most people prefer to experience things themselves, rather than outsourcing those experiences to photographers. Photos and videos don't even begin to approach the satisfaction of actually being somewhere.
- gaius 16y ago
  93% of conversation is non-verbal[1]. Videoconferencing does not cut it, seeing someone's head and shoulders while they are consciously playing the part of "videoconferencer" misses or conceals most of it. For any decision or discussion that matters there simply is no substitute for being there. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language
- wonderzombie 16y ago
  My family lives on the east coast. I live on the west coast. Christmas and family vacations are the only time I get to spend time with my mother, father, sister, and brother. My parents are getting older--- I see them seldom enough that every time I'm surprised at how much older they look. This among other things makes me acutely aware of how we're each missing out on one another's lives. I hate traveling as much as the next person. Maybe more so since I do it regularly, around Christmas, every goddamn year. It's awful. It's hideously expensive. For my fiancee and I, it's costs more than $1000. And sometimes it's downright enraging. Of course I've questioned whether or not it's worth it, numerous times. My parents and I email one another. We talk on the phone. I play L4D2 with my brother online. But there's three hours' difference, and you might be surprised by how difficult that makes things. And for all of technology's virtues, nothing compares with having a once-a-year, sit-down dinner with the whole family; shootin' the shit in front of a warm fire; and so on.
duke_sam 16y ago
I'm hoping that this is finally the straw that breaks the camels back and people start to push back on these "security" measures. Not traveling via air is an option for some people but for most when they fly they aren't any reasonable alternatives. Making these invasions a prerequisite to flying means you are going to have strangers looking at you naked regularly or being groping (which I'm presuming is meant to be as invasive as possible to encourage use of the scanners). The alternative to this is turning down a job away from anybody you would like to see regularly, or any job that requires frequent travel or going to college in another state etc. And boy is your life about to suck if you travel with kids or someone elderly.
- davidcuddeback 16y ago
  I sincerely hope that enough people push back to make a difference. I think for a lot of people, it's easier to just stop flying---and some people already have---than it is to protest the security theater. If it's clear to the airlines that they're losing a significant number of passengers due to the security measures, I would expect them to lobby against the security measures. Whether or not they will have an effect is another issue entirely. I for one love travelling but hate flying. I see two options for people who enjoy international travel but don't want their privacy invaded by TSA. 1. Travel by boat. You can hitch a ride on a cargo ship to just about anywhere in the world: http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-cargo-ship/ http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-c... It's more expensive than flying and takes longer, so this is probably not an option for most people. 2. Depart from another country. I recently traveled to New Zealand, and when I flew home from the Auckland airport to San Francisco, I had to go through an extra security screening because it was a US-bound flight. I was left with the impression that airport security in the rest of the world is not as draconian unless one of the endpoints of the flight is in the USA. So I suspect if you can drive or take the train to Mexico or Canada, you can avoid an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Last year, I took an Amtrak train from Vancouver to Seattle, and the border crossing was a piece of cake. Edit: Does anyone know how airport security in Mexico or Canada compares to the US?
  - swombat 16y ago
daimyoyo 16y ago
The war on terror is over. The terrorists won. God save us.
- troutwine 16y ago
  Not quite. Islamic extremists don't care one bit about the erosion of American civil liberties; they simply want foreign powers _out_ of lands they view as sacred. Capitulation in the face of terror is one method of achieving this end, the other is a ruinous, lasting and unwinnable war designed to sap the power of the invader. What we do to ourselves that does not achieve their ambition is irrelevant. Terrorists haven't won: the sacred lands they prize so highly are still "occupied". Rather, we've simply been dullards content to walk around in our socks, whistling 'God Bless America' to pass the time.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    I would slightly rephrase the GP to "terror won".
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - troutwine 16y ago
      You might find Robert A. Pape's "Dying to Win" an interesting refutation of your post. > While the motivation of individual terrorists is quite diverse, and some do actually want foreign influence out of holy sites, the overwhelming force behind their hatred towards western culture is actually based on the conviction that they have to destroy a deeply amoral and infidel society. An interesting assertion. You have perused their literature, as you've implied some for of quantization. Please do share your data. > The 9/11 terror attacks were carried out mostly by religious lunatics from Saudi Arabia, a land that is both wealthy and not occupied by western forces. Of course subsequent American military action in Afghanistan and especially Iraq has catalyzed the recruitment of some new terrorists who may start out with the reasons you described. But even given the ongoing conflicts in the occupied countries, the majority of terrorists come from wealthier backgrounds and never suffered any occupation themselves. You have entirely misunderstood me. It's not the occupation of nation states that motivate, but the occupation of Holy Lands. You'll note that Saudia Arabia contains the Holy City of Mecca and the Holy City of Medina. American bases once near these cities caused a significant amount of religious and secular anger; strong American relations with Saudi Arabia still do. > However, the prime motivation of the terrorist is not withdrawal of western influence anywhere. Oh? > Instead the goal is to achieve some kind of conversion by using fear as a weapon. Hopelessly vague. You do know that these groups actually _state_ their intentions, both publicly and privately? > The religious radicalization of the US in recent years together with our willingness to obliterate the freedom that once formed the very basis of our society, those are the intended effects and they were achieved on purpose. How do you know this? How could anyone, further, have predicted this outcome? > We are now closer than ever in spirit to the Islamic idea of society, That's wrong-headed. Islamic societies were for centuries bastions of learning and art. Increased environmental hardship and the resulting poverty shifted Middle Eastern cultures to a more repressive frame of being, but this is hardly some intrinsic "Islamic" trait. Also, I seriously doubt that the goal of fundamentalist Muslims is to create fundamentalist Christians. Seems rather counter-productive, especially considering their rhetoric and historical views concerning The Crusades. > we once again have disavowed science in favor of abject ignorance, This phenomena is hardly new in human civilization. Note that Victorian Britains were enamored of the Marvels of Science and their disenchanted Edwardian children became mystics. > we are taking back achievements of equality, Oh? > we are even working on instating Sharia law in some places. Preposterous. > We have indeed declared war on the concepts that Muslim radicals hated the most, not the least of which are: individual freedom and rights, self-fulfillment, women's rights, sex (for non-procreation purposes), education, free speech, and science. Note that despite the rhetoric of al Queda, they have never attacked a country which did not operate a military base near territory they consider Holy. This assertion has no basis in fact. > Keeping that in mind, the TSA's purpose is not to provide security, or even to provide a false sense of security. Its job is to update people's expectations about the nature of the society they are now living in. They chose to do this in a place where we're vulnerable, where our employment is on the line, where we invested a lot of money. They chose to do this in a place that once symbolized the freedom to travel anywhere we wanted without government interference. To show they own us, and to not-so-subtly demonstrate how completely our freedom depends on personal compliance and the ability to get along with overseers who possess the power to do pretty much anything to us on a whim. Ah, "They". I reject your initial premise without more evidence and so do not, as yet, grant your conclusion. The vaguely Conspiracy Theory Open-Secrete tone of the conclusion is further damaging, to my mind.
michaels0620 16y ago
I wonder if this will ever get bad enough that we'll see people start to use trains again, even if it does take significantly more time. Of course, if rail were ever to get popular enough again, they'd just institute the same scanning procedures there too.
- SageRaven 16y ago
  I haven't stepped on a plane since 9/11 due to the stupidity of the new regulations. In that time, I've taken 3 cross-country (Utah to east coast) Greyhound trips and one drive that would have been normally taken by plane. Two of those situations were for end-of-life situations for grandparents. I've investigated trains, but they cost nearly as much as a plane and take almost as long as the bus, so why not take the cheaper option? I'd personally refuse to take any job that required air travel and wouldn't let me drive in lieu of the plane. I'm sure that would limit my professional options, but I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
- jerf 16y ago
  Try crashing a train into the White House, or a nuclear power plant, or hijacking it to Cuba, or any of the other stunts people try with planes. Trains are intrinsically less interesting to terrorists. Not uninteresting necessarily, but much much less interesting.
