For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance

The pat-down is better than the machine. If my privacy is going to be invaded, I want to look the person doing it in the eyes. If I'm going to be embarassed, I want the agent embarassed too. The pat-downs are inconvenient. Systematized invasions of our most private things <i>should</i> be inconvenient. TSA agents are going to face a torrent of complaints alleging abuse, molestation, &#38;c. Good. The whole program is abusive.<p>What scares me is the faceless machine nobody cares about silently collecting naked pictures of every citizen, managed by people nobody will ever see who can never be held accountable for <i>anything</i>. You can't simply flip a switch and capture high fidelity copies of a pat-down search. You can with the machines.<p>Incidentally: contrary to popular opinion, security agents, law enforcement, border control, &#38;c all very much <i>do</i> care when complaints are filed on them. Their M.O. is that nobody takes the time to file those complaints. They're counting on people not bothering with the pat-down because the machine seems more convenient, <i>and</i> they're counting on not dealing with a flood of complaints. I plan on filing a complaint at the first <i>hint</i> of an off-color comment about what they're doing. "Better get new gloves, Fred!" --- "I'd like your name and your supervisor's name, now."

So I'm just wondering, what if you're a parent flying with children? I don't have kids, so I don't know what the rules are for TSA screening of them.<p>To me, it sounds like as a parent you either have the choice of letting some anonymous person in another room take naked pictures of your kids, or you have to let some strange man/woman touch and grope your children until they meet 'resistance'.<p>In the meantime, metal detectors are in place but it seems like there's some move to phase these out. And when I have kids, if some government minimum wage flunky thinks they're going to grope my daughter or son, my wife will be posting bail for me soon thereafter.

The situation with TSA is becoming more farcical by the week.<p>I keep waiting for some grownup to stand up and put some limits on what's acceptable for them to do, but then I realize that there basically is no limit. Nobody wants to be the person that stops this runaway train.<p>It's enough to make me seriously consider whether I want to use commercial air travel again.

The pat down vs. backscatter machine issue is interesting because it opens up so many avenues for nonviolent resistance (most of which would be far more effective if you got a bunch of people together to do it all at once at one major airport):<p>1. If your kids go through the machine, loudly accuse the TSA of child pornography. If your kids go through the patdown, loudly accuse the TSA of child molestation. (If you have a suitably eccentric or sympathetic local law enforcement head, like a county sheriff, this might be the way to go, but there's probably some sort of federal immunity against actual prosecution.)<p>2. Upon entering security, strip completely naked.<p>3. Opt for the pat down and take a dive, claiming the screener hurt your testicles.<p>4. Opt for the pat down; pretend to enjoy it.<p>Note that, like most forms of nonviolent resistance, many of these can get you arrested or at least stop you from making your flight. Getting arrested to make a point is a proud tradition, however. And unlike a mere protest, these kinds of actions can sabotage the TSA or potentially cripple air travel if you get a large enough coordinated protest.

It's hard to put into words how insane these are. Is the TSA merely a jobs program? Are the devices just corporate welfare? Is there an actual concerted effort by the inner party (who ride in carriages--private jets) to psychologically subjugate the middle class? Are policy makers <i>actually under the impression</i> that these are good rather than evil/ridiculous/unAmerican/insane? (???) Really? I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside. No physical threats possible = no terrorism. Problem solved.<p>But of course, terrorism isn't actually a problem and never was.

I am wondering how long it is before people who like to get felt up are using this as there way to get their jollies.<p>I'm also wondering how long it before someone sues the TSA for improperly touching them (too long, suggestively, etc.) or for injuring them (moving too fast and bumping the resistance).<p>Edit: I hadn't even considered that maybe people who like to feel others up with sign up to work for the TSA

I just called my congressman and senators. If you disagree with what the TSA is doing, I suggest you do the same.

On the plus side, you can finally (kind of) make a stand against all of this security theater by opting for the pat-down:<p>I'm not the one who has to touch some else's testicles. You want screen me? Then you have to do the dirty work.

It has been nearly 12 years since I've visited the US. I was hoping to go there in 2003 but unfortunately the TSA and DHS put a stop to that. I've made a conscious decision that I do not want to go to the United States if I'm going to be treated that way. As beautiful and wonderful the country and it's people are, it boils down to a choice. Either you're happy being subject to what in anywhere else would qualify as sexual assault or taking pornographic pictures, or you don't go. I choose not to go.<p>Should all of this end I would love to go to New York, San Francisco, LA and the many other wonderful places in the USA, but until then I'm not happy to go. The only thing that would get me there would be specific unavoidable business.<p>However, I would like to thank the TSA and DHS for the opportunities I have had to visit all over Canada (another great North American country with great people) and I'm hoping to hit the Carribean and Mexico next year.<p>It's a definite loss for me that I may never return to the US, but I have to make a stand somewhere.

