TSA encounter at SAN
johnnyedge.blogspot.com
johnnyedge.blogspot.com
I applaud people like this who remind the system that it works for us and not the other way around. I sadly can't take the risk of doing it myself.
The system would grind to a halt if this was not the case.
I've been on international flights where we've been waiting on the tarmac to depart and a flight attendent has announced on the PA system that "we're just waiting to have the bags removed of someone who missed their flight".
Yes, it would be hard to engineer that to happen, so it's not very useful to someone planning to do something nasty with it — but it does mean there can't be a strict no bag without passenger rule.
1. Flying back to SF from the east coast on AA - got to JFK a trifle late and just missed the check-in deadline - mainly because the lady at the counter took an inordinate time and appeared to be flirting with the guy just ahead of us in line - yes I tried to check-in online but that wasn't possible because my outbound flight was on a different airline. Go figure. In any event, we were put on standby for the next flight but didn't get into the flight. I was resigned to take my luggage back and find a place to stay overnight in NYC when the gate attendant informed me that our bags were going with the flight and I could collect them at the SFO AA office ! We finally got back that night to LAX (after not making it through a wait on another flight) and then managed a Southwest flight back to SFO the next morning and sure enough our bags were waiting for us.
2. Last weekend, we were on a SW flight from SAN to SFO. Flight was delayed because of bad weather, and there was an additional delay close to the destination where we were not cleared for descent. By the time we were allowed to land, they had run out of fuel (!!) and landed the plane in SJC. Unbelievably they fueled up and took off and landed in SFO - about 3 hours later. Thankfully they let anyone who wanted to get off at SJC deplane and that's what we did. Gave us the time to get home, pick up my car from SFO, have lunch, etc. and went back to SFO to pick up our bags soon after the flight eventually landed. So in this case too, the flight took off with our bags and without us.
[Edited after fact checking. I know I've seen a documentary on this, but I can't find any further info at the moment. I've probably also been added to some watch list based on my searches over the last half hour]
I didn't come away with the impression that they'd actually implemented blast-proof though, just that they'd redesigned so that some blasts wouldn't dramatically cause airframe failure.
hell, it might get blown up by a bomb squad, for all i know. i'm not into that.
So next time you want to fly and don't choose to participate in the "enhanced" version of the security theater, you might find yourself pulled out of the line "randomly" every single damn time.
Also there is no way to get off the black list, possibly ever. That is a pretty high price to pay.
Freedom does not come cheap.
It does seem, however, that the dam is about to break on the TSA. The number of stories I see on the net seems to show dissent skyrocketing, although I admit this is a limited sample.
The trouble is, increasing dissent by 100x still doesn't make much of a dent if it just means 99.9% of people are willing to be abused instead of the 99.999% it was before. From the comments by security staff typically quoted in these articles, it sounds like almost everyone sucks it up in practice, whether because they don't care or because they're too worried about not being able to make an important journey to protest the point.
A few thousand outraged people with good connections, good stories and media that picks them up is sometimes all it takes.
[2] Pilots and Passangers Revolt Against Check Lunacy: http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,729012,00.html
As the OP said, the other aspect is that you are flying because you need to be somewhere and flight is the only option. This more heavily biases international travelers towards compliance, because they have a lot more to lose in time/money if they don't board their flight.
Be nice to the airline though, they're not a fault (in this issue, at least). Get there early, let them know (afterwards) that you're not flying. Don't trouble them with a refund. Keep in mind that you're probably violating the T&Cs by not intending to get on the flight.
It's a spectrum that is as wide or as narrow as you wish it to be. I personally think it's more narrow than many others do here on HN, for example. I think a real lame effect that happens though is that the instant someone uses the word assault or abuse it suggests much more evil or sexually explicit or intimate acts than what an actual specific situation may have involved. The phrase "sexual assault" can start off being applied to a hand on the back or kiss on the cheek, and then as the description of the event propagates across many people or channels, suddenly it can morph into "rape" or "molestation" -- even though traditionally those words refer to much more serious and specific, intimate and/or violent sexual acts.
It's one of the things I think we as a society, in any general public forum, with no serious moderation or curation or participant filtering (like HN, in my judgment) cannot discuss intelligently or productively because it's always vulnerable to this particular thought error, among others.
More specifically, unwanted sexual touching. I don't like people jostling against me in crowds but that isn't "sexual abuse."
The offense of "sexual assault" requires "sexual behavior" to take place. A security pat down delivered in the appropriate, formal manner is not a display of sexual behavior though it could become such. The mere touching of "intimate" areas does not make it "sexual" per se, however.
