Airport Security Screening

[Pangloss]

Airport security screening is a huge topic right now in US politics. "Passenger outrage" seems to be quite a popular topic in news and pundit reports, though I'm not real clear if there are numbers to actually support the stories. Several advocacy groups have stepped forward, but that doesn't always reflect actual numbers. But some of the stories have been amusing, such as the 3-year-old getting a pat-down in this YouTube video:

 

 

I thought since we have an international membership here it might be interesting to hear how it's done in other countries. Do you have body scanners? Do you have to get a full physical pat-down if you don't pass the scanner?

 

And if people want to talk about the US situation in this thread that's ok too. I'm really wondering how it's going to work out with the flight crews, who are really upset about radiation from the new backscatter x-ray scanners.

[jackson33]

Pangloss not knowing where you wishing to go with the topic, IMO the original intent (2001) and purpose for the TSA has long been lost. Briefly it's ineffective and has simply become an excuse for another Government arm into the affairs of American Business and the rights of Americans, worse yet will soon become far too costly for any Airline to substitute the Governments system.

 

67,000 Number of US TSA Employees

$40,000 Average Yearly Wage/Salary Per TSA Employee

$2,680,000,000 Total Dollars for TSA Employees Per Year

35% Benefit Package Percentage for TSA Employees

$938,000,000 Total Dollars for TSA Employee Benefit Package Per Year

$3,618,000,000 Total Cost Per Year for TSA Employees[/Quote]

 

As Employees of the Federal Government, they are some of the lowest paid, however;

 

 

Here’s some informal statistics for you:

 

Number of TSA employees eligible for unionization: 50,000

 

TSA budget for FY 2010: $7.8 billion

 

Estimated Union Dues TSA unionization will provide union bosses at $50 per month: $2,500,000 per month or $30,000,000 per year.

 

Number of Americans whose Fourth Amendment rights have allegedly been violated: Thousands and still counting.

 

NUMBER OF TERRORISTS CAUGHT BY THE TSA: 0 (ZERO) [/Quote]

 

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2010/11/17/tsa-unionization-an-32-million-annual-gift-to-union-bosses/

 

 

 

As for an alternative, though under current US no profiling policy, El Al "Airlines" seems to have their security in line with the times. Their cost about 100M$ per year...

 

As a target for many decades, El Al employs stringent security procedures, both on the ground and on board its aircraft. These effective, though sometimes controversial, procedures have won El Al a reputation for security.[36] In 2008, the airline was named by Global Traveler magazine as the world's most secure airline.[37][/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al

 

As for the three year old girl, their was/is no excuse for the incident, but keep in mind Janet Napolitano is "considering" making allowances for Islamic women pat downs....Forcing Flight Crews, would seems just as crazy, since if any member especially the pilots wanted to do something destructive, they have access to many things on the planes already not to mention the control of the plane.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As for an alternative, though under current US no profiling policy, El Al "Airlines" seems to have their security in line with the times. Their cost about 100M$ per year...

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al

 

It's a good idea, but:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/07/airport_securit_7.html

Regularly I hear people talking about Israeli airport security, and asking why we can't do the same in the U.S. The short answer is: scale. Israel has 11 million airline passengers a year; there are close to 700 million in the U.S. Israel has seven airports; the U.S. has over 400 "primary" airports -- and who knows how many others. Things that can work there just don't scale to the U.S.

Atlanta handled 60 million passengers in 2010, and that's not even an entire year's worth of data. Scaling El-Al's procedures to American sizes is nearly impossible. The top American airports individually handle more passengers yearly than all Israel's airports do over several years.

 

As for Pangloss' point... from what I've read so far, I believe only a few countries have deployed the full-body scanners. I recall reading that there was some legal controversy over their use that prevented immediate widespread adoption. I can't find any news articles at the moment though.

[Pangloss]

Some of the comments on that Bruce Schneier post are interesting.

 

 

TSA chief Pistole testified before Congress yesterday, and one of the claims he made was that the TSA has detected and stopped 130 prohibited items in the last year. (article) But he did not provide specifics about those items, except to say that some of the prohibited items captured (all of them??) were drugs and related paraphernalia.

 

Frankly, that makes me angry. He's not a prison warden, and I am not a prisoner! The fact that they stopped other passengers from carrying illegal items that are no danger to other passengers is not evidence that he's doing his job.

