
TSA Agent about to scan pilot's daughter: "Heads up, got a cutie for you." - jarin
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1147497-tso-saying-heads-up-got-cutie-you.html
======
eli
I'm not sure this anonymous anecdote advances the debate about airport
security in any meaningful way.

~~~
protomyth
Anonymous anecdotes and writings have a long history of relevance in US.

<http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/>

~~~
natrius
The Federalist Papers were not anecdotes. They were philosophy. Anecdotes must
be true to be of any consequence, so the identity of the author helps to
verify the anecdote. Philosophy just has to be correct, which makes the
identity of the writer unimportant.

~~~
protomyth
Journalism has a long history of using anonymous sources so knowing the source
is not a necessary item. In a lot of ways, I don't see as much distinction as
you do between anecdotes and philosophy particularly with the writings of
people who were talking about governing people.

------
sliverstorm
Wait... why are we having people do this anyway? Backscatter scans would be
perfect if it wasn't for the privacy problem, so why aren't we using image
processing software to look for objectionable objects etc instead of people?

~~~
callahad
> _Backscatter scans would be perfect if it wasn't for the privacy problem_

What about the safety problem? A few academics at UCSF drafted an open letter
regarding the safety backscatter scanners, available at
<http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf>

Reading it firmly shifted my objection from one based on privacy to one based
on safety. Therac-25 wasn't _that_ long ago, after all. And, of course, let's
not forget shoe fitting fluoroscopes.

------
marze
Even if this anonymous post is completely fictional, I am certain this exact
scenario plays out every single day at various US airports. Why would it not?

A simple improvement would be to have separate scanning machines for males and
females with a same sex screener.

Also, a collection of x-ray scanner pictures of passengers of all ages and
genders should be posted by the security line so everyone in line can make up
their own mind if they want to be scanned or would prefer to opt out for
manual screening.

~~~
hyperbovine
What if you are gay?

All the hoopla about "same-sex screeners" is so 1950s. The real solution is to
dispense with screening procedures which are so invasive that sexualization
becomes an issue.

~~~
natrius
The other solution is to lose the irrational fear of others seeing one's body.
It would make me uncomfortable too, but that doesn't mean it's rational. The
backscatter machines seem like less of an inconvenience than taking off your
shoes and putting them back on every time you walk into an airport. If they
actually do make things safer and don't cause any health issues, I don't see a
problem with them.

~~~
hyperbovine
No, you are missing the point. I have absolutely no problem with nudity.
Really: I go to hot springs and cavort naked with random strangers all the
time.

There is a much more profound philosophical issue here, and that is that the
government should not have the freedom to conduct invasive searches with
impunity. This is fundamentally engrained in the constitution, but as is its
wont, technology has raced past our existing legal framework. We need to
fundamentally re-examine the sort of society in which we wish to live in an
age where almost any conceivable sort of search is made trivial.

Where does it end? I contend that, if we simply acquiesce to these scanners
and allow them to be installed in every airport, that will be but the tip of
the iceberg. You will wake up some day in the near future and find these
installed in every courthouse, train station, bus terminal, Federal building
in the land. From there it's but a short leap to see them popping up at retail
establishments, sporting events, movie theaters, and every other facet of your
day-to-day life. Just like that, a privacy which nobody even thought to care
about--the ability to conceal things on your person--has vanished into thin
air.

Where does it end? By your very logic, if the government had a machine that
could read minds, you would be for it. Yet something tells me you would find
that completely abhorrent.

Where does it end?

~~~
natrius
Comparing the costs of allowing the government to see me naked and the
supposed benefit of allowing the government to see everyone naked before
getting on a plane, I think the benefits come out on top. The mind-reading
scenario doesn't fare as well. I'd rather let planes occasionally get blown up
than require the government to read everyone's mind before getting on planes.
However, if the government seeing everyone naked can save a lot of lives, I
think it's worth it.

The potential damage from unauthorized weapons or explosives being brought
into a courthouse, bus terminal or federal building isn't very high and might
not be worth the cost of reduced privacy. Train stations, perhaps, depending
on the capacity of the trains and how many people one terrorist could take
out. Retail establishments have competition, so even if they thought it would
be a good idea (which I'd disagree with), they'd go out of business.