vaksel 16y ago
I think the president, the VP, every senator, every representative, every supreme court judge and their wives/husbands should be required to go through this. And the scanner print outs should be publicly available, as well as videos of the groping...eh "pat downs". Surely they wouldn't require the cattle to do something that they themselves would object to? Surely. BTW filling out a complaint form is a complete waste of time...if you want to get attention, actually call your senator/representative.
- flipbrad 16y ago
  perhaps all laws should be subject to the 'eat your own dogfood' principle in some shape or form.
- _delirium 16y ago
  That aligns with my theory that these insane flight-security rules are mostly supported by constituencies that don't actually fly. If you take national polls, you get high support; but I bet if you restricted the polls to people who had actually been on a plane in the past year, you'd get much lower support. Instead, we have our flight-security policies dictated by terrorist-hatin' paranoiacs in Kansas and Montana who rarely themselves fly on planes, but love the idea of any policy that'll supposedly be tough on terrorism.
  - klenwell 16y ago
    I developed a similar theory independently this week after learning about the loss of Feingold in Wisconsin, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. One possible solution: extend TSA inspection authority to interstate RV travel.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      That one was surprising, although in a general Republican-wave election I suppose a Democrat losing in a swing state can happen for various reasons. But I couldn't figure out who was actually supporting Ron Johnson (the new Senator). Just people who hate taxes? Libertarians were mostly not in favor, because Johnson had a really wishy-washy position on the Patriot Act, e.g. take a look at this RedState (conservative/libertarian site) analysis of his views: http://www.redstate.com/pompadour/2010/06/23/local-grassroots-group-vets-ron-johnson-part-4-the-patriot-act-polka/ http://www.redstate.com/pompadour/2010/06/23/local-grassroot... Or maybe that was actually the reason, because people take tough-on-terrorism as more important than civil liberties?
p2phs 16y ago
The solution is rather simple tho requires a fair bit of determination and ground swell to achieve. The Gandhian strategy of civil disobedience, TSA wants more people to pass thru the porn machine. We as a country should request not passing thru the machine. Assume that more people require individual attention resulting in greater lines and longer delays at the airports. Delays that will not be acceptable to the airlines, TSA or even us the traveling people. Small price to pay to secure the freedoms of those after us. There are a couple of consequences that could happen as a result, (a) mandatory porn machine scan for everyone no exception or (b) a change in policy. For a president who claimed that we were winning the war because the terrorist hated our freedoms, this loss of freedom should come as a shock. We might be winning the battle of the guns, we are losing the war of the minds. --- Interim recruiting slogan for the TSA --- Come one , come all, we grope them all. White or color, young or old, women and men. Gay straight and transsexuals we like to feel them all. (Small print): TSA is an equal opportunity groper. Guarantor : United states Govt.
- dholowiski 16y ago
  I agree- everybody should go for the grope, in public. This will jam the lines up, flights and embarrass (most of) the tsa officials.
  - alsomike 16y ago
    That's a great idea, but if you're truly committed to civil liberties, you need to take it to the next level by faking an orgasm while you're being groped.
- lbredeso 16y ago
  This is a good idea, but I think to be effective would require more organization; everyone here deciding to do this the next time they fly to their random destination wouldn't likely delay any flights. If you could organize enough people to constitute 25-50% of a flight's passenger capacity, you could plan in advance to all fly to the cheapest/closest destination (so everyone is on the same flight, and no one has to spend too much). Maybe some publicity would result.
bshep 16y ago
I'd drive or take a train if I could avoid flying. Unfortunately, I live on an island, not much I can do except take a plane if I want to visit family in the continental US. I pretty much have to do what they want or be stuck here.
alanh 16y ago
Is there a dress code at airports? To make a point, I’m considering showing up to the security queue in a Speedo.
- marssaxman 16y ago
  I've been thinking about doing this for a while - show up in line wearing a nice business suit, then slowly, one piece at a time, strip down to a thong, send each piece through the X-ray machine, and walk through with a big fat grin.
- nkurz 16y ago
  I've done things similar to this with mixed results. Instead of a thong, I stripped to T-shirt and boxer shorts (plus underwear) or to top and bottom long underwear (pajamas, essentially). Boston and Albany didn't blink an eye, whereas El Paso involved an unpleasant exchange with a police officer. This was a while ago, though, after the initial shoe bomber I incident. Responses may be different now. Try to decide in advance what your goals are: are you hoping to make a scene or not? Likely you should not do not do things like this if it is not acceptable to miss your plane. I'd recommend choosing a final outfit that you would feel comfortable defending to a judge as not indecent to wear in a public place. (I suppose I should mention: I personally have no problem with backscan X-ray so long as it is fast, safe, and effective. It's the security theater that I am willing to protest against, not the perceived invasion of privacy.)
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Is it safe? I recently learned that a CAT scan has 400x the amount of radiation as an x-ray and that it's speculated that a nontrivial number of cancer cases are caused by CAT scans.
    - nkurz 16y ago
      I don't know if it is safe. I'm pretty sure it is faster than the alternatives. I also don't know if it is effective in preventing terrorist attacks. Safety and effectiveness would be my primary concerns rather than the worries about 'naked' pictures.
sixtofour 16y ago
It's hard to think of a procedure that would encourage more disrespect and fear of government, its personnel and policies than the aggressive pat down. It's clearly meant as intimidation. Your government disrespects you so much that it will subject you to a humiliating experience to intimidate you into accepting a different humiliating experience. When my government shows me this much disrespect and intimidation, I start to wonder whether they're serving my needs, and whose needs they really are serving. This is thuggery, and the only difference between the aggressive pat down, and slapping me in the face until I agree to go in the scanner, is in degree, not in kind.
NickPollard 16y ago
As a counterpoint to what everyone is saying, there is no point in any pat-down if it's not thorough. A pat-down that doesn't touch the genitals or other sensitive areas is not going to find any terrorists, it just gives the impression of security.
- phjohnst 16y ago
  Yeah, but the point is that anyone with half a brain would put whatever they're carrying out of reach of the pat down (ie places you'd have to do a cavity search for, however it gets there), so all that we're accomplishing here is feeling people up for that same impression of security (and, to drive people to the scanners to be photographed naked, which still won't find whatever is hidden in your body).
- nostrademons 16y ago
  That's a good argument for why there's no point in any pat-down. A pat-down that doesn't search body cavities is not going to find any terrorists, it just gives the impression of security.
davidw 16y ago
Haven't we had enough of these articles already? They're not about startups or technology, really, and I think we've all formed our opinions at this point. Posting them here won't change a thing, in any case.
- miles 16y ago
  "Posting them here won't change a thing, in any case." I strongly disagree, David. Keeping this issue in front of smart people (many of whom travel extensively) is probably one of the best ways to initiate change.
  - davidw 16y ago
    Uh huh. In the US, politicians and the judiciary change laws. Those people do not read HN, and don't give a shit if a bunch of nerds who represent approximately .00001% of the electorate get their britches in a bunch over something or other. Posting political things here makes people feel good, but doesn't do one damn thing in the real world. To do that, you need to get out and engage with the political system. Clicking little arrows is, to put it bluntly, just wanking around. And in any case, do you really want to go down the road where this site is utilized for the cause du jour? Want to see taser articles here?
    - miles 16y ago
      "Posting political things here makes people feel good, but doesn't do one damn thing in the real world." Again, I have to disagree with you on this. HN is where I found at about this issue to begin with, and I have already: 1. donated to EPIC's http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ , 2. begun changing travel plans, 3. informed a number of friends and colleagues (non-HN users) who have in turned passed it on to others. Clearly, there are "real world" effects.
      - davidw 16y ago
        Great, so everyone who has an Important Cause should post their stuff here in the hopes of getting money? There are "real world effects" of pissing into the wind, too, but they don't really affect the wind much.
chrischen 16y ago
Let's hope the next terrorist doesn't hide the bomb up his ass or ingest it, or else politicians will make sure those places are checked too.
- khafra 16y ago
  On the other hand, video tapes released from Sudan of terrorists in intense training to increase their payload capacity for rectally delivered explosives could become an overnight internet sensation.
physcab 16y ago