 

That having been said, I understand that it's a difficult job and security in a democracy is always a tough nut to crack. They say they're open to some changes, so we'll see what they do. IMO that just underscores the point that it's all "security theater", but I've always felt that it's probably impossible for us, as a society, NOT to over-react to terrorism. It sucks but in the end it's not Pistole's fault, or Obama's, or Bush's.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

TSA chief Pistole testified before Congress yesterday, and one of the claims he made was that the TSA has detected and stopped 130 prohibited items in the last year. (article) But he did not provide specifics about those items, except to say that some of the prohibited items captured (all of them??) were drugs and related paraphernalia.

 

Frankly, that makes me angry. He's not a prison warden, and I am not a prisoner! The fact that they stopped other passengers from carrying illegal items that are no danger to other passengers is not evidence that he's doing his job.

I agree. Schneier's article said 700 million passengers per year in the US, though the post is now over 3 years old and the numbers have gone up. Let's run with the number anyway. Suppose that each prohibited item was taken from a different passenger. That gives us:

 

[math]\frac{130}{700,000,000} \times 100 = 1.86 \times 10^{-5}\, \% = 0.0000186 \% \mbox{ of passengers}[/math]

 

That's the percentage of passengers found with "dangerous" prohibited items.

 

Is this really worth billions of extra dollars to catch?

[padren]

As for the three year old girl, their was/is no excuse for the incident, but keep in mind Janet Napolitano is "considering" making allowances for Islamic women pat downs....Forcing Flight Crews, would seems just as crazy, since if any member especially the pilots wanted to do something destructive, they have access to many things on the planes already not to mention the control of the plane.

Jackson, can you please provide some basis for that assertion about Janet Napolitano? Every reference I can find in any articles suggesting that she is going to propose making exceptions for Muslim women is based on one quote (at least that I can find) that, if you watch the video of her statements, blatantly unsubstantiated:

 

“Look, we have, like I said before, we are doing what we need to do to protect the traveling public and adjustments will be made where they need to be made”...“With respect to that particular issue, I think there will be more to come. But, again, the goal here, you know, we’re not doing this just to do it. We’re doing it because we need to keep powders and gels and liquids off of planes that are unauthorized just as we need to keep metals off of planes.

 

Video here

 

Maybe you are basing your comment on something else, but I want to be sure you are not making the claim Napolitano is "considering" making allowances for Islamic Women based on that video and the subsequent blatant mischaracterizations popping up in the right-wing fear-o-sphere.

[Pangloss]

I agree. Schneier's article said 700 million passengers per year in the US, though the post is now over 3 years old and the numbers have gone up. Let's run with the number anyway. Suppose that each prohibited item was taken from a different passenger. That gives us:

 

[math]\frac{130}{700,000,000} \times 100 = 1.86 \times 10^{-5}\, \% = 0.0000186 \% \mbox{ of passengers}[/math]

 

That's the percentage of passengers found with "dangerous" prohibited items.

 

Is this really worth billions of extra dollars to catch?

 

Lol, I didn't even think to do the math on that. That's hilarious, I went and put it on my Facebook page.

 

BTW, the TSA budget is about $8.1 billion. So that's $62,307,692.31 per captured bong. (snort)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Lol, I didn't even think to do the math on that. That's hilarious, I went and put it on my Facebook page.

 

BTW, the TSA budget is about $8.1 billion. So that's $62,307,692.31 per captured bong. (snort)

 

Hmm. The FAA uses a simple procedure to determine if safety regulations should be put into effect: Estimate the cost of implementation (equipment, training, whatever) and compare it against the estimated value of human lives saved. According to the FAA, the current value of a human life is $5.8 million. (It changes every few years, so I'm not sure if that number is current. It's at least approximately correct.)

 

So, with that value, we can see that each captured bong has to save this many lives to be economical:

 

[math]\frac{62,307,692.31}{5,800,000} = 10.7 \mbox{ lives}[/math]

 

For 130 bongs total, that gives us 1400 lives that must be saved by the TSA yearly for it to be economically worthwhile.

 

Of course, this ignores factors like "what happens to our economy if everyone's scared of flying (either because of gropage or bombage)?", but it's fun to calculate anyway.

[mississippichem]

I'm not making a comment on the ethics or morality of profiling, but Israel seems to do it quite unashamedly and it seems to be effective. Now, whether that would work in the US is another can of worms.

 

racial profiling in Israeli airports

 

an exert:

 

So why, I asked, are we still allowed to board airplanes at Ben-Gurion International Airport with bottles and tubes of liquid brought from home, while in Heathrow or JFK they confiscate our face cream and toothpaste?

