4 ms·

Non-American here. Can someone point me to what exactly happens if you opt-out of these screenings? What happens on this 'opt-out floor-mat of shame'? I'm aski

Non-American here. Can someone point me to what exactly happens if you opt-out of these screenings? What happens on this 'opt-out floor-mat of shame'? I'm asking out of pure curiosity and prefer not to search those keywords and get added to some list and have an eye-in-the-sky suddenly trained on me. It is completely understandable if you choose not to answer this question. Thanks for reading, though. :)

cheald 13y ago
You get pulled aside while the agent manning the scanner yells for a "male/female assist" (depending on your sex). It takes somewhere between 30 seconds and 30 minutes for them to find someone to grope you. You're then taken around the scanner, asked to identify (but not touch) your luggage. They pick up your luggage, lead you over to a screening area (which is in public view; they give you the option of a private patdown. I always elect for the public one, as I want people to see and question what's going on), explain their procedure, have you pose as though you're being crucified, and give you a very thorough groping which includes putting their fingers into your waistband and feeling your junk and buttocks with the backs of their hands. They then swab your luggage and their gloves (with which they have just groped you) and put it in an explosives detector. If the machine doesn't find anything, you're free to go. If it does, you're pulled into a small room and given an even more thorough search. The last time I flew out of LGA, I was subjected to this secondary search; the agent said it was probably alerting on the sunscreen I'd put on the day before. The second search came up clean, but I was extremely amused to find that the room they searched me in was the room in which they kept their 5-gallon buckets of confiscated cigarette lighters. I was left alone in this room - with my luggage, past the security checkpoint - while the agent ran his second explosives test. I didn't do anything untoward, but man, if I was a bad guy it would have been trivial to stuff my bags with a bunch of containers holding flammable liquids. I don't get hassled all that much when I opt out, but I'm also extremely white. I imagine that would be very different if I were brown and/or had a foreign accent.
- DjangoReinhardt 13y ago
  As I was reading your reply, I kept thinking, "Well, this sounds pretty standard..." until I reached the part where you said: > give you a very thorough groping which includes putting their fingers into your waistband and feeling your junk and buttocks with the backs of their hands > fingers into your waistband and feeling your junk and buttocks > feeling your junk and buttocks Wat? Are they expecting that the bad guys will walk in with explosives stuffed up their private parts and extract them out later for their intended purpose? Also, honest question: why would anyone want to go through this? I mean, given the option, I'd probably opt to walk through the scanner than let someone handle my junk. (I felt extremely uncomfortable just saying that.) Surely the scanners cannot be more invasive than THIS? Or am I reading the whole thing wrong? Is the rejection of scanners not because of privacy issues but because of health issues? So many questions... I kept reading and a few lines later, you said: > ...given an even more thorough search. I can't even begin to imagine what an 'even more thorough search' would be/look/feel like. The closest word I can think of is 'rape' but surely it can't be THAT bad, can it? Where I am from, we do have pat-down searches at private places like malls, but the public places are largely ignored, surprisingly. Even the pat-down searches at the private places are more customary than anything else. Then again, our record at homeland security isn't all that great, as witnessed by recent events. In comparison, your track record since 9/11 seems to have considerably improved, though how much of it should be attributed to all of this is another question entirely. As a white male living in the US of A, I think I understand your outrage. If this were to happen to me, in my country, I'd probably be up in arms, and so would the rest of the country. However, as a brown male, living outside of the US of A, and having never been to your country so far, I wouldn't know what it truly feels like, so I might just be talking out of (pardon my french) ass here. I'm just too confused, surprised and horrified at the moment to fathom the weirdness of it all. Thanks for your detailed reply, though. I hope the situation resolves into something amicable for both parties - you and the authorities. PS: As a brown male who has never been to your country but who would like to visit some day, your comments have unsettled me somewhat. I like to keep a lush beard and I have long hair. Sure, I'm an atheist, but does that even count?