The actions by certain TSA employees as depicted by recent articles on HN are reprehensible. No doubt about it. However! I fly about every 2 to 3 weeks in and out of big airports and small airports. I have had pat downs and swipes and millimeter wave scans. I have even worked on next generation explosives detection technology(THz,Long Range, Surface UV). Yet, over the past 3 years of this type of mobile lifestyle, I have never observed or have been subjected to the types of harassment recent articles have detailed. Surely it happens, yes. But my experience both on the inside and out of this industry tells a different story. Privacy IS respected by people developing and deploying these technologies. Privacy IS respected by TSA employees who are concerned for the safety of each passenger. Whether these policies or technologies are effective is another debate, but I just think there is a great deal of overgeneralization going on here. Maybe I'm just an outlier.
- RK 16y ago
  The article (and others) is in regard to the very recently implemented policy changes by TSA in the past couple weeks. Otherwise I agree with you and haven't personally experienced problems in my frequent travel.
  - physcab 16y ago
    I understand that. I flew as recently as last weekend to Chicago and Jacksonville and didn't notice a single difference. My point is that these changes are not implemented universally or equally. People shouldn't be so quick to paint TSA with a broad brush of criticism.
    - gfodor 16y ago
      I see your anecdote and raise you mine, where I saw a old lady get invasively patted down for about 15-20 minutes at SFO.
- harshpotatoes 16y ago
  I haven't flown in a few months, and it sounds like from these articles that these pat downs are fairly recent (possibly in response to the printer cartridges?). I otherwise agree with you. The security procedures I have been used to for the past few years were annoying because there was a rather small line to wait in, but I did not feel my privacy was breached during those trips through the security line. However, these new pat downs (if they are as widespread as I am lead to believe) would be where I would draw the line.
nagrom 16y ago
I wonder: can I claim to be gay and would therefore prefer to be patted down by a woman? Can we make this a standard thing to claim? I would imagine that if they did not adhere to this request, then they would be guilty of sexual discrimination. I can equally imagine the scene if 95% of male travellers claimed to be gay and demanded to be groped by a lady 'for American values'. I cannot imagine that there will be that many women willing to grope a man on command. Other things to try: not washing for several days before the flight, telling the patting-down officer to be careful because you have lice, feigning injury from an aggressive pat-down and rolling around on the floor clutching your privates, like a soccer player who's been roughly tackled. Air travel has been turned into a fucking circus; let's go along with it and have some fun at the same time!
- TamDenholm 16y ago
  I like the idea but I don't think the gay thing would work, I think it's more about the sexual orientation of the TSA agent.
- khafra 16y ago
  One word: Kilts.
joeshaw 16y ago
I think I am going to start wearing a protective cup whenever I have to fly. Hmm, for that matter, would those protect you from the high tech strip search?
drags 16y ago
I'm flying for Thanksgiving, I plan to get to SFO a little early and hand out some of these flyers that a Flyertalk user created: http://www.dontscan.us/downloads.html http://www.dontscan.us/downloads.html They're not perfect, but pretty accurate all-around. Whether you prefer to let someone see you naked or grope you is a personal decision, but I imagine there are plenty of people who haven't flown in the last 2-3 years, and they should at least know their options before they get into security and blinded by authority.
- follower 16y ago
  From that page (compare to the image): "These images are friendly enough to post in a preschool. Heck, it could even make the cover of Reader’s Digest and not offend anybody." -- http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/04/first-significant-deployment-of.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/04/first-significant-deployment-of.... Wow, I can't believe they actually said that.
- drags 16y ago
  Also, just in case anyone else gets ideas, political activity at SFO is restricted. You'll need to request a permit from the Security Access Office first. See: https://www.sfoconnect.com/operations-security/sfo-operations-security https://www.sfoconnect.com/operations-security/sfo-operation... Also the Rules and Regulations at SFO: https://www.sfoconnect.com/public/sfo-rules-and-regulations https://www.sfoconnect.com/public/sfo-rules-and-regulations
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I fear that the military-industrial complex has finally found something to be afraid of that can't fight back: its own citizenry. Sadly enough, this is not an issue of good people or bad people -- I think the vast majority of TSA screeners are good people who want only what's best for the public. This problem has two parts, framing and execution. The framing is a one-sided issue: who's going to argue that we need less security? It's a system designed to continue to turn the screws. Mark my words. It will not stop here. The execution is even worse: top-down, one-size-fits-all, factory-processing of people. This makes for an expensive, cumbersome, and inflexible system. Oddly enough, the more standardized you make security practices, the easier you make it for real terrorists to take down the system. It's the entire basis of asymmetrical warfare. Small groups of highly-nimble adversaries working against a huge standardized behemoth. The U.S. should have made a conscious decision not to play that game. But it didn't. When you have a problem that's defined poorly and executed poorly? Not much chance of improvement, I'm afraid.
spectre 16y ago
Reading these stories it makes it sound as if American Airports are becoming a virtual Police State (I haven't been to the US since 2002). I live in a first world country (New Zealand) and we only have metal detectors and x-ray machines (and you only have to go through them if your plane has more then 50 seats). They're quite lax about it as well I've gotten knives through (accidentally) both in my pocket and on a tray through the x-ray machine. Also our inbound customs care more about fruit than drugs or explosives: http://www.customs.govt.nz/nr/rdonlyres/9bec875b-dc37-4309-9033-67a34a770ed0/0/englishpassengerarrivalcardaug2010.pdf http://www.customs.govt.nz/nr/rdonlyres/9bec875b-dc37-4309-9...
toast76 16y ago
I'm from Australia, but we will be flying to the US in the next few years with our son (and we have a second on the way). My question is, are children subject to the requirement of either a scan or a pat down? I find it hard to believe that any law would allow the photographing of a child effective nude, much less the touching of "genitals". I would never allow my child(ren) to be subjected to either of these measures. Does this mean I should find another country to visit? Even for adults, call me ignorant, but how is this not sexual assault? In any other situation, if I was subjected to a genital grope I'd be pressing charges.
- megablast 16y ago
  Wow, so you have not heard about this outrage yes. Yes, Children are subjected to both the pat down and the scan. Find somewhere else if this concerns you. The US is making itself more and more unfriendly to visit, which is a shame, because it is such a great place to go.
  - toast76 16y ago
    Yeah I've been following the outrage, I just wasn't sure if it applied to children. Thanks for the info. If my child needs to be viewed naked by a stranger, or has to be groped to get onto a plane in the US, then yes we'll be finding somewhere else to visit. It is a shame, my wife and I travelled across the US for our honeymoon 4-5 years ago and loved it. But I wouldn't subject my children to such a perverse security screening process.
lesterbuck 16y ago
I am reminded of the old Rodney Dangerfield joke: "If it weren't for pickpockets, I'd have no sex life at all." Now available in a new, updated TSA version: "If it weren't for TSA genital groping, I'd have no sex life at all."
maxawaytoolong 16y ago
It's interesting to note that if these machines produced a regular "skeleton" x-ray image, instead of the "nude" image, nobody would care that much, and it might even be an improvement, if it sped up the lines.
gasull 16y ago
This is making the US look like a country with a repressive government. Many countries with repressive governments don't look this bad when you visit their airports.
jerf 16y ago
A thought comes to mind: Is it arguably illegal now for a job to require you to fly? It may not be sexual assault in the legal sense when the TSA does it, but that's partially because you can be said to have consented. If someone else is "forcing you to consent" (quoted for oxymoronicity) then that is a different thing altogether, and given the extreme attention the law pays to sexual harassment in the workplace it would not surprise me that while the government and the TSA agents are indemnified, your company may not be. Actually, let me refine that to merely point out that one could plausibly file a very expensive and uncomfortable-to-your-employer lawsuit over this; I wouldn't guarantee victory, but I wouldn't guarantee defeat, either.
lsc 16y ago
I think the interesting bit is this choice between getting groped in public vs. private. Personally, I'm much more comfortable with an authority figure in public than in private. I mean, photos of some TSA guy with his arm halfway up my ass are going to be a whole lot more embarrassing for him than for me. I mean, he could loose his job, while for me, the worst that would happen is my friends would tease me a bit. Really, "what you would be willing to do when other people are watching" is often a reasonable ethical shorthand for 'the right thing' - allowing people to (optionally) release the recording of their interaction with law enforcement would go a long ways towards reducing abuses by law-enforcement. On the other hand, what I'm really afraid of is getting put on some secret list, and video taping doesn't protect me from that.