 

"Oh, that's simple," he answered matter of factly. "We use racial profiling, they don't."

 

Effective...probably. Ethical...?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm not making a comment on the ethics or morality of profiling, but Israel seems to do it quite unashamedly and it seems to be effective. Now, whether that would work in the US is another can of worms.

Supposing we did accept it as a practice, without whining about the ethics of it, it still wouldn't work against the newest threats. Many recent terror suspects have been ordinary Americans who have converted, kept up with the radical Islamic world online, and occasionally traveled to the Middle East for training. Racial profiling won't catch Mr. Smith from South Carolina.

[mississippichem]

Supposing we did accept it as a practice, without whining about the ethics of it, it still wouldn't work against the newest threats. Many recent terror suspects have been ordinary Americans who have converted, kept up with the radical Islamic world online, and occasionally traveled to the Middle East for training. Racial profiling won't catch Mr. Smith from South Carolina.

 

Good point Cap'n. I think its a mix of techniques that will be the answer. It seems that the techniques I mentioned would be more effective in a relatively ethnically homogeneous Israel, but not so much in the larger and more diverse US. I just couldn't resist posting the link because of the casual flippancy with which the Israeli officer states that they use racial profiling. This kind of language would cause riots in the United States and I think it says a lot about our social maturity (both good and bad, but even more so interesting).

Edited November 18, 2010 by mississippichem

[jackson33]

When asked if she will insist that Muslim women wearing hijabs must go through full body pat downs before boarding planes, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano did not say yes or no, but told CNSNews.com there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue.[/Quote]

 

http://theview.abc.go.com/forum/napolitano-muslim-woman-and-airport-security?page=1

 

Jackson, can you please provide some basis for that assertion about Janet Napolitano?[/Quote]

 

padren; It' sounds to me more than simple consideration, however I don't see anyway she could stop the practice or make "adjustments" that would satisfy Muslim Law. My opinion.

 

 

Atlanta handled 60 million passengers in 2010, and that's not even an entire year's worth of data. Scaling El-Al's procedures to American sizes is nearly impossible. The top American airports individually handle more passengers yearly than all Israel's airports do over several years.[/Quote]

 

CR; The logical response would say, a good share traveling to/from Israel could have bad intentions, where those traveling to/from the US are not likely to be so inclined, certainly percentage wise. After 9-11, rather than concentrating on profiling, which would have been much easier, our policy of not profiling has created many problems. I don't know anything for sure, but I'd bet anyone boarding an El-Al passenger Aircraft or uses their Cargo Plane in any of the 50 places they service, has been talked to by their security or scanned for explosives, before heading for Israel.

 

Racial profiling won't catch Mr. Smith from South Carolina. [/Quote]

 

To my knowledge, no Mr. Smith from South Carolina has been charged with any jihad activity here or anyplace else. However if a person is activity communicating with Terrorist, has converted to Islam and promotes that activity (they all had in Domestic activity), it remains a problem best addressed through profiling. I'm NOT promoting harassment of Muslims, but this consistent attitude that Mr. Smith, is as likely to commit an act of terrorism in the name of Radical Islam, as those that are Muslim. That is, crime is crime and any person can be involved and if by far more prevalent, than terrorism and addressed already.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

To my knowledge, no Mr. Smith from South Carolina has been charged with any jihad activity here or anyplace else. However if a person is activity communicating with Terrorist, has converted to Islam and promotes that activity (they all had in Domestic activity), it remains a problem best addressed through profiling. I'm NOT promoting harassment of Muslims, but this consistent attitude that Mr. Smith, is as likely to commit an act of terrorism in the name of Radical Islam, as those that are Muslim. That is, crime is crime and any person can be involved and if by far more prevalent, than terrorism and addressed already.

How would a security agent at a checkpoint distinguish between Mr. Smith, middle-aged white male recently converted to radical Islam, and Mr. Jones, middle-aged white male who's been Protestant his entire life?

 

As for the existence of homegrown terrorists, here's what Napolitano has to say:

 

“More and more, we’re seeing the increased role of Westerners, including U.S. citizens, engaged in terrorist training, planning, and attempted attacks …and many of these individuals are unknown to the Intelligence Community and unknown to Federal authorities. And that means traditional Intelligence Community efforts and travel analysis may not be enough to identify domestically-inspired terrorist planning and attacks.”