Do you consider the forms of cancer which are curable and treatable not a "real" form of cancer?
You don't have to be an activist to take action.
The next chance I get(2), I'll be pulling a When Harry Met Sally on the TSA employee checking my junk. Let's see how much he likes it when I loudly beg him to keep rubbing me just a little bit longer.
"Damn, that feels good, man. I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am."
(1) see http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...
(2) DEN has the machine and I fly out every week or two, so I'm sure I'll be reporting back shortly.
Best response to give your TSA patdown-partner when he asks if he can feel around your crotch area:
"Who do you think I am, a U.S. Senator?"
(joke credit Adam Curry at No Agenda)
That's a feature. Like telemarketers, TSA agents assigned to grope duty have no justification for staying in their jobs. It should be unpleasant for them.
On the other hand point 2 is well taken, and for that reason I agree that antagonizing them is a bad idea.
I would instead worry that natural selection will make it so that the only people left are those for whom this sort of thing is enjoyable, with everyone else quitting or transferring in disgust.
I'm not going to feel bad for fighting back against people who are trying to do something wrong, and neither should anyone else.
Also, common courtesy dictates that you should at least offer a reach-around. http://www.moviesounds.com/fmj/cowboy.wav
Airport security checkpoints cannot be considered a last stand against threats. It is one link in a chain including intelligence, passenger awareness, and aircraft design. The chain I describe is not security, but safety. "Screen for every potential danger" is not a viable goal for airport security. I prefer a statement like "decrease the likelihood of death (whoever's you care to measure) by 10x". While still vague, it gives some framework for comparing costs. To make up numbers, suppose for the same cost you could install backscatter machines and get a 10x reduction, or better radar infrastructure and get a 50x reduction. I know where I'd want my money.
One externality here is the perception of safety. In some sense, it doesn't matter how good or safe flying is if people act (and spend...) as if every other plane were being bombed from the skies. But, I question if security gropes will really increase consumer confidence.
I say it isn't.
Or a step further and why not in the stomach cavity. Soon you will be getting full x-rays just to get on a plane.
As he was leaving the airport after being escorted back to the ticket counter, an official told him to return and be searched, "he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined".
So could anyone else who just walked into the airport in that area.
Everyone should explain to their TSA patdown-partner that they have a headache and aren't in the mood.
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/
Also, you're assuming that Obama would actually do something like that if he had the power. He probably wouldn't. There's still a large constituency that thinks this is a positive change, and he couldn't lose all of their votes...
The TSA is executive branch. The president has all control. He tells the TSA to jump and it says "how high."
> The biggest thing he could do would be to get rid of the director, and I'm not even sure if he can do that directly, actually.
All he'd have to to do is make a phone call. Appointing a replacement requires congressional confirmation, though.
If the Democrats put a stop to this then the Republicans will call them weak on security and unwilling to keep our country safe. There will be millions spent on attack ads saying this. The Democrats will lose the next election.
The only way that would change is if the majority care enough to do something about it, and few do. Most people do not know why anyone would not want to use the machines, so they go through them. And of the ones who do care, many of them paid lots of money for their flight, want to get to it on time, and are likely trying to go somewhere important.
Thus, it persists.
Yet somehow, they never manage to do enough right to win more than one in a row.
Obama has, for the most part, turned a blind eye to much of the Bush-era paranoia. A lot of what was introduced is, I suppose, "convenient" to have around (like the PATRIOT Act). The only real thing that seems to have changed is closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and trying detainees there in American courts, and that isn't going very well either.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What unreasonable means is up for debate but the line is somewhere. And my understanding is that you can't even "consent" away the bill of rights as much as that is argued by the TSA.
My opinion is that groping someone's genitals is clearly unreasonable and that the gradualism of the TSA rules has made this pass by unchecked. You might disagree with that though.
I would say that most people agree this is not a reasonable search.
continuing:
"...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So even if a search is authorized, there has to be probable cause.
One might say that you submit to this as part of the deal to get on the plane. But if that were true, it would be between you and the airline, not the government. That means it really should be the airlines that decide how intrusive searches should be. And you would be free to choose an airline whose policies you agree with. And the airline would be free to reject you as a passenger.
Actually, the Israeli security model seemed like it made much more sense with a lot less theater.
When you check-in, your bags are unpacked on a table and the contents are inspected with you standing there.
You pack your bag back up, they tape it with security tape and send it down the conveyor. The ticketing agent then does a short security interview with you regarding where you're going, did you pack your own bag, etc.
You get your tickets and go through the security screen - metal detectors, x-ray, perhaps additional screening if they suspect something. No genital grabbing, no pornoscans (although, my brother did get semi-strip searched once, due to telling a white lie and getting caught at security).