  - cheald 13y ago
    > Wat? Are they expecting that the bad guys will walk in with explosives stuffed up their private parts and extract them out later for their intended purpose? Frankly, if I intended to blow up an airplane, I'd have no trouble stuffing stuff where the sun don't shine. If you know that an agent isn't going to check an area, it makes sense to hide things in that area. > Also, honest question: why would anyone want to go through this? For me, it is a form of protest. I don't enjoy it, and I don't look forward to it, but I believe that the TSA as it exists today is a wholly worthless organization which spends a good chunk of my money to put on the hollow appearance of keeping us safe. There has been a whole heck of a lot of evidence that they don't really do a very good job of it. I protest by refusing to just be a quiet compliant consumer, and instead pick the noisiest and least-convenient route to make sure that they're at least as inconvenienced as I am, and that the people in line with me get to see an innocent man being searched like he's a murder suspect, so they'll maybe question the wisdom of the status quo. Before the x-ray scanners were removed, I opted out both out of health concerns and ideological concerns. The millimeter wave scanners are substantially less worrysome from a health perspective, but I still protest because the entire concept is fundamentally flawed. Our courthouses and police stations still use magnetometers, and we know those are places that will have people who are violent, dangerous, and angry; if the MW machines actually were substantially better, I'd have gone through one when I went down to the courthouse earlier this month. Yet somehow, we have these privacy-invading devices being purchased at astronomical cost to the US taxpayer and put into airports while (potentially more critical) other locations are left untouched. Let's not even begin to discuss the fact that the TSA tends to create a bottleneck where a lot of people are gathered before anyone has been security screened, presenting an extremely soft target for someone who wants to spark terror with a suicide bombing. Re-reading my comment, I feel that I may have not made something clear - they run their fingers around the inside of your waistband, and they separately use the backs of their hands to feel the buttocks and crotch outside of the pants. They don't stick their hands down your pants and juggle your balls. I don't feel like it's particularly any more invasive than the whole rest of the patdown, but it's the kind of thing that would probably give a survivor of sexual assault a panic attack. > I can't even begin to imagine what an 'even more thorough search' would be/look/feel like. It's just more pressure, and they make sure to cover every inch of the search area closely. What they're doing is trying to pick up residue from your clothing that will set off the bomb machine again. If you failed that one, then I suspect you may be detained for questioning and perhaps a much worse search by actual law enforcement, but that's just conjecture - it's never happened to me. I should clarify that I'm not flat-out against security measures. I appreciate things that keep me safe, and am happy to participate in them when they actually materially improve my safety. My objections are primarily rooted in the opinion that the TSA and its mission do somewhere between "nada" and "jack-all" for Actual Real Security. The number of stories about comically-bad lapses in security at TSA checkpoints over the years is hilarious. They frequently fail penetration tests. An actually-determined attacker could probably bypass them pretty trivially. The entire program is a whole lot of taxpayer money that serves to line the wallets of people connected to Congressmen and to provide a jobs program for unskilled workers. Our track record on airline safety has improved since 9/11, but that's because of two very specific things: we sealed the cockpit doors, so hijackers cannot physically get at the controls, and we put air marshals with guns on the planes, so that a hijacker has to contend with the possibility that he might attempt to hijack a plane protected by an armed law enforcement officer who will bring his life to a swift and inglorious halt. Additionally, passengers are much more watchful. When Richard Reid attempted to blow up a flight with explosives in his shoes, he was jumped by passengers and beaten into submission. Pre-9/11, I don't know that that would have happened. > As a brown male who has never been to your country but who would like to visit some day, your comments have unsettled me somewhat. I like to keep a lush beard and I have long hair. Sure, I'm an atheist, but does that even count? I dearly hope that someday you have the opportunity to visit my country some day without fear of being harassed and intimidated by people because of your skin color or choice in facial hair. I'm genuinely very sorry that it's even a concern, and wish that I could apologize to you with any measure of meaningfulness. I do want to say that you aren't guaranteed to be - you hear about the worst-case scenarios, but thousands of people travel every day without so much as a hitch. I am angry and I protest because I feel that we are losing the liberty that we hold so dear, and I don't want us to become a society where you have to be actively fearful of traveling.