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/10/napolitano-issues-blunt-comments-on-domestic-terror-threat.html

[padren]

http://theview.abc.go.com/forum/napolitano-muslim-woman-and-airport-security?page=1

 

padren; It' sounds to me more than simple consideration, however I don't see anyway she could stop the practice or make "adjustments" that would satisfy Muslim Law. My opinion.

What part of her statement "sounds like more than simple consideration" to you? I honestly don't understand how you could come to that conclusion from the video. Has she expressed interest in giving Muslims special privileges in the past? Is it out of character that Muslims join the rest of the religions in America that ask for more rights than they can possibly legally be allowed? We've had every other religion in the country try to pull the "special privileges are religious rights" card, so what if some Muslims pull it too? Why is there any fear we will make specials laws for them when we never have in the past for anyone else?*

 

Last I checked, the woman who didn't want her face visible in her driver's license lost her case, despite the ACLU representing her.

 

People of all faiths ask for stupid stuff (Creationism in school for instance) all the time and honestly if anyone has the clout to get their way, I don't think we have to be worried about Muslims changing our laws on religious freedoms and individual rights. So what if the "Fiqh Council of North America" issued a fatwa condemning scanners? The Catholic Church in America still can't get over the idea of birth control and still tells its members that their legal right to abortion unilaterally is an amoral choice. They aren't forcing anyone to keep unwanted pregnancies, so legally it's alright. When the Catholic Church does it we say they are a little backwards by contemporary standards - when some traditionalist Muslims say the same sort of thing (stressing modesty, whatever) suddenly everyone freaks out like planes are going to start exploding in the sky.

 

I'm sure it doesn't help that the word "fatwa" entered our vocabulary tied to Bin Laden issuing them condemning our existence and seeking our deaths. It doesn't help that Sharai Law came to us from the Taliban and the horrors they practiced. All that aside - all I see are some traditionalists getting miffed and issuing some statements, no different than traditionalists in any other religion. It's cute, it happens all the time, it goes nowhere and it's nothing to be freaked out about. No one is going to start the legally sanctioned stoning rape victims in America. No one is going to give Muslims special rights to pass through airport security. No one anywhere in our security apparatus has even vaguely suggested they would consider such an insane idea a good one, let alone politically viable.

 

That's some serious tinfoil hat material that apparently has come out of thin air.

 

 

EDIT: *I admit some laws passed are definitely Christian-centric, but that can't be separated from the size and early cultural impact of Christianity on America, and we still never have passed a law so blatantly favoring Christians as the one people are fearful may pass favoring Muslims.

To my knowledge, no Mr. Smith from South Carolina has been charged with any jihad activity here or anyplace else. However if a person is activity communicating with Terrorist, has converted to Islam and promotes that activity (they all had in Domestic activity), it remains a problem best addressed through profiling. I'm NOT promoting harassment of Muslims, but this consistent attitude that Mr. Smith, is as likely to commit an act of terrorism in the name of Radical Islam, as those that are Muslim. That is, crime is crime and any person can be involved and if by far more prevalent, than terrorism and addressed already.

Any half decent terrorist could slip some tools into Mr. Smith's possession to get it through airport security. As soon as we demonstrate a weakness in selective profiling (you can't increase in one area without lessening in another) people will change their tactics to exploit that weakness.

 

Any kid who thinks they are muleing drugs has no idea if the bags contain weapons or explosives - just they are sealed in wrapped newspaper. Drug runners or terrorists alike would select that kid based entirely on their ability to beat the profiling of the day. It wouldn't be hard for another terrorist to get his bag once on the plane.

 

When you start to profile, you really weaken your security - it's better to have a solid wide-net screening process than one so easily adapted to.

Edited November 19, 2010 by padren

[jackson33]

Okay CR, lets take Mr. Smith and apply the El-Al system. The agent knowing his name ask a couple leading questions that can easily be verified. If warranted, the flyer is perceived nervous or uncomfortable, the agent will simply verify the answers and I feel sure their hooked directly to more than one source to do just that. That is if Mr. Smith is flying to Germany on Business, but is unemployed...well you get the picture. Obviously if Mr. Smith had converted to any form of Radical Islam, changing his name (legally or not), been active in Internet or Mosque activity, groping him would make NO difference and the point of my argument.

 

Yes, I'm aware of Ms. Napolitano, her desire to become a Supreme Court Justice and how she is able to articulate the Presidents personal viewpoints. In fact, while Governor of Arizona she articulated the exact opposite on many issues. I don't doubt there are plenty of, other than Radical Muslims to be PC, that have it in for Americans and for any number of reasons, here or elsewhere, but the odds of planning an attack here on behalf of a specific group based overseas is extremely improbable, in my opinion. As for being inspired BY, that's very difficulty to argue, many people are inspired to do many things seen/heard/read over any media, actually committing many crimes on a daily basis.