162 points by tswicegood 16y ago

Not explicitly tech related, but since a lot of tech folk are photographers and we all tend to fly a bit more than the average person, thought it was good info to have here. Just wait until someone tries to smuggle something onboard using their iPad or Kindle. shakes head

callahad 16y ago
Or, heaven forbid, in a body cavity.
- jmaygarden 16y ago
  They probably wouldn't get caught since the pat-down doesn't check for that and they don't have to go through the body scanner.
  - troutwine 16y ago
    The pat-down gloves are sometimes sent through a residue scanner. However, assuming you place the foreign object into the cavity using a surgery setup any residue that _would_ trip the detector is likely to be left on the long discarded prep-clothes.

ScottBurson 16y ago

I think we're at the point where if you offered every traveler a choice of a screened flight or a non-screened flight, most would take the non-screened flight. I suggest we all write our Congresscritters and explain this. I don't think protesting to the TSA, at any level, will accomplish anything at all.

tomjen3 16y ago
Why should your congresscritter care? At most you represent one vote, and you aren't likely to donate money to them. No if you want to change this, you have to go after the TSA people, not with violence (as tempting as it is, and as deserving of it as they are) but by totally ostraciseing them: if you work in a shop, you don't serve them, if you are a doctor you don't treat them, if you used to have them over for lunch you don't invite them anymore, if their children goes to your children's school you don't talk to them, invite them for birthday celebrations, etc, etc. Then maybe the TSA will learn that they too need other people and can't go around being assholes.
- rhizome 16y ago
  I'm not sure that treating TSA agents like they treat Middle Easterners is a viable solution. Ressentiment is a ruling-principle of the lowest sort.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Middle Easterners are born Middle Easterners. TSA agents choose to work for the TSA. These people choose to participate in a bad system. If you make it harder on these people, they're gonna quit and it's going to be harder to hire TSA agents, putting pressure exactly where it needs to go.
    - alexqgb 16y ago
      What you're suggesting is idiotic. These are not dignified, middle-class jobs held by people who have much choice in life. It's work given to people whose entire lives have been defined by bad systems. Schooling, health care, criminal justice - at the low end of the scale they're all maliciously self-serving in a way that middle class people struggle to imagine. If you think being a dick to people whose entire lives have been shaped by a series of collective 'f* yous' form society, then you deserve whatever 'secondary screening' they elect to give you. You really do. And if you genuinely believe that every job is a matter of choice, that people are free to quit if they're at all unaligned with their employer, then you've lived your entire life in an amazingly sheltered and privileged bubble. This makes the image of you (essentially) spitting on the much less fortunate even more appalling. All you're doing is making them even meaner and more defensive - something that's likely to make life harder for everyone else having to deal with them as screeners. I'm not defending what the TSA is doing. It's clearly stupid and awful, and I strongly suspect it's a product of corrupt back-scatter purchasing deals made by craven congressmen in exchange for campaign money and mindless votes. But taking out your anger on the luckless human fodder that these people have insulated themselves with is galacticly uninformed. If this is honestly your approach, just stop.