This isn't the kind of freedom I served my country for.<p>If this article is true, it's a highly-disturbing downfall for American civil liberties.

For kicks, a little while ago, I refused one of these machines (you can't really cause a "ruckus" too often when flying for work).<p>The guy just shrugged, gave me a quick pat down and let me through. I'd say about 30% of the people took the same option and received the same treatment. Same every time since I've that I've been through.<p>But the last time one guy made a big deal of how invasive the machine was (not rude, just loud about his refusal) and got the works (well, a rough pat down and then taken to one side). Obviously, this is a different case, he was just joking around with them. But I imagine this could easily have been a different story if one of the TSA officers couldn't handle a bit of humour (all too common, sadly).<p>Just saying.<p>These machines are a real problem for our privacy/society. But all the "horror" stories (not so much this one) we are seeing are mostly the result of people making a fuss, and getting rough treatment.<p>We should just refuse these, politely and quietly, and at such a volume all they can do is what they have done previously; give us a pat down.<p>Fortunately it looks like the UK air services are "rebelling" somewhat against "draconian security measures". It's not 100% certain what they are talking about, but I got the impression this covered resisting the spread of these machines in the UK.<p>Which makes a change :)

The dangerous thing about security theatre is that it distracts resources and personnel away from the things that would actually improve security, in the interests of PR and cosmetics based on inconveniencing the non-terrorists.<p>As the author points out, detailed background checks would be far more effective than either looking at or touching people's privates.

<i>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.</i><p>I don't think this is true. The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear, the killing is only a byproduct. The reason hijackings and bombs on planes are so effective is that many people already fear planetrips. You're caught in a tin can that intuitively should drop to the ground instead of flying through the air ten kilometers above the ground with no way of getting out. The thought of a crazy guy with a bomb in his pants just waiting to detonate it makes the experience absolutely terrifying to a lot of people. They'll think about it every time the get on a plane even though the chance of dying in a terrorist attack is close to zero.

How far out to sea does one have to be for the TSA to not have jurisdiction? Has anyone thought of an airline that ferrys passengers out to a ship off the coast and the airplanes take off from there?<p>How much does an aircraft carrier cost? It seems this would be extremely expensive, but then, airplanes themselves are extremely expensive so it kind of comes with the territory. But I wonder if we're talking orders of magnitude higher costs.<p>Not sure how crazy of an idea this is; it came to mind and I figured I'd throw it out there. :)

Now that the feds have the legal right to grope everyone's testicles and vagina without a warrant, this is a pretty good job for pedophiles and perverts to take. If you are a pedophile or pervert, where else do you have not just the legal right but the obligation to grope the sexual parts of the general public and be called a hero for doing so.

EPIC is fighting the machines in court and online.<p>They have an incident report page:<p><a href="http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/" rel="nofollow">http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/</a>

The whole thing seems highly creepy. I suspect that the advanced pat downs will eventually be removed and there will be no option but to go through the machine, because the prospect of some member of airport staff doing advanced pat downs on children has obviously dodgy implications which could attract lawsuits and some very unpleasant job applicants.<p>As the article says, a determined terrorist will get through either of these procedures anyhow.

I was hoping this was going to be an article about backlash, or a new approach to security screening.<p>Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.

I always opt-out of the back-scatter machine, and none of the TSA officers at SFO or BOS have ever seemed to think it anything out of the ordinary. The impression I've gotten is that they see the two methods (pat-down and back-scatter) as relatively interchangeable, though the former is obviously more inconvenient for them.

If you want to upset the guard and if your ego can handle it, flirt with the security. As he pats you down, a little grunt and a roll of the shoulders as if involuntary. If you can manage it, a big smile and a wink when he finishes it so that his colleagues can see.<p>Getting angry or offended will cause them to get aggressive in response, and they have procedures in place to deal with that. They almost certainly don't have a procedure in place for making them feel like they've just taken part in a little gay fondling.