cheald 13y ago

You get pulled aside while the agent manning the scanner yells for a "male/female assist" (depending on your sex). It takes somewhere between 30 seconds and 30 minutes for them to find someone to grope you. You're then taken around the scanner, asked to identify (but not touch) your luggage. They pick up your luggage, lead you over to a screening area (which is in public view; they give you the option of a private patdown. I always elect for the public one, as I want people to see and question what's going on), explain their procedure, have you pose as though you're being crucified, and give you a very thorough groping which includes putting their fingers into your waistband and feeling your junk and buttocks with the backs of their hands. They then swab your luggage and their gloves (with which they have just groped you) and put it in an explosives detector. If the machine doesn't find anything, you're free to go. If it does, you're pulled into a small room and given an even more thorough search. The last time I flew out of LGA, I was subjected to this secondary search; the agent said it was probably alerting on the sunscreen I'd put on the day before. The second search came up clean, but I was extremely amused to find that the room they searched me in was the room in which they kept their 5-gallon buckets of confiscated cigarette lighters. I was left alone in this room - with my luggage, past the security checkpoint - while the agent ran his second explosives test. I didn't do anything untoward, but man, if I was a bad guy it would have been trivial to stuff my bags with a bunch of containers holding flammable liquids. I don't get hassled all that much when I opt out, but I'm also extremely white. I imagine that would be very different if I were brown and/or had a foreign accent.

DjangoReinhardt 13y ago
As I was reading your reply, I kept thinking, "Well, this sounds pretty standard..." until I reached the part where you said: > give you a very thorough groping which includes putting their fingers into your waistband and feeling your junk and buttocks with the backs of their hands > fingers into your waistband and feeling your junk and buttocks > feeling your junk and buttocks Wat? Are they expecting that the bad guys will walk in with explosives stuffed up their private parts and extract them out later for their intended purpose? Also, honest question: why would anyone want to go through this? I mean, given the option, I'd probably opt to walk through the scanner than let someone handle my junk. (I felt extremely uncomfortable just saying that.) Surely the scanners cannot be more invasive than THIS? Or am I reading the whole thing wrong? Is the rejection of scanners not because of privacy issues but because of health issues? So many questions... I kept reading and a few lines later, you said: > ...given an even more thorough search. I can't even begin to imagine what an 'even more thorough search' would be/look/feel like. The closest word I can think of is 'rape' but surely it can't be THAT bad, can it? Where I am from, we do have pat-down searches at private places like malls, but the public places are largely ignored, surprisingly. Even the pat-down searches at the private places are more customary than anything else. Then again, our record at homeland security isn't all that great, as witnessed by recent events. In comparison, your track record since 9/11 seems to have considerably improved, though how much of it should be attributed to all of this is another question entirely. As a white male living in the US of A, I think I understand your outrage. If this were to happen to me, in my country, I'd probably be up in arms, and so would the rest of the country. However, as a brown male, living outside of the US of A, and having never been to your country so far, I wouldn't know what it truly feels like, so I might just be talking out of (pardon my french) ass here. I'm just too confused, surprised and horrified at the moment to fathom the weirdness of it all. Thanks for your detailed reply, though. I hope the situation resolves into something amicable for both parties - you and the authorities. PS: As a brown male who has never been to your country but who would like to visit some day, your comments have unsettled me somewhat. I like to keep a lush beard and I have long hair. Sure, I'm an atheist, but does that even count?