waterlesscloud 16y ago

I've written to the airline I use for most travel and explained why this holiday season I'll be driving to my destinations. The airlines have the power in this situation, if they protest, this will be changed.

rhizome 16y ago
It's a matter of perspective, I imagine, but I don't think the airlines have much power here at all. I think it's reasonable to view US airports as having been nationalized over the past 9 years, so I think elected officials are probably a more-effective vector here.
- callahad 16y ago
  But who can most effectively lobby the elected officials?
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    Why would you assume that airlines can effectively lobby them? From a government official's perspective, the truth is that when an attack happens, they're going to get blamed. People aren't going to blame the airlines, they're going to blame the government. The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the better protected officials are from blame when the inevitable attacks finally occur. There's nothing an airline official can offer a government to compensate for loss of shielding from blame. As long as Americans are pathetic and fearful, we will have the government we deserve.
    - daten 16y ago
      Too bad the invasions of privacy at TSA checkpoints don't do anything to prevent "attacks". If you're going to cover your ass, at least do it in an effective way that doesn't offend your intelligent voters.
    - StavrosK 16y ago
      The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the larger the shitstorm officials will be in when the inevitable attacks finally occur and people realise the TSA groped their toddlers for nothing.

ChristianMarks 16y ago

Pretty soon they'll be taking random innocent people away--for good. I've stopped flying, myself.

siculars 16y ago
I hate to say it but I'm kinda with you. I actually weigh the value of a trip versus the inconvenience of the flight.
freyfogle 16y ago
What do you mean soon? The US already holds people indefinitely - see Guantánamo. As to whether these people are innocent or guilty of anything, you might have thought or hoped that's for a judge to decide via a trial, but it doesn't seem to matter.
- ChristianMarks 16y ago
  My remark was in the context of backroom airport searches by the TSA. I'm aware of the wider context but saw no need to include it or specifically exclude it.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >As to whether these people are innocent or guilty of anything If there is no evidence what so ever of their guilt (and obviously there isn't or they would be tried) why would it be rational to assume they might be guilty?

tomjen3 16y ago

Why do people keep insisting on flying under these conditions? Seriously, you can find pictures of pretty much any place you want online, you can have a video call to the other side of the planet for free through Skype, and you can buy pretty much anything you want online. It makes sense for the photographer, but it makes no sense for most people who fly.

sanderjd 16y ago
Simple answer to this question - most people prefer to experience things themselves, rather than outsourcing those experiences to photographers. Photos and videos don't even begin to approach the satisfaction of actually being somewhere.
gaius 16y ago
93% of conversation is non-verbal[1]. Videoconferencing does not cut it, seeing someone's head and shoulders while they are consciously playing the part of "videoconferencer" misses or conceals most of it. For any decision or discussion that matters there simply is no substitute for being there. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language
wonderzombie 16y ago
My family lives on the east coast. I live on the west coast. Christmas and family vacations are the only time I get to spend time with my mother, father, sister, and brother. My parents are getting older--- I see them seldom enough that every time I'm surprised at how much older they look. This among other things makes me acutely aware of how we're each missing out on one another's lives. I hate traveling as much as the next person. Maybe more so since I do it regularly, around Christmas, every goddamn year. It's awful. It's hideously expensive. For my fiancee and I, it's costs more than $1000. And sometimes it's downright enraging. Of course I've questioned whether or not it's worth it, numerous times. My parents and I email one another. We talk on the phone. I play L4D2 with my brother online. But there's three hours' difference, and you might be surprised by how difficult that makes things. And for all of technology's virtues, nothing compares with having a once-a-year, sit-down dinner with the whole family; shootin' the shit in front of a warm fire; and so on.

duke_sam 16y ago

I'm hoping that this is finally the straw that breaks the camels back and people start to push back on these "security" measures. Not traveling via air is an option for some people but for most when they fly they aren't any reasonable alternatives. Making these invasions a prerequisite to flying means you are going to have strangers looking at you naked regularly or being groping (which I'm presuming is meant to be as invasive as possible to encourage use of the scanners). The alternative to this is turning down a job away from anybody you would like to see regularly, or any job that requires frequent travel or going to college in another state etc. And boy is your life about to suck if you travel with kids or someone elderly.

davidcuddeback 16y ago
I sincerely hope that enough people push back to make a difference. I think for a lot of people, it's easier to just stop flying---and some people already have---than it is to protest the security theater. If it's clear to the airlines that they're losing a significant number of passengers due to the security measures, I would expect them to lobby against the security measures. Whether or not they will have an effect is another issue entirely. I for one love travelling but hate flying. I see two options for people who enjoy international travel but don't want their privacy invaded by TSA. 1. Travel by boat. You can hitch a ride on a cargo ship to just about anywhere in the world: http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-cargo-ship/ http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/how-to/how-to-travel-by-c... It's more expensive than flying and takes longer, so this is probably not an option for most people. 2. Depart from another country. I recently traveled to New Zealand, and when I flew home from the Auckland airport to San Francisco, I had to go through an extra security screening because it was a US-bound flight. I was left with the impression that airport security in the rest of the world is not as draconian unless one of the endpoints of the flight is in the USA. So I suspect if you can drive or take the train to Mexico or Canada, you can avoid an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Last year, I took an Amtrak train from Vancouver to Seattle, and the border crossing was a piece of cake. Edit: Does anyone know how airport security in Mexico or Canada compares to the US?
- swombat 16y ago

daimyoyo 16y ago

The war on terror is over. The terrorists won. God save us.