Cue fond personal memories of living in South Africa in the 80s...<p>Used to be so bad you made sure to not wear jeans&#38;t-shirt if you were going to fly just so you didn't get pulled off the line by the Uzi wielding thugs and miss your flight.<p>Then they freed the great terrorist Nelson.<p>Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama.<p>Fast forward sixteen years later and guns are rarely visible in the airport, check-in is smooth as silk (though we seem to have inherited the idiocy with the water bottles from you) and the last time anything got blown up here was when I forgot an aubergine in the oven for too long.<p>They're having y'all on. The thing with tyranny is that until someone says "no thank you" it grinds on relentlessly becoming more and more expensive to stop with each passing year.

According to ABC News [1], these new "pat-downs" will not likely prevent someone like the Underwear Bomber from boarding.<p>1: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure-airports/story?id=11998304&#38;page=2" rel="nofollow">http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure-airports/story?id...</a>

* ... 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.*<p>This is a good point, but I don't completely agree with it. If terrorists can smuggle a bomb on board an airplane, they can probably smuggle tools on board that will allow them to break into the cockpit. Then (as we've seen), the plane itself can be used as a very large bomb. (Note that I am not venturing an opinion on whether backscatter imagers are a solution to this problem or whether the invasion of privacy is worth it even if they are.)

I have a prosthetic leg, so I've been getting the secondary screening (i.e. pat-downs, bomb wipes, and wanding) for years. It's invasive, but the TSA agents don't grope your genitals. They don't even touch them. In fact, they're usually shy about touching "sensitive areas" (most of the inner thigh remains unexplored), and sometimes bordering on apologetic.<p>I get that every single time I fly, and even so, I would never opt for a backscatter machine. It's far more invasive. Having been through dozens of patdowns, I feel pretty sure that someone looking at a naked picture of me is a worse option.

<i>(Not-so-farfetched) conspiracy theory alert</i><p>This has new policy hit a wall with the press and has gotten nothing by negative writeups. When it was announced, I made a statement, as did many others, that there would very soon be an "incident" that would let this cure. That appears to be happening right now with this worldwide blitz on Yemeni packages. One and done.<p>Two things here are very unfortunate:<p>1. This is one of those huge media events that take all the front page space and interrupt network programming. It's going to instil fear in some population and give merit to the security theater.<p>2. Interestingly, given that this is supposedly cargo, we're still not talking about systematically scrutinizing cargo. Even so, in a political context, I don't think anyone is going to sufficiently separate the two. Right now, the big lines are <i>Richard Reid</i> and <i>Christmas Day Bomber</i>.<p>No matter what happens now--letters to Congress, TSA abuse reports, journalistic stunts--I fully expect to get my bread buttered at the airport.<p>One more thing: there's a good post on the front page about incentives. How about a tax break for fondling or photo shoot on has to endure? Let's provide disincentives for the Fed to keep this up.

I sometimes wonder: say we removed all of security controls at the airports - how many more terrorist attacks would we actually see?

You know, I have a hard time caring much about this issue. I'm just not that attached to the privacy of my clothing. I'm no stripper/streaker, but so what if somebody sees me with my clothes off? They certainly won't be the first, or the last.<p>Hell, it's just a little extra incentive to keep myself healthy, so I look good when I go through ;)

What about trans-gender passengers? Will they bar a women with a penis from boarding her flight because she "seems to have a fake explosive penis between her legs". SFO is going to go down with this ;-)

Why not just opt out of TSA all together? Take a car, bus or train, and enjoy getting there. Or better yet for non-Americans, just don't visit the U.S.A. Problem solved.

Just donated $100 to EPIC's <a href="http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/</a> . Especially motivated by tptacek and bugsy's comments. If you find the choice between having your children sexually assaulted or digitally strip searched repugnant, I strongly urge you to donate as well. How can we even say "land of the free, home of the brave" with a straight face anymore?

This article gets my up-vote just for his joke about calling his testicles "The Resistance" ala "The Situation" on Jersey Shore. I needed a good chuckle today.

If I ever encounter a backscatter device, I'll ask for the frisk. Hey, I'm not the one who's gotta grope some stranger's junk.

This will lead to the development of the testicular explosive, which goes off once the device is manhandled.

I wonder what gandhi would have to say/do on this.