There's an additional interview with customs / immigration before you get to the gate, but that's mostly for passport control issues.
Given some of the crap I've seen/faced going through various Israeli checkpoints though, it's just not a system I would want to see implemented in my own country. Anyone can feel free to disagree, but personally I think people should be able to travel freely within their own country without being treated as criminals (or sexually assaulted to prove their innocence, of course).
The difference, though, is not everyone is subjected to the pat-down. But those who are, definitely go through a much, much more thorough experience than US travelers are enjoying.
http://www.thousandsstandingaround.org/
Folks experiences are consistent.
You reckon that paedophiles would sign up just on the remotest off-chance that they get unattended access to a child?
Some people have to fly, but that doesn't mean they can't turn these situations into comedy highlighting the stupidity of the system.
One thing the TSA has shown again and again is that they definitely do not want courts involved in their affairs. They certainly aren't going to take this guy to court, because when the ACLU and every similar organization gets involved, it's unlikely to be good for them.
I think the penis-groping requirement is the beginning of the end for them. Something good has finally come out of our nation's irrational fear of anything that could remotely be construed as sexual.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1911670
If it happens, you will be one of the wrongest people in history! I should have bet you one penny, then you would owe me 450 million dollars.
However, Wikipedia [1] implies this is not civil, but in regards to the government's view of privacy to you, not yours to the government, and is highly unlikely to supersede areas where filming is expressly forbidden, and which is indicated to you when entering that area.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priva...
In Illinois and other two party notification states, you can't record audio of police officers in public places [1]. Video is fine, but since all video cameras record audio, it's a bit of a Catch-22. People get arrested all the time in two party notification states for video taping law enforcement and it's because of the audio function of their device.
[1] http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez....
EDIT: you are not allowed to film at TSA check points because of airport policy, not because the TSA policy. for San Diego see:
http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...
I'm not aware of any major airport that allows filming in screening areas, which is the point I'm trying to make.
If you don't comply you can be fined, see section C of:
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sanction_Guidance_for_Individu...
(refusing to be searched violates a number of those provisions which adds up to $10k)
And you're not allowed to record in TSA sterile areas, there are signs at airports that say so.
I'm not saying I agree with the law (note I wrote 'good' case above), but your point that the TSA website says otherwise isn't true, and it's a shame I've been downvoted for it. Perhaps you'd like to edit your comment with the url on tsa.gov you are referring to?
The whole point of what I was saying, which you missed, is that if the TSA wants to make this case into an example case to set a hard line against those who don't want to do back-scatter, those videos are going to be damaging to him.
http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...
I'm not aware of any major airport that lets you film secure areas, which is the point I'm trying to make - and so that could just get rolled up into a civil case against him. Which is the point I'm making.
The point is if this does go to court the videos will sadly count against him if they decide to throw the book at him.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/938543...
Some allow it but I'm pretty sure none (or close to none allowed) photographing the xray monitors.
See this TSA webpage:
TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm
After that paragraph it does state that certain local laws may prohibit you from taping it, my above point about privacy comes into play here.
http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...
Which makes trying to protect your civil rights during a pat-down even harder.
There will always be bad apples in the bunch. When I was in Europe there were some cameras set up to monitor an entrance. They hired local nationals to monitor these cameras. Just so happens, there were residences near the entrance; and the 100x zoom didn't help. The people in charge of monitoring the cameras were caught gawking at women undressing and houses had to be black-bared.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Now, the technology actually exists to see under peoples cloths! It is crazy, and what is crazier is that it actually uses x-rays to do so. Who would have thought.
If the scanners are effective in preventing a planned attack won't the attackers just choose somewhere that doesn't have them as a departure point?
The real reason we have these machines deployed is that someone in the government knows or plays golf with someone who owns the company that makes these machines. It is basically a contract handout to "cousin Ed". That's just how business is done in DC. Everything else is just propaganda and cover-up.
It wasn't designed to conduct surveillance, gather intelligence, produce scary propaganda, it was designed to catch the guy with the bomb red-handed, as in "Oh look, there is a bomb in an x-ray machine!" kind of situation. That that has never happened. So what do they do? As a proper and decent US govt. agency that they are -- they increase the number of rules and ask for more funds...
But no politician will ever dare dismantle it. Nobody wants to be "soft on terrorism". In case of an attack they need the TSA as a scapegoat so they can point to it and say "look, we are spending all these money, we have all the people groped and x-rayed, there is nothing more we could have done, it is _not_ our fault"
So I'll agree that FBI, CIA, NSA, air marshals, the flight crew, and just regular citizens have stopped bad guys. But not the TSA.