troutwine 16y ago
Not quite. Islamic extremists don't care one bit about the erosion of American civil liberties; they simply want foreign powers _out_ of lands they view as sacred. Capitulation in the face of terror is one method of achieving this end, the other is a ruinous, lasting and unwinnable war designed to sap the power of the invader. What we do to ourselves that does not achieve their ambition is irrelevant. Terrorists haven't won: the sacred lands they prize so highly are still "occupied". Rather, we've simply been dullards content to walk around in our socks, whistling 'God Bless America' to pass the time.
- orangecat 16y ago
  I would slightly rephrase the GP to "terror won".
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - troutwine 16y ago
    You might find Robert A. Pape's "Dying to Win" an interesting refutation of your post. > While the motivation of individual terrorists is quite diverse, and some do actually want foreign influence out of holy sites, the overwhelming force behind their hatred towards western culture is actually based on the conviction that they have to destroy a deeply amoral and infidel society. An interesting assertion. You have perused their literature, as you've implied some for of quantization. Please do share your data. > The 9/11 terror attacks were carried out mostly by religious lunatics from Saudi Arabia, a land that is both wealthy and not occupied by western forces. Of course subsequent American military action in Afghanistan and especially Iraq has catalyzed the recruitment of some new terrorists who may start out with the reasons you described. But even given the ongoing conflicts in the occupied countries, the majority of terrorists come from wealthier backgrounds and never suffered any occupation themselves. You have entirely misunderstood me. It's not the occupation of nation states that motivate, but the occupation of Holy Lands. You'll note that Saudia Arabia contains the Holy City of Mecca and the Holy City of Medina. American bases once near these cities caused a significant amount of religious and secular anger; strong American relations with Saudi Arabia still do. > However, the prime motivation of the terrorist is not withdrawal of western influence anywhere. Oh? > Instead the goal is to achieve some kind of conversion by using fear as a weapon. Hopelessly vague. You do know that these groups actually _state_ their intentions, both publicly and privately? > The religious radicalization of the US in recent years together with our willingness to obliterate the freedom that once formed the very basis of our society, those are the intended effects and they were achieved on purpose. How do you know this? How could anyone, further, have predicted this outcome? > We are now closer than ever in spirit to the Islamic idea of society, That's wrong-headed. Islamic societies were for centuries bastions of learning and art. Increased environmental hardship and the resulting poverty shifted Middle Eastern cultures to a more repressive frame of being, but this is hardly some intrinsic "Islamic" trait. Also, I seriously doubt that the goal of fundamentalist Muslims is to create fundamentalist Christians. Seems rather counter-productive, especially considering their rhetoric and historical views concerning The Crusades. > we once again have disavowed science in favor of abject ignorance, This phenomena is hardly new in human civilization. Note that Victorian Britains were enamored of the Marvels of Science and their disenchanted Edwardian children became mystics. > we are taking back achievements of equality, Oh? > we are even working on instating Sharia law in some places. Preposterous. > We have indeed declared war on the concepts that Muslim radicals hated the most, not the least of which are: individual freedom and rights, self-fulfillment, women's rights, sex (for non-procreation purposes), education, free speech, and science. Note that despite the rhetoric of al Queda, they have never attacked a country which did not operate a military base near territory they consider Holy. This assertion has no basis in fact. > Keeping that in mind, the TSA's purpose is not to provide security, or even to provide a false sense of security. Its job is to update people's expectations about the nature of the society they are now living in. They chose to do this in a place where we're vulnerable, where our employment is on the line, where we invested a lot of money. They chose to do this in a place that once symbolized the freedom to travel anywhere we wanted without government interference. To show they own us, and to not-so-subtly demonstrate how completely our freedom depends on personal compliance and the ability to get along with overseers who possess the power to do pretty much anything to us on a whim. Ah, "They". I reject your initial premise without more evidence and so do not, as yet, grant your conclusion. The vaguely Conspiracy Theory Open-Secrete tone of the conclusion is further damaging, to my mind.

michaels0620 16y ago

I wonder if this will ever get bad enough that we'll see people start to use trains again, even if it does take significantly more time. Of course, if rail were ever to get popular enough again, they'd just institute the same scanning procedures there too.

SageRaven 16y ago
I haven't stepped on a plane since 9/11 due to the stupidity of the new regulations. In that time, I've taken 3 cross-country (Utah to east coast) Greyhound trips and one drive that would have been normally taken by plane. Two of those situations were for end-of-life situations for grandparents. I've investigated trains, but they cost nearly as much as a plane and take almost as long as the bus, so why not take the cheaper option? I'd personally refuse to take any job that required air travel and wouldn't let me drive in lieu of the plane. I'm sure that would limit my professional options, but I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
jerf 16y ago
Try crashing a train into the White House, or a nuclear power plant, or hijacking it to Cuba, or any of the other stunts people try with planes. Trains are intrinsically less interesting to terrorists. Not uninteresting necessarily, but much much less interesting.

vaksel 16y ago

I think the president, the VP, every senator, every representative, every supreme court judge and their wives/husbands should be required to go through this. And the scanner print outs should be publicly available, as well as videos of the groping...eh "pat downs". Surely they wouldn't require the cattle to do something that they themselves would object to? Surely. BTW filling out a complaint form is a complete waste of time...if you want to get attention, actually call your senator/representative.

flipbrad 16y ago
perhaps all laws should be subject to the 'eat your own dogfood' principle in some shape or form.
_delirium 16y ago
That aligns with my theory that these insane flight-security rules are mostly supported by constituencies that don't actually fly. If you take national polls, you get high support; but I bet if you restricted the polls to people who had actually been on a plane in the past year, you'd get much lower support. Instead, we have our flight-security policies dictated by terrorist-hatin' paranoiacs in Kansas and Montana who rarely themselves fly on planes, but love the idea of any policy that'll supposedly be tough on terrorism.
- klenwell 16y ago
  I developed a similar theory independently this week after learning about the loss of Feingold in Wisconsin, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. One possible solution: extend TSA inspection authority to interstate RV travel.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    That one was surprising, although in a general Republican-wave election I suppose a Democrat losing in a swing state can happen for various reasons. But I couldn't figure out who was actually supporting Ron Johnson (the new Senator). Just people who hate taxes? Libertarians were mostly not in favor, because Johnson had a really wishy-washy position on the Patriot Act, e.g. take a look at this RedState (conservative/libertarian site) analysis of his views: http://www.redstate.com/pompadour/2010/06/23/local-grassroots-group-vets-ron-johnson-part-4-the-patriot-act-polka/ http://www.redstate.com/pompadour/2010/06/23/local-grassroot... Or maybe that was actually the reason, because people take tough-on-terrorism as more important than civil liberties?

p2phs 16y ago

The solution is rather simple tho requires a fair bit of determination and ground swell to achieve. The Gandhian strategy of civil disobedience, TSA wants more people to pass thru the porn machine. We as a country should request not passing thru the machine. Assume that more people require individual attention resulting in greater lines and longer delays at the airports. Delays that will not be acceptable to the airlines, TSA or even us the traveling people. Small price to pay to secure the freedoms of those after us. There are a couple of consequences that could happen as a result, (a) mandatory porn machine scan for everyone no exception or (b) a change in policy. For a president who claimed that we were winning the war because the terrorist hated our freedoms, this loss of freedom should come as a shock. We might be winning the battle of the guns, we are losing the war of the minds. --- Interim recruiting slogan for the TSA --- Come one , come all, we grope them all. White or color, young or old, women and men. Gay straight and transsexuals we like to feel them all. (Small print): TSA is an equal opportunity groper. Guarantor : United states Govt.