 

padren; The operative phrase was "to satisfy Muslim Law" and yes in more than a few cases, Muslim Ladies have been required to show a face to get a Drivers License, ID Card, receive welfare or many other things. Making adjustments, in my mind indicates a desire to make changes, which as said, I don't believe will be permitted. I am NOT concerned about any religion (of all things) changing our legal system.

 

When you start to profile, you really weaken your security - it's better to have a solid wide-net screening process than one so easily adapted to. [/Quote]

 

I'm not sure what's worse, punishing every one for what a few people of a certain profile have done or directing you attention to that profile. It's not the basic screening system, were talking about. If you wish, I'll go into the people that have profited over this NEW system, the potential of detecting explosive material in any quantity and substantial distances or any number of other methods to accomplish the same or better end results and apparently we have NOT "easily adapted to" this system, quite to the contrary.

[Mr Skeptic]

When you start to profile, you really weaken your security - it's better to have a solid wide-net screening process than one so easily adapted to.

 

I disagree. If your ability to check out potential threats is limited, it makes sense to focus on where most of the threats are. Catch the most threats with the limited resources you have. If a passenger is visibly nervous, security should give him a little extra scrutiny. That doesn't mean to ignore the non-profile group, just they get slightly less scrutiny consistent with the lower risk that they are carrying something dangerous. However, if the non-profile group does not have a lesser proportion of dangerous people than the profile group, then the mistake is not in choosing whether to profile or not but in the choice of profile. So long as the profile is correct and security resources are limited, profiling will increase the success rate.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html

 

Looks like Bruce Schneier is part of a lawsuit to force the stop of backscatter scanners. And in case you don't know who Bruce Schneier is:

 

http://www.schneierfacts.com/

[padren]

I disagree. If your ability to check out potential threats is limited, it makes sense to focus on where most of the threats are. Catch the most threats with the limited resources you have. If a passenger is visibly nervous, security should give him a little extra scrutiny. That doesn't mean to ignore the non-profile group, just they get slightly less scrutiny consistent with the lower risk that they are carrying something dangerous. However, if the non-profile group does not have a lesser proportion of dangerous people than the profile group, then the mistake is not in choosing whether to profile or not but in the choice of profile. So long as the profile is correct and security resources are limited, profiling will increase the success rate.

You could be right, I am not sure how a graph of the benefits and risks would look - but I think it's still worth noting that the reason drugs make it across the border in the volumes they do (when not backpacked ) is because smugglers intentionally choose mules that look least likely to be profiled.

[JohnB]

In reference to the OP.

 

It works rather differently in Australia. We have these things called "Laws" and a principle called "The Separation of Powers". A security officer acting the way the one in the video was would be instantly suspended, probably fired and possibly charged with assault.

 

What happens in an Aussie airport is similar to the processes elsewhere, but the rules governing those processes are different. The big difference being that "Law Enforcement" is done by police and only police. Not some half trained, poorly paid monkeys with "Security" badges.

 

When boarding, you empty pockets etc into the little trays for x-ray and walk through the metal detector. If it buzzes, they get to use the hand held version to check you out. If security wish to further search they call the AFP (Australian Federal Police) Officer over and you go into a room for the search. Security cannot touch you except to prevent you running away. Only police officers can perform a body search. Period.

 

If there is a problem with the x-ray, security can ask you to open the item for inspection. You can either open the item or request a private room. My briefcase is opaque on a lot of scanners due to often being rather full of metal, so the private room is very handy as I don't want to open it under the gaze of the general public. There are at least two rooms at each checking point, so delay is minimal. You might have to wait a couple of minutes for security to be available to take you to the private room, but that's about it. And mainly because if using the private room, two security officers must be present. After the bag search in the room, security have two options, let you and your baggage through, or call the AFP.

 

After that, you may be randomly chosen for the explosives/narcotics swab thingy, which takes about 30 seconds. I get this one pretty often, but then I'm usually hanging around waiting for the room, so it fills in the time a bit.

 

Counting briefcase search, but not time spent in the queue, about 5 mins to get through. Without the search, about a minute. Unload pockets into tray, walk through, load pockets from tray, go to concourse. If anything holds the system up, it's the lack of trays and security are kept busy sending the empty ones to the front of the scanner. The inconvenience is extremely minor and takes about as long as baggage check in.

