DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Backlash over airport security scanners

j/c in here,...I would like the "freedom" to continue to travel "safely," but I alone cannot guarantee that. Each vision has limitations.

For example, I would like to be able to carry my own handgun on the plane in order to protect against a possible attack. The common sense of the issue is that this is not a good idea, even though 1,000 out of a 1,000 times everyone on my flight would have nothing to fear from me being some kind of a threat.

Maybe we should have an E-Z Pass system, based on some kind of a morality and security background check.

Until everyone can be completely trusted to honor everyone's else's privilege to travel safely, then you have to have some level of security in place. It's not that bad a tradeoff. I do worry about the health concern though,...and that's where some kind of a "frequent-flyer-no-threat" program could be implemented.

This isn't about privacy or security at all anyway, it's about getting the most passengers on the most planes in the shortest amount of time.

Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame) tells his experience at airport. Quite humorous. My favorite quote: The cop, the voice of sanity says, "What's wrong with you people? You can't just grab a guy's crank without his permission."


Penn Jillette

Last Thursday I was flying to LA on the Midnight flight. I went through security my usual sour stuff. I beeped, of course, and was shuttled to the "toss-em" line. A security guy came over. I assumed the position. I had a button up shirt on that was untucked. He reached around while he was behind me and grabbed around my front pocket. I guess he was going for my flashlight, but the area could have loosely been called "crotch." I said, "You have to ask me before you touch me or it's assault."

He said, "Once you cross that line, I can do whatever I want."

I said that wasn't true. I say that I have the option of saying no and not flying. He said, "Are you going to let me search you, or do I just throw you out?"

I said, "Finish up, and then call the police please."

When he was finished with my shoes, he said, "Okay, you can go."

I said, "I'd like to see your supervisor and I'd like LVPD to come here as well. I was assaulted by you."

He said, "You're free to go, there's no problem."

I said, "I have a problem, please send someone over."

They sent a guy over and I said that I'd like to register a complaint. I insisted on his name and badge number. I filled it out with my name. The supervisor, I think trying to intimidate me, asked for my license, and I gave it to him happily as he wrote down information. I kept saying, "Please get the police," and they kept saying, "You're free to go, we don't need the police." I insisted and they got a higher up, female, supervisor. I was polite, cold, and a little funny. "Anyone is welcome to grab my crotch, I don't require dinner and a movie, just ask me. Is that asking too much? You wanna grab my crotch, please ask. Does that seem like a crazy person to you?" I had about 4 of them standing around. Finally Metro PD shows up. It's really interesting. First of all, the cop is a BIG P&T fan and that ain't hurting. Second, I get the vibe that he is WAY sick of these federal leather-sniffers. He has that vibe that real cops have toward renta-cops. This is working WAY to my advantage, so I play it.

The supervisor says to the cop, 'He's free to go. We have no problem, you don't have to be here." Which shows me that the Feds are afraid of local. This is really cool. She says, "We have no trouble and he doesn't want to miss his flight."

I say, "I can take an early morning flight or a private jet. " The cop says, "If I have a citizen who is saying he was assaulted, you can't just send me away."

I tell the cop the story, in a very funny way. The cop, the voice of sanity says, "What's wrong with you people? You can't just grab a guy's crank without his permission." I tell him that my genitals weren't grabbed and the cop says, "I don't care, you can't do that to people. That's assault and battery in my book."

The supervisor says that they'll take care of the security guy. The cop says, "I'm not leaving until Penn tells me to. Now do you want to fill out all the paper work and show up in court, because I'll be right there beside you."

The supervisor says it's an internal matter, and they'll take care of it. "If you want to pursue this, we're going to have to go through the electronic evidence."

I say, "You mean videotape? Yeah, go get it."

She says, "Well, it'll take a long time, and you don't want to miss your flight. We have no problem with you, you're free to go."

The cop says, "Your guy grabbed his crank. That ain't right."

So, I fill out all the paper work and insist on a number to call to register a complaint. She says that I filled out a complaint, and I say, "I want more, give me another number. " She gives me a number that I find out later has been disconnected. I leave. I have a card with the name and number on it and the bad 800 number for the FAA.

My flight is way delayed, so I go to Burger King with Glenn - and all the feds are now off duty and at BK and sneering at us.