dholowiski 16y ago
I agree- everybody should go for the grope, in public. This will jam the lines up, flights and embarrass (most of) the tsa officials.
- alsomike 16y ago
  That's a great idea, but if you're truly committed to civil liberties, you need to take it to the next level by faking an orgasm while you're being groped.
lbredeso 16y ago
This is a good idea, but I think to be effective would require more organization; everyone here deciding to do this the next time they fly to their random destination wouldn't likely delay any flights. If you could organize enough people to constitute 25-50% of a flight's passenger capacity, you could plan in advance to all fly to the cheapest/closest destination (so everyone is on the same flight, and no one has to spend too much). Maybe some publicity would result.

bshep 16y ago

I'd drive or take a train if I could avoid flying. Unfortunately, I live on an island, not much I can do except take a plane if I want to visit family in the continental US. I pretty much have to do what they want or be stuck here.

alanh 16y ago

Is there a dress code at airports? To make a point, I’m considering showing up to the security queue in a Speedo.

marssaxman 16y ago
I've been thinking about doing this for a while - show up in line wearing a nice business suit, then slowly, one piece at a time, strip down to a thong, send each piece through the X-ray machine, and walk through with a big fat grin.
nkurz 16y ago
I've done things similar to this with mixed results. Instead of a thong, I stripped to T-shirt and boxer shorts (plus underwear) or to top and bottom long underwear (pajamas, essentially). Boston and Albany didn't blink an eye, whereas El Paso involved an unpleasant exchange with a police officer. This was a while ago, though, after the initial shoe bomber I incident. Responses may be different now. Try to decide in advance what your goals are: are you hoping to make a scene or not? Likely you should not do not do things like this if it is not acceptable to miss your plane. I'd recommend choosing a final outfit that you would feel comfortable defending to a judge as not indecent to wear in a public place. (I suppose I should mention: I personally have no problem with backscan X-ray so long as it is fast, safe, and effective. It's the security theater that I am willing to protest against, not the perceived invasion of privacy.)
- grandalf 16y ago
  Is it safe? I recently learned that a CAT scan has 400x the amount of radiation as an x-ray and that it's speculated that a nontrivial number of cancer cases are caused by CAT scans.
  - nkurz 16y ago
    I don't know if it is safe. I'm pretty sure it is faster than the alternatives. I also don't know if it is effective in preventing terrorist attacks. Safety and effectiveness would be my primary concerns rather than the worries about 'naked' pictures.

sixtofour 16y ago

It's hard to think of a procedure that would encourage more disrespect and fear of government, its personnel and policies than the aggressive pat down. It's clearly meant as intimidation. Your government disrespects you so much that it will subject you to a humiliating experience to intimidate you into accepting a different humiliating experience. When my government shows me this much disrespect and intimidation, I start to wonder whether they're serving my needs, and whose needs they really are serving. This is thuggery, and the only difference between the aggressive pat down, and slapping me in the face until I agree to go in the scanner, is in degree, not in kind.

NickPollard 16y ago

As a counterpoint to what everyone is saying, there is no point in any pat-down if it's not thorough. A pat-down that doesn't touch the genitals or other sensitive areas is not going to find any terrorists, it just gives the impression of security.

phjohnst 16y ago
Yeah, but the point is that anyone with half a brain would put whatever they're carrying out of reach of the pat down (ie places you'd have to do a cavity search for, however it gets there), so all that we're accomplishing here is feeling people up for that same impression of security (and, to drive people to the scanners to be photographed naked, which still won't find whatever is hidden in your body).
nostrademons 16y ago
That's a good argument for why there's no point in any pat-down. A pat-down that doesn't search body cavities is not going to find any terrorists, it just gives the impression of security.

davidw 16y ago

Haven't we had enough of these articles already? They're not about startups or technology, really, and I think we've all formed our opinions at this point. Posting them here won't change a thing, in any case.

miles 16y ago
"Posting them here won't change a thing, in any case." I strongly disagree, David. Keeping this issue in front of smart people (many of whom travel extensively) is probably one of the best ways to initiate change.
- davidw 16y ago
  Uh huh. In the US, politicians and the judiciary change laws. Those people do not read HN, and don't give a shit if a bunch of nerds who represent approximately .00001% of the electorate get their britches in a bunch over something or other. Posting political things here makes people feel good, but doesn't do one damn thing in the real world. To do that, you need to get out and engage with the political system. Clicking little arrows is, to put it bluntly, just wanking around. And in any case, do you really want to go down the road where this site is utilized for the cause du jour? Want to see taser articles here?
  - miles 16y ago
    "Posting political things here makes people feel good, but doesn't do one damn thing in the real world." Again, I have to disagree with you on this. HN is where I found at about this issue to begin with, and I have already: 1. donated to EPIC's http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/ , 2. begun changing travel plans, 3. informed a number of friends and colleagues (non-HN users) who have in turned passed it on to others. Clearly, there are "real world" effects.
    - davidw 16y ago
      Great, so everyone who has an Important Cause should post their stuff here in the hopes of getting money? There are "real world effects" of pissing into the wind, too, but they don't really affect the wind much.

chrischen 16y ago

Let's hope the next terrorist doesn't hide the bomb up his ass or ingest it, or else politicians will make sure those places are checked too.

khafra 16y ago
On the other hand, video tapes released from Sudan of terrorists in intense training to increase their payload capacity for rectally delivered explosives could become an overnight internet sensation.

physcab 16y ago

The actions by certain TSA employees as depicted by recent articles on HN are reprehensible. No doubt about it. However! I fly about every 2 to 3 weeks in and out of big airports and small airports. I have had pat downs and swipes and millimeter wave scans. I have even worked on next generation explosives detection technology(THz,Long Range, Surface UV). Yet, over the past 3 years of this type of mobile lifestyle, I have never observed or have been subjected to the types of harassment recent articles have detailed. Surely it happens, yes. But my experience both on the inside and out of this industry tells a different story. Privacy IS respected by people developing and deploying these technologies. Privacy IS respected by TSA employees who are concerned for the safety of each passenger. Whether these policies or technologies are effective is another debate, but I just think there is a great deal of overgeneralization going on here. Maybe I'm just an outlier.

RK 16y ago
The article (and others) is in regard to the very recently implemented policy changes by TSA in the past couple weeks. Otherwise I agree with you and haven't personally experienced problems in my frequent travel.
- physcab 16y ago
  I understand that. I flew as recently as last weekend to Chicago and Jacksonville and didn't notice a single difference. My point is that these changes are not implemented universally or equally. People shouldn't be so quick to paint TSA with a broad brush of criticism.
  - gfodor 16y ago
    I see your anecdote and raise you mine, where I saw a old lady get invasively patted down for about 15-20 minutes at SFO.
harshpotatoes 16y ago
I haven't flown in a few months, and it sounds like from these articles that these pat downs are fairly recent (possibly in response to the printer cartridges?). I otherwise agree with you. The security procedures I have been used to for the past few years were annoying because there was a rather small line to wait in, but I did not feel my privacy was breached during those trips through the security line. However, these new pat downs (if they are as widespread as I am lead to believe) would be where I would draw the line.

nagrom 16y ago

I wonder: can I claim to be gay and would therefore prefer to be patted down by a woman? Can we make this a standard thing to claim? I would imagine that if they did not adhere to this request, then they would be guilty of sexual discrimination. I can equally imagine the scene if 95% of male travellers claimed to be gay and demanded to be groped by a lady 'for American values'. I cannot imagine that there will be that many women willing to grope a man on command. Other things to try: not washing for several days before the flight, telling the patting-down officer to be careful because you have lice, feigning injury from an aggressive pat-down and rolling around on the floor clutching your privates, like a soccer player who's been roughly tackled. Air travel has been turned into a fucking circus; let's go along with it and have some fun at the same time!