[Pangloss]

ABC News and the Washington Post released a survey on Monday that had some interesting findings.

 

64% of Americans backed the scanners and only 32% said they went too far. But the pat-downs split Americans, with 48% agreeing they are justified and 50% finding them excessive. Opposition rose somewhat among regular travelers and was lower among those who rarely or never fly.

 

This story at Politico looks at the survey (on page 2) and also looks at some interesting common ground between many conservatives and liberals on the issue.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45506.html

 

“It’s the wingers against the middle in this case,” said Stewart Baker, a former undersecretary of Homeland Security for policy.

 

As the backlash has grown, however, conservative commentators such as Charles Krauthammer and George Will have found themselves on the same page with liberal writers such as James Fallows.

 

“Pigs fly. Also, I agree with Charles Krauthammer,” Fallows wrote on the Atlantic’s web site Monday. He went on to indicate he concurred with what conservative radio host Mark Steyn called the “stupid ineffectiveness” of broadly-applied, assertive pat-down searches.

 

The article also looks at what might happen if a bomb were to go undetected by the new scanners and procedures, and kill people.

 

Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a long-time critic of body-scan machines, said the public response to an airline bombing would depend on how explosives made it on board – and could expose the utter futility of trying to guard against all terrorist attacks.

 

“Which public reaction are you speaking of?” said Rotenberg, asked about the response a successful attack might trigger. “The one where the cargo is not adequately screened, a plane blows up, and people realize that body scanners were worthless? Or the one where explosives are concealed in a body cavity, a plane blows up, and people realize that body scanners were worthless?”

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Explosives hidden in a body cavity have already happened. Remember a year ago when a guy hid a pound of explosives in his rectum to try to blow up a Saudi prince?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

[mississippichem]

US homeland security policy seems to be so reactive and not very proactive. I'm sure there is some faction of Al Queda right now sitting on couches and watching CNN laughing at us having to look at each other naked on screens just because some spoiled Nigerian brat stuck a bomb in his underwear that didn't even work. I hope a terrorist never hides a bomb in a body cavity, I'm sure we'll just start telling passengers to "spread-em" before they get on the plane.

 

I think we should put more effort into intelligence rather than security. Intelligence is the key to the fight against terror. The reason these extremist groups are able to operate is because they have been able to retain relative secrecy. These Israelis have been very effective at seeing these things coming with their massive intel networks. Every third person you see is probably an Israeli spy

 

Seriously though, like that assassination in Dubai that was allegedly carried out by Israeli operatives. I guess they fixed that before it became a problem. I've just always been impressed at how such a small country with so many local enemies has been able to keep relatively secure...very proactive strategy, not the US's "knee-jerk" panic driven "I guess-this-will-work" strategy.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/adam-savage-tsa-saw-my-junk-missed-12-razor-blades.ars

 

Adam Savage goes through a new body scanner... with two 12-inch razor blades in his pockets. Nobody notices.

[Pangloss]

Explosives hidden in a body cavity have already happened. Remember a year ago when a guy hid a pound of explosives in his rectum to try to blow up a Saudi prince?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

 

Yup, and the administration said yesterday that no cavity searches lie in our future. Guess we know how the next attack will be conducted.

 

Which to me raises the question of why bother with all this theater. But what do I know.

[padren]

Yup, and the administration said yesterday that no cavity searches lie in our future. Guess we know how the next attack will be conducted.

 

Which to me raises the question of why bother with all this theater. But what do I know.

 

The whole program was born at a time when the public was panicked and wanted any kind of reassurance that flying was safe. It's taken a long time to wind down and now that it's loosing steam people are getting fed up at all the things that have been justified in the name of theatrical security. It doesn't help the TSA appeared to be a job give-away for people who pretty much just had to be a warm body capable of passing a head count.

There's a certain level of incompetence that has finally broken the comfort zone barrier and people are angry. For instance, there really is no excuse for body scans being leaked despite very unambiguous assurances it would never be possible.

 

I think the main reason we are stuck with theater still, is that the job of actually doing a full-process audit and restructuring based on effectiveness is such a monumental task no one wants to do it, or is even sure how to do it. People are upset, but not nearly as upset as they will be if the sheer level of facade is laid open and picked apart for the wasteful failure that it is... but that has to be done to something functional in it's place.

 

 

As a side note: It looks like if the TSA doesn't straighten up, they'll actually be facing competition, so they may not have a choice and have to clean their processes up.

Edited November 23, 2010 by padren