As good as this article is, the reason I'm most glad I read it is for its link to his other article (<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/1/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-thin...</a>)<p>In my experience, one of the most illogical things is the difference in security in different countries. Back when I bought a Zippo lighter for the first time I flew from London to Paris. On the way out, I packed the Zippo in my suitcase, and just kept a disposable lighter in my pocket. As they let me keep it, on the way back I kept the Zippo in my pocket and was once again allowed to keep it. The following week, a return flight to Berlin, and on the way back the Germans confiscated the Zippo. It pissed me off, naturally, but just seems stupid - the same flight, with the same two cities at each end, and different rules for what you can take on depending on which direction you're going.<p>I've also noticed that security officers in America are much more friendly than pretty much any country I've been to in Europe or Asia. I was flying from London last year with a colleague, and while he was being patted down after the scanner beeped at him, I thought to myself that we had a few hours to kill, so decided to make a slightly stupid comment... "Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?" Yeah, that cost us about an hour. Sure, they were probably right to double check after that, but for sure they were, after a short time, just delaying us to piss us off.<p>Flew out to LA a few weeks ago, and on arrival myself and three colleagues are waiting, having picked up are checked baggage, for the security screening. Three of us, a few places being our fourth in the line, look at each other and say "yeah, he's definitely going to get stopped." Sure enough, he was (he was wearing a black tshirt with a skull and crossbones on, a beanie hat, and carrying a sports holdall that looked, even to us, like it must surely contain drugs.) Being the idiot he is, when they pulled him over for a bag search he immediately said "I'm with them!" and pointed - we were immediately taken to one side, too.<p>However, the officer searching our bags was incredibly friendly. Asked about what we were doing in LA, but took in to a level beyond the "look for suspiciousness" concept, continuing a 15 minute conversation about various things from what we were doing to video games (related to our time there), what games he liked, etc. Having not found anything really problematic, he did tell me that I had twice the limit of cigarettes I was allowed to bring in to the country (I had 400 with me from the duty-free, for my two weeks out there) - just told me that he was supposed to confiscate and fine me, but would let me off. (This was pretty lucky - I had known the limit but decided to take the risk, given $3/pack duty-free or $12+/pack in NYC.) That kind of friendliness would never be shown (in my experience) by UK staff, or any other country I've visited.