TamDenholm 16y ago
I like the idea but I don't think the gay thing would work, I think it's more about the sexual orientation of the TSA agent.
khafra 16y ago
One word: Kilts.

joeshaw 16y ago

I think I am going to start wearing a protective cup whenever I have to fly. Hmm, for that matter, would those protect you from the high tech strip search?

drags 16y ago

I'm flying for Thanksgiving, I plan to get to SFO a little early and hand out some of these flyers that a Flyertalk user created: http://www.dontscan.us/downloads.html http://www.dontscan.us/downloads.html They're not perfect, but pretty accurate all-around. Whether you prefer to let someone see you naked or grope you is a personal decision, but I imagine there are plenty of people who haven't flown in the last 2-3 years, and they should at least know their options before they get into security and blinded by authority.

follower 16y ago
From that page (compare to the image): "These images are friendly enough to post in a preschool. Heck, it could even make the cover of Reader’s Digest and not offend anybody." -- http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/04/first-significant-deployment-of.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/04/first-significant-deployment-of.... Wow, I can't believe they actually said that.
drags 16y ago
Also, just in case anyone else gets ideas, political activity at SFO is restricted. You'll need to request a permit from the Security Access Office first. See: https://www.sfoconnect.com/operations-security/sfo-operations-security https://www.sfoconnect.com/operations-security/sfo-operation... Also the Rules and Regulations at SFO: https://www.sfoconnect.com/public/sfo-rules-and-regulations https://www.sfoconnect.com/public/sfo-rules-and-regulations

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I fear that the military-industrial complex has finally found something to be afraid of that can't fight back: its own citizenry. Sadly enough, this is not an issue of good people or bad people -- I think the vast majority of TSA screeners are good people who want only what's best for the public. This problem has two parts, framing and execution. The framing is a one-sided issue: who's going to argue that we need less security? It's a system designed to continue to turn the screws. Mark my words. It will not stop here. The execution is even worse: top-down, one-size-fits-all, factory-processing of people. This makes for an expensive, cumbersome, and inflexible system. Oddly enough, the more standardized you make security practices, the easier you make it for real terrorists to take down the system. It's the entire basis of asymmetrical warfare. Small groups of highly-nimble adversaries working against a huge standardized behemoth. The U.S. should have made a conscious decision not to play that game. But it didn't. When you have a problem that's defined poorly and executed poorly? Not much chance of improvement, I'm afraid.

spectre 16y ago

Reading these stories it makes it sound as if American Airports are becoming a virtual Police State (I haven't been to the US since 2002). I live in a first world country (New Zealand) and we only have metal detectors and x-ray machines (and you only have to go through them if your plane has more then 50 seats). They're quite lax about it as well I've gotten knives through (accidentally) both in my pocket and on a tray through the x-ray machine. Also our inbound customs care more about fruit than drugs or explosives: http://www.customs.govt.nz/nr/rdonlyres/9bec875b-dc37-4309-9033-67a34a770ed0/0/englishpassengerarrivalcardaug2010.pdf http://www.customs.govt.nz/nr/rdonlyres/9bec875b-dc37-4309-9...

toast76 16y ago

I'm from Australia, but we will be flying to the US in the next few years with our son (and we have a second on the way). My question is, are children subject to the requirement of either a scan or a pat down? I find it hard to believe that any law would allow the photographing of a child effective nude, much less the touching of "genitals". I would never allow my child(ren) to be subjected to either of these measures. Does this mean I should find another country to visit? Even for adults, call me ignorant, but how is this not sexual assault? In any other situation, if I was subjected to a genital grope I'd be pressing charges.

megablast 16y ago
Wow, so you have not heard about this outrage yes. Yes, Children are subjected to both the pat down and the scan. Find somewhere else if this concerns you. The US is making itself more and more unfriendly to visit, which is a shame, because it is such a great place to go.
- toast76 16y ago
  Yeah I've been following the outrage, I just wasn't sure if it applied to children. Thanks for the info. If my child needs to be viewed naked by a stranger, or has to be groped to get onto a plane in the US, then yes we'll be finding somewhere else to visit. It is a shame, my wife and I travelled across the US for our honeymoon 4-5 years ago and loved it. But I wouldn't subject my children to such a perverse security screening process.

lesterbuck 16y ago

I am reminded of the old Rodney Dangerfield joke: "If it weren't for pickpockets, I'd have no sex life at all." Now available in a new, updated TSA version: "If it weren't for TSA genital groping, I'd have no sex life at all."

maxawaytoolong 16y ago

It's interesting to note that if these machines produced a regular "skeleton" x-ray image, instead of the "nude" image, nobody would care that much, and it might even be an improvement, if it sped up the lines.

gasull 16y ago

This is making the US look like a country with a repressive government. Many countries with repressive governments don't look this bad when you visit their airports.

jerf 16y ago

A thought comes to mind: Is it arguably illegal now for a job to require you to fly? It may not be sexual assault in the legal sense when the TSA does it, but that's partially because you can be said to have consented. If someone else is "forcing you to consent" (quoted for oxymoronicity) then that is a different thing altogether, and given the extreme attention the law pays to sexual harassment in the workplace it would not surprise me that while the government and the TSA agents are indemnified, your company may not be. Actually, let me refine that to merely point out that one could plausibly file a very expensive and uncomfortable-to-your-employer lawsuit over this; I wouldn't guarantee victory, but I wouldn't guarantee defeat, either.

lsc 16y ago

I think the interesting bit is this choice between getting groped in public vs. private. Personally, I'm much more comfortable with an authority figure in public than in private. I mean, photos of some TSA guy with his arm halfway up my ass are going to be a whole lot more embarrassing for him than for me. I mean, he could loose his job, while for me, the worst that would happen is my friends would tease me a bit. Really, "what you would be willing to do when other people are watching" is often a reasonable ethical shorthand for 'the right thing' - allowing people to (optionally) release the recording of their interaction with law enforcement would go a long ways towards reducing abuses by law-enforcement. On the other hand, what I'm really afraid of is getting put on some secret list, and video taping doesn't protect me from that.