The next day the woman in charge of public relations calls me to "do anything to make my McCarran experience more enjoyable." I was a little under the weather with allergies and busy, so I didn't call back until yesterday.

It took some phone tag, but I finally got the woman on the phone. I was very cool and sweet. I explained the problem. "Do you allow your crotch to be grabbed without being asked?" I didn't exaggerate, I said that there was nothing sexual, I wasn't hurt, and it wasn't my genitals. I just said it was wrong. She said "Well, your feedback is really important because most people are afraid of us." She said, "I'd love to meet you so we could clear this up, and everyone wants to meet a celebrity." She said she had watched the videotape and there was no sound, but she saw him reach around. She said she couldn't tell me what was being done to him but . . . and I stopped her and said, she shouldn't do anything wrong.

I said that I had talked to two lawyers and they said it was really a weird case because no one knows if he can be charged with assault and battery while working in that job. But I told her, that some of my lawyer friends really wanted to find out. She said, "Well, we're very new to this job . . ." and I said, "Yeah, so we need these test cases to find out where you stand."

She said, "Well, you know a LOT about this." I said, "Well, it's not really the right word, but freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more of it."

She said, "Well, the airport is very important to all of our incomes and we don't want bad press. It'll hurt everyone, but you have to do what you think is right. But, if you give me your itinerary every time you fly, I'll be at the airport with you and we can make sure it's very pleasant for you."

I have no idea what this means, does it mean that they have a special area where all the friskers are topless showgirls, "We have nothing to hide, do you?" I have no idea. She pushes me for the next time I'm flying. I tell her I'm flying to Chicago around 2 on Sunday, if she wants to get that security guy there to sneer at me. She says, she'll be there, and it'll be very easy for me. I have no idea what this means.

I tell her that I'm still thinking about pressing charges, and I don't just care about me, it's freedom in general. I say the only thing that was good about it, was that while they were dealing with me, maybe they weren't beating up people in wheelchairs. It was amazing. All she was trying to do was make me happy. She said she'd burned a CD ROM of my video and it was being sent all around and they were going to change their training. She said, "We're federal employees, we're working for you, you pay us and we want customer satisfaction. It doesn't matter what the law is, we have to make you very happy so your flying experience is a pleasurable one, and most people don't give us this kind of intelligent feedback."

So, that was it. I'm flying on Sunday, I have no idea what will happen. How crazy is this? Do I really have some sort of mysterious VIP status to shut me up? Should I press charges? She said she was going to talk to the cop. I said he didn't see anything. She said, "Well, he may be able to see the forest for the trees, because he was right there." I quoted his "crank" comment and she laughed and then knew that was a very bad sign. I said, "He'll tell you I was polite, cold, angry, and funny" - that's more than should be expected of me. I still don't know what I'm going to do, but my advice to everyone is complain all you can and call the cops. I think it might make a little difference. Maybe you can become a VIP too.

Penn
web page

Quote:

---

What stops them from "randomly pulling out" a whole bunch of attractive girls just to see what they're sporting? Creepy much?

---

So I'm one of those guys that other people look at and do the whole "She's with HIM?!" thing. Lucky me But, every time she flies she gets sent to the scanners. Every single frickin time. I've been with her a couple times, but other's it's just her. Drives me nuts.

I'd like to see someone keep track of the male to female ratio that get's sent. I'm sure you can see the scanner from just standing in the lobby or whatnot. All you need is a couple clickers and maybe 30 days of data

Actually, Israel does massive profiling. They aren't doing pat downs on 2 year olds.

This is true. They don't have the sensitivity issues we have and they are much more practical about it. BUT, and this is a big but, as the article mentions above, our potential terrorist profile is much wider than thiers.

Well, I'll be flying tomorrow, I'll let you all know how it goes.

Good luck. If anyone tries to do a cavity search just whip out your gun and shoot them.

I'll be flying to Florida with a stop in Atlanta on Wednesday to see family for Thanksgiving. I got my fingers crossed that it won't be too horrible

The best part?

From what I understand, the new "X Ray" machines only detect metal. They won't detect plastic and such in a body cavity. (Which is where terrorists are now hiding such things)

So ... if a terrorist wants to sneak aboard a combination of materials that can combine to create an explosive, they can.

This entire procedure could even be Unconstitutional.

Wonder how much we paid for this debacle? Further, I wonder who is behind the company we just bought this bad idea from?