- cheald 13y ago
  > Wat? Are they expecting that the bad guys will walk in with explosives stuffed up their private parts and extract them out later for their intended purpose? Frankly, if I intended to blow up an airplane, I'd have no trouble stuffing stuff where the sun don't shine. If you know that an agent isn't going to check an area, it makes sense to hide things in that area. > Also, honest question: why would anyone want to go through this? For me, it is a form of protest. I don't enjoy it, and I don't look forward to it, but I believe that the TSA as it exists today is a wholly worthless organization which spends a good chunk of my money to put on the hollow appearance of keeping us safe. There has been a whole heck of a lot of evidence that they don't really do a very good job of it. I protest by refusing to just be a quiet compliant consumer, and instead pick the noisiest and least-convenient route to make sure that they're at least as inconvenienced as I am, and that the people in line with me get to see an innocent man being searched like he's a murder suspect, so they'll maybe question the wisdom of the status quo. Before the x-ray scanners were removed, I opted out both out of health concerns and ideological concerns. The millimeter wave scanners are substantially less worrysome from a health perspective, but I still protest because the entire concept is fundamentally flawed. Our courthouses and police stations still use magnetometers, and we know those are places that will have people who are violent, dangerous, and angry; if the MW machines actually were substantially better, I'd have gone through one when I went down to the courthouse earlier this month. Yet somehow, we have these privacy-invading devices being purchased at astronomical cost to the US taxpayer and put into airports while (potentially more critical) other locations are left untouched. Let's not even begin to discuss the fact that the TSA tends to create a bottleneck where a lot of people are gathered before anyone has been security screened, presenting an extremely soft target for someone who wants to spark terror with a suicide bombing. Re-reading my comment, I feel that I may have not made something clear - they run their fingers around the inside of your waistband, and they separately use the backs of their hands to feel the buttocks and crotch outside of the pants. They don't stick their hands down your pants and juggle your balls. I don't feel like it's particularly any more invasive than the whole rest of the patdown, but it's the kind of thing that would probably give a survivor of sexual assault a panic attack. > I can't even begin to imagine what an 'even more thorough search' would be/look/feel like. It's just more pressure, and they make sure to cover every inch of the search area closely. What they're doing is trying to pick up residue from your clothing that will set off the bomb machine again. If you failed that one, then I suspect you may be detained for questioning and perhaps a much worse search by actual law enforcement, but that's just conjecture - it's never happened to me. I should clarify that I'm not flat-out against security measures. I appreciate things that keep me safe, and am happy to participate in them when they actually materially improve my safety. My objections are primarily rooted in the opinion that the TSA and its mission do somewhere between "nada" and "jack-all" for Actual Real Security. The number of stories about comically-bad lapses in security at TSA checkpoints over the years is hilarious. They frequently fail penetration tests. An actually-determined attacker could probably bypass them pretty trivially. The entire program is a whole lot of taxpayer money that serves to line the wallets of people connected to Congressmen and to provide a jobs program for unskilled workers. Our track record on airline safety has improved since 9/11, but that's because of two very specific things: we sealed the cockpit doors, so hijackers cannot physically get at the controls, and we put air marshals with guns on the planes, so that a hijacker has to contend with the possibility that he might attempt to hijack a plane protected by an armed law enforcement officer who will bring his life to a swift and inglorious halt. Additionally, passengers are much more watchful. When Richard Reid attempted to blow up a flight with explosives in his shoes, he was jumped by passengers and beaten into submission. Pre-9/11, I don't know that that would have happened. > As a brown male who has never been to your country but who would like to visit some day, your comments have unsettled me somewhat. I like to keep a lush beard and I have long hair. Sure, I'm an atheist, but does that even count? I dearly hope that someday you have the opportunity to visit my country some day without fear of being harassed and intimidated by people because of your skin color or choice in facial hair. I'm genuinely very sorry that it's even a concern, and wish that I could apologize to you with any measure of meaningfulness. I do want to say that you aren't guaranteed to be - you hear about the worst-case scenarios, but thousands of people travel every day without so much as a hitch. I am angry and I protest because I feel that we are losing the liberty that we hold so dear, and I don't want us to become a society where you have to be actively fearful of traveling.