I also think we should be encouraging the White House to put Bruce Schneier in charge of the TSA.
The law maybe an ass but he's probably on shaky ground, esp as you can't film or record the security checkpoints either.
And you can definitely film and record in the security area as long as you aren't interfering.
1. drama queen
2. passive aggressive behavior
3. poor TSA workers just trying to follow procedures and do their jobs
4. people being imperfect, making mistakes, getting cranky -- on all sides
Folks: have y'all gotten the memo that they do security stuff at the airport? Seriously, they do that now. Deal. And if you want to change anything about this fact, the way to do it is not by going to the airport and doing this kind of thing. The way to do it is through political action and Congress. And heck, through better engineering.
Congress isn't the only way to get things done, nor even the best. Assault on all fronts may be more effective than on one. Flanking was invented for a reason.
You're welcome to kid yourself into believing that this is just the way things have to be, and you can put up with people grabbing your kids and making them cry, and accusing your toddler of being a terrorist and/or explosives mule, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to stand by and tolerate that shit.
I stopped reading there. Way to be a douche and instigate trouble.
Edit: There are far more constructive ways to handle dislike of the policies than verbally assaulting front-line TSA workers. They're working hard to make a paycheck. They didn't implement the policies and certainly don't need people treating them like shit because of it.
Ironically, I have zero problem with strict security checks at the airport, so I'm completely polite to the TSA. But I understand, intellectually, how others could be offended at their activity.
> I have zero problem with strict security checks at the airport,
> so I'm completely polite to the TSA
Some argue that you should make it unpleasent for TSA agents to work there because technically they do have a choice for who they work for, and if they choose an employer that is trying to infringe on your rights then showing your upsetness to them might get them to quit and send the message to their employer about the policies.
Frankly I see no problem with what he did. Not only did he stand up for what he believed in, he was persistent and what he asked of the TSA was perfectly reasonable. I point to the following article from The Atlantic:
This past Wednesday, I showed up at Baltimore-Washington International for a flight to Providence, R.I. I had a choice of two TSA screening checkpoints. I picked mine based on the number of people waiting in line, not because I am impatient, but because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...
If the someone gets to the airport with explosives, they can do their job of holding up airline traffic without even stepping through a metal detector. The TSA know this, and all of this security theatre is getting out of hand. I mean, they banned ink cartridges last week!
Eventually they might get the message and spend time on developing better ways of catching the terroists than inconviencing the American public.
Or they might just ban humans on airplanes. That would certainly stop the attacks...
what was the alternative, then? he could've worded it less aggressively initially, but do you really think a TSA agent would've responded to a polite "i don't want you to pat me down"? its their job to pat you down.
So when a thug is being paid to assault you, it's not their fault? You should be nice to them because they're just doing their job? I hope you're kidding.
A thug would be somebody who carries out a simple violent crime under orders of somebody else, who is also not legally allowed to do such activity (say, a gang leader or organized crime leader.).
A fundamental basis of government is that it is the only socially authorized entity who can commit violence and/or otherwise restrict a person's movements. We as a society give government the right to do that.
Again, incorrect; if a person feels assaulted because you grabbed their junk against their will, then they've been assaulted.
> If a police officer frisks you, under normal circumstances, that is both legal and expected.
Fist off, ex cop here. No, it isn't expected. Cops require cause to frisk you and generally only do it if you're suspected of something and we make an exception for police because we all agree they have to be able to do it. There is no such agreement that the TSA needs such power.
Secondly, they'll generally have a member of the same sex do the frisk because they recognize people do see being groped as being assaulted. Most people let it go because they're happy to not be in trouble, not because they like it.
> We as a society give government the right to do that.
Correct, however, the TSA is not the government. They're private thugs. And yes, many cops are thugs as well, it's why I left the profession. It's a career field full of power hungry ex jocks who think bullying people is their current sport. Most have little understanding of the law, they do whatever they're trained on the job to do with little thought of whether or not they should.
People need to take a stand. For all the time and energy 'security' are wasting on 'obviously not terrorists', they could be actually concentrating on 'might well be a terrorist'.
Exactly. That precise moment and action he took was clearly a really stupid idea, and would do nothing constructive. It would only make things worse due to the fact that he's saying that to a human being, one who has emotions, and is just trying to do their job. And is very very unlikely to want to actually try to "touch his junk." The guy voluntarily went to the airport, and did so in the context of any reasonably connected citizen would know about the sorts of security procedures to expect there. And he acts like a passive aggressive drama queen. Sad. And lame.