Kinda funny, because I'll be making that same trip only in reverse on Tuesday. Leave Key West at 6:20 am (ugh...so not a morning person), good news is I should be in Cleveland by 11:30 am.

a body scanner update....

body scan video

Thought everybody would enjoy watching some of the highlights from TSA, the group that so many think are keeping them safe...

web page

OK ... so what good do random searches do if someone can ask to be "deselected"?

Now, I may be naive ..... but if a terrorist wants to blow stuff up, couldn't they just look at their ticket and decide, "maybe I won't take this flight if my ticket shows that I have been selected to be screened"? I mean, odds are that they could buy a new ticket and not get searched on the net flight. That or just send 10 terrorists onto a single flight and pull those who get selected for screening. Maybe ditch the stuff down a toilet before boarding?

This stuff is a joke. We should be using psychological profiling, face recognition software, non invasive checks ... but we are fast becoming something no longer recognizable as America with all of this police state stuff.

What's next? Maybe you have to go through these scanners to go to the grocery store? The bank? Your doctor's office? Hell, maybe your neighbor or kindly old Aunt will have a scanner installed to make sure that you aren't a terrorist. I'm sure, at least, that she'll make sure that the images are deleted afterwards. I mean ... they're hardly the type of family photos you would frame and hang on the wall ........

Use profiling, dogs, and all of the other non invasive techniques available to us.

These new wonder machines won't detect a plastic container inserted into a body cavity.

That's why I say that all of these "enhanced" techniques are really garbage.

Someone made a bundle off of these machines that will likely be ruled unconstitutional when challenged in court. It could be unconstitutional as unreasonable search and under right to privacy.

George Soros anyone?

I heard that Bill Clinton was going to aply until he found out that he would only be moles .... err ..... checking ... men.

Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Seattle Times

U.S. body-scan technology used by Dutch is better than ours

By Tony Pugh

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON
After a Nigerian terrorist boarded a flight from the Netherlands to Detroit last Christmas with enough explosives to bring down the plane, officials at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport decided to build a better mousetrap.

So they installed more than a dozen full-body scanners capable of detecting metallic and nonmetallic materials, including explosives, gels, powders and liquids.

In the 11 months since then, Schiphol largely has avoided the privacy and safety uproar that surrounds passenger screening at U.S. airports.

Ironically, the Dutch can credit their relative success to good ol' American ingenuity: the kind that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is now considering.

Unlike the backscatter-imaging devices that provide revealing body images and which have stoked concerns about radiation, the system at Schiphol uses radio waves to detect contraband. Woburn, Mass.-based L-3 Communications Security & Detection Systems claims on its website that the radio waves are "10,000 times lower than other commonly used radio-frequency devices."

If the software identifies a passenger carrying explosives, an outline of the problem body area is displayed on a generic mannequin figure instead of on the actual image of the passenger's body. The mannequin image, which appears on the operator's control panel, "can then be used by security personnel to direct a focused discussion or search," the company website reads.

About 385 body scanners already are in place in 68 U.S. airports. TSA expects to have 500 total in place by year's end.

About half are Rapiscan System's backscatter scanners, which emit X-raylike ionizing radiation, which in larger doses can cause cell changes leading to cancer.

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has 14 scanners, all backscatter units.

L-3's "automatic-threat detection" system, dubbed "ProVision ATD," sells for $40,000 to $150,000 and doesn't use ionizing radiation or X-rays.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in May ordered 200 less-advanced ProVision systems. These units don't feature the "automatic-threat detection" capability that can highlight parts of the body without generating actual images. But TSA has contracted with L-3 to develop software upgrades that could provide that capability for the agency's 200 units.

It's unclear how soon the updated software will be made available, but it should go a long way in eliminating the current controversy.

On Wednesday, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, TSA administrator John Pistole acknowledged the new target-recognition imaging was "the next generation."

"The only concern I have about that is there [is] currently a high rate of false positives on that technology, so we're working through that," Pistole testified. "But we are currently testing that today. We have been for several months."

He was responding to concerns voiced by three Republican senators that the DHS was slow to update its equipment. Sens. Susan Collins, of Maine, Jon Kyl, of Arizona and Saxby Chambliss, of Georgia, said in an April letter to Janet Napolitano, the DHS secretary, that the new technology "appears to be superior to the whole-body screening technology that is now being installed at U.S. airports."