For the problems discussed in this thread, we in the US and in this thread are failing to get a solution due heavily to our forgetting some crucial points.<p>In a little more detail, we already have plenty of <i>policy precedents</i> to solve this whole problem of airport security, terrorism via airplanes, and terrorism in the US and against the US and to do so without the TSA or the DHS at all.<p>In particular, there is the issue in this thread of infinite or some finite but large number number of ways a terrorist can attack us so that blocking each way after an instance of that way is unpromising, even in the long run. Well, we can get the infinite or large number down to just a few, maybe just one or zero, right away.<p>So, with this background, we can get to the <i>policy</i> we need in just two steps:<p>Step One. For a <i>policy precedent</i>, we can remember the "Bush doctrine" as in<p>September 11, 2001<p>Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation<p>8:30 P.M. EDT<p>as at<p><a href="http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010911-16.html" rel="nofollow">http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...</a><p>"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."<p>With more there is, also by President George W. Bush,<p>September 20, 2001<p>Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People<p>9:00 P.M. EDT<p>as at<p><a href="http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010920-8.html" rel="nofollow">http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...</a><p>with<p>"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."<p>Step Two. We need only to regard an act of terrorism against the US as an <i>act of war</i> against the US. We have plenty of <i>policy precedents</i> about war.<p>Then the policy we need is simple:<p>We don't defend against the attacks and, instead, retaliate against them and, thus, <i>deter</i> future attacks.<p>With appropriate retaliation, we stand to need to retaliate against at most just a few, maybe just one or zero, attacks before all this nonsense of terrorism against the US just stops, at least for some decades.<p>So, here is how we "retaliate" and, thus, deter: After each attack, we find the countries the terrorists came from, much as in "The Bush Doctrine" say that each such country committed an act of war against the US, declare war against that country, and <i>win</i> the war quickly. As soon as we discover an offending country, we make them "an offer they can't refuse": They pay horrendous reparations, e.g., that more than cover the current annual costs to the US of our present approach to airline security and of the DHS, etc. or we will level their government and most of their economic infrastructure within 24 hours, accepting <i>collateral damage</i> as a necessary part of war. And we are not joking. And, yes, "All cards are on the table.". We still have the SSBNs, ICBMs, B2s, and aircraft carriers, and no Muslim country has anything like any of these or any means at all to defend against them.<p>We don't attempt to <i>build a democracy</i> in their country, don't <i>occupy</i> their country, and, really, don't even set foot in their country.<p>We will have to destroy at most only a few sh!tpit countries.<p>All the other relevant countries will make sure that anyone in their country, citizen or visitor, who even jokes about Jihad, gets a big crowd shouting "Death to America" (sounds like a declaration of war to me), etc. will be <i>effectively re-educated</i>, jailed, or just killed, maybe with their families, villages, etc. Wackozerostan with the Taliban? Level it, nearly all of it. Now. Further problems with Pashtun and Taliban in Pukistan? Same treatment.<p>There are several pieces of good news for us here:<p>(A) This terrorism stuff is essentially ONLY Muslim Jihad nonsense. Our policy will have the effect of turning Islam back into just a peaceful religion instead of some international, take over the world, political and military effort. We won't have to have our HUMINT recording and reviewing Mullah speeches because the local government will eagerly, as in we made them "an offer they can't refuse", do that for us.<p>Just what is it about Islam actually being a "peaceful religion" the Muslim leaders won't be able to understand, e.g., after we level, really, take back to the Stone Age, Wackozerostan?<p>The story goes that recently Hamid Karzai gave to Pervez Musharraf names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of the Jihader leaders in Wackozerostan. Of course, Musharraf did nothing. So, we know what, who, and where the Jihader leaders are. So, kill'em.<p>UBL? There are stories that he is still alive and in Pukistan near the border with China and, also, the main source of funds for the Taliban military efforts. So, find UBL and kill him. "That's what the bullets are for, you twit."<p>Some Jihaders in India blew up a train. Supposedly some Hindus went to a Muslim neighborhood and devastated it and then leveled about 200 mosques. We could learn a lesson about what such people regard as "effective". Pretty? No. Strong enough? Maybe. So, for the US, one neighborhood and 200 mosques would be 201 GPS coordinates and maybe 201 cruise missiles. Easy enough, but we could do MUCH more.<p>(B) The Muslim Jihaders have only really crude means of making war, which is NOT a reason for us not to retaliate, effectively.<p>(C) There only a few countries that want to entertain Muslim Jihaders and, thus, only a few countries we will have to level or deter.<p>(D) None of the Muslim countries can defend against being leveled by the US within 24 hours.<p>(E) Our main problem is just that we are too eager to <i>be nice</i>, to mess up our own economy to <i>be nice</i>, and to be reluctant to take the retaliation we are fully able to take.<p>As of just the last few days, near the top of the list is Yemen. Level it. Good riddance.<p>It's time to put a stop to this Jihad nonsense. Quickly. Period.<p>This Jihad terrorism is just war by another means. We in the US know a LOT about war; we're the unchallenged world champions at both offensive and defensive means of war; we are fully able to defend ourselves against the Jihad variety of war also.<p>What we need to do is just a matter of defending ourselves. I'm sorry about war, but the Jihaders are making war against us; so, we need to defend ourselves.<p>"Collateral damage"? That's what the Jihaders are doing to us. Collateral damage is part of war, certainly part of theirs, and now has to be part of ours. Otherwise we are back into letting Imams and Mullahs "hijack" a religion and turn it into an international political and military effort, mess up the US economy, kill Americans, and grow the international and military power of Islam. That the Jihaders are making war against us is their fault. If we let them continue without effectively defending ourselves, then that's our fault. We should not continue to let our suffering be our fault.<p>"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."<p>It's time for the US to stop being fooled. Being so nice to them is NOT making them be nice to us. The Imams and Mullahs sending out Jihaders want POWER and are quite willing not to be nice about it.<p>War is ugly. The only good response to war is to win it, and the usual way is by killing the enemy. Sorry 'bout that, but it's better that we win than lose.<p>Net, the Imams, Mullahs, and their Jihaders will just continue on with their outrageous nonsense until they are stopped by some sufficiently effective means. Since they have been declaring and making war on us for some years, we need to stop them and to do so better now than later.<p>If none of the above <i>policy precedents</i> convinces you, then we can return to some of the content of this thread: You will have to have your daughters groped by strangers, photographed in the nude and studied by strangers, and eventually <i>cavity searched</i> by strangers and where there is no effective guarantee of any <i>clinical</i> professionalism or privacy and no effective means of defense or retribution. Yes, the groper might have just gotten HIV on their glove and then given the virus to your daughter. Are you ready to defend the US now?

one doesn't need to be a psychologist to see author's fixation on "something up the ass"

<i>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.</i><p>I really wish people would stop pointing this out. Yes, it's probably true, the TSA screening site is a soft juicy target. Yes, you're very clever for pointing it out. Now pipe down about it before you give someone some ideas.