According to TSA, airport security has detected more than 130 prohibited, illegal or dangerous items this year thanks to the new scanning equipment. And more than 99 percent of airline passengers choose the imaging technology over alternative screening methods.

But that hasn't stopped a growing backlash among passengers, pilots and privacy and safety advocates who feel the new imaging systems are intrusive, unhealthy and just plain uncomfortable.

*Information from The Associated Press and Seattle Times staff is included in this report.

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company

I just think that the Presideent and his staff, and Congress should have to be subjected to these same "security" screenings every single time they travel, whether they travel on commercial airlines, private carriers, or Air Force One.

I wonder how the President and Janet Nepalitano would enjoy a full body search?

Sorry Ytown, that's just damn silly. You have a lot of good stuff that you say, but I call BS on that one.

Why should we have to be subjected to invasive (and almost certainly unconstitutional) procedures like these while those who put these mechanisms in place are not?

Hell, I've probably broken fewer laws than most in elected office. I've never tried cocaine, as out President has said that he did. I haven't broken laws as Charlie Rangel has, only to wind up with a slap on the hand because "I was careless".

These people should be subject to full body searches long before law abiding citizens are.


The funny thing is that the government has long files on everyone. Tax recods, bank records, voter registrations, criminal records, drivers and other licenses ... and so on. The government ought to be able to take a look at a compositehistory and see that someone is, and has been, a law abiding citizen their entire life and see that they are less likely to bring a bomb on board than a 19 year old man from Yemen here on an expired visitor visa.

We could use facial recognition and fingerprint examination to allow people to "opt out" unless they exhibit suspicious activities. Use Location and Pyshological Profiling to examine more closely those who display certain actions that people planning to attack exhibit. Work on improving detection techniques for explosive materials in raw forms. Use these techniques and equilment in conjunction with metal detectors and I bet we'd get a lot better safety without enraging the entire travelling public.

The simple fact is though, that profiling works, and this new system can be beaten in many ways that have already been documented.

So what happens when we get a bomber who smuggles components up his butt? Do we then go to naked body cavity searches before we can fly?

This whole system is likely to be found unconstitutional once the courts are through with it. It should be as well.

Quote:

---

You are talking about exactly the sort of thing that has so many folks in court right now. Racial and/or some other sort of profiling is taboo these days. You need to have another reason to pull someone out. Too many lawsuits have made that abundantly clear.

---

Like it or not, this what will make it safe. Cops don't catch a criminal who described as a middle aged white man by searching a bunch of black men.

Quote:

---

No. The President is not more likely to carry a bomb onto Air Force One. You aren't going to be able to make that case, no matter how hard you try.

No, he, nor his staff are perfect, and if they travel via commercial air traffic then yes, they should be subjected to the same scrutiny. But that is first unlikely, and second highly unlikely.

---

That's not what this is about.. our government was established to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people... what we have now is a government of the people, by the elite, for themselves and their cronies..

they pass a crap healthcare bill that they don't have to live with, but we do.
they set up airports so that 7 year old girls and 67 year old women leave feeling violated but they don't have to live with it, but we do.
they tinker and spend the social security we've paid in for 20-30 years leaving us wondering if we will ever see any of it back they don't have to worry because they will have lifetime government pensions, but we do.
If they don't pay their taxes for years they don't go to prison, but we do.

This isn't about whether or not the president or Ms Nepalitano is going to blow up a plane, its about having them feel the indignation that the rest of us feel. I don't think Barack should be patted down, I think he and Michelle should have to stand there and watch some 45 year old sweaty nasty flunky TSA man grope all over their daughters because they are "a threat"... I'd like to see some x-rays of Michelle on line too now that I think about it.

But if you want to talk about who poses a threat, they made the pilots go through these things too up until they just recently agreed to some kind of an ID system for the pilots.. you think the pilot is going to bring a bomb on to take down the plane? HE IS THE PILOT.. if he wants to bring the plane down, he DOESN'T NEED A BOMB!!!!!

There is some kind of line that you just don't cross.

However, there has to be some kind of security measure(s) in place.

If full body cavity searches are necessary to guarantee passenger safety, then I probably do not need to fly anymore. When enough of us cross that line, and the economic profitabilty of the airlines is at stake, they'll find a better way.

We just need to pressure Airports to opt out of the TSA Screening... http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/florida-airport-to-opt-out-of-tsa-screening