Where does it end? When the costs no longer justify the benefits.

~~~
saurik
If you do the math out, starting from the FDA's own numbers (1/80,000,000
likelihood of deadly cancer per screening) and working it out for the
800,000,000 person-flights taken every year, the "lives saved" benefit doesn't
seem to exist, and this is even /before/ I bring up that even if cancer
doesn't kill you, it can still be devastating, costing large sums of money an
years of your life to only half recover from.

Seriously: hardly anyone is killed by terrorism in this country, and it isn't
because of backscatter x-ray machines (obviously, as they didn't exist
before). All of the plots that the TSA talks about as success stories were
handled by intelligence before they even got to the airport, and most cases of
airline-related terrorism in the last 35 years really come down to "reinforced
cockpit doors", which we now have.

However, I want to directly address the nudity question, as a lot of people
try to separate these concerns: even if there are no health issues, and even
though people like you and me may be comfortable in this situation, some
people have serious issues from having been violated in the past.

I have never been raped (and I doubt I ever will be: I'm giant, male, and
reasonably unattractive), but I can still /try/ to empathize with the idea
that some people are going to have been through situations where they had
their freedoms and sexual independence stripped away from them by a stranger.
The thought of going through that again makes many people freeze up (as
opposed to scream), possibly putting them in a situation where they "let" the
TSA screeners (who don't wait for an explicit "yes" and often don't even
explain what is about to happen) push them to the point of having horrible
flashbacks of what happened to them.

I'm going to go farther though: a world where people even can exist in the set
"rape victims" (or "terrorist") is a world in which not everyone has pure
intentions, and that has to be taken into consideration when analyzing whether
we should allow "the government", and by which we all really mean "people who
got a job as a TSA screener", to see other people naked. We have to ask the
question: what if the screeners don't share the same enlightened view of naked
bodies that you and I do?

That someone may be getting off on the idea of screening my (currently very
young, but soon only somewhat young) half-niece (half-sister's daughter)
because he either gets to a) see her naked (the scans are not limited to same-
sex scanners) or b) do an enhanced pat down on her (while they claim same-sex
pat downs, the screeners often seem to try to goad travelers into the
uncomfortable situation of either thinking they will miss their flight or
accept a mismatched screener) sickens me.

(I will point out here that it isn't like "just take the naked picture" is
even an option, so it is kind of a strawman argument to begin with: if you are
selected for more screening or the AIT "can't get a clear picture" it becomes
"enhanced patdown" time, which we have to consider in this situation. When
people could easily and issue-lessly opt-out of AIT I was a lot less bothered
by the whole thing. It still bothered me due to the risk/reward tradeoff not
working out, but the idea that these TSA screeners are now in a situation to
do rather invasive "patdown" of people changes the game entirely.)

Once you accept that some people don't share your belief, the incentives are
simply broken: if you are the kind of person who gets off in this situation,
this is the job you will apply for. As you aren't a terrorist or an obvious
"criminal", you will easily clear the background check. Once in this sort of
job, manipulating the system so more attractive people, younger people, or
maybe people wearing interesting clothing (a skirt you will be able to stick
your hands up or someone obviously not wearing a full complement of
underwear)--whatever floats their particular boat--is something you can easily
make happen.

Remember: there are no statistics kept, no records written, and all decisions
seem to be up to the screener in question. We /do not/ allow this sort of
unwatched behavior among police officers (a profession that involves a lot
more hurdles to enter and has much more risk when you get there): for decades
we have required this kind of oversight among their ranks to make certain that
they weren't abusing their position of power.

While it makes life really simple to think of governments and companies as
large entities that have simple goals and beliefs, the reality of the
situation is that we live in a world full of all kinds of people, and some
people simply suck. We really need to be careful as we set up the rules of the
world in which we live to not /encourage/ these people to suck more, to suck
harder, and to suck in ways that get in our way.

Note: I'm not saying everyone sucks, and I'm not saying /most/ people suck,
but only that there exist people who do, in fact, suck, and they are going to
be the people who are willing to take a seemingly sad/painful job with a low
salary whose only perk seems to be getting to have a form of sexual control
over an unwilling constituency.

And, before you even go there, we cannot just filter these people well: we've
already found a TSA agent who was apparently so bad he is now a convicted
child molester). That guy didn't just suck, he was /stupid/: most people
taking advantage of this system will stick to what they can get away with
inside of the bureaucracy rather than also messing with children at home.

Maybe you still don't care... maybe you think I and anyone in this discussion
are still just being uptight: that we should not care that the screener is
enjoying it, that we are turning someone else's flaw into our own issue. To
that I say: these broken incentives also undermine the benefit. Even if you
believe a system is capable of working, if that very system is wasting time
getting off it is not protecting the people. Again, /you/ may be enlightened,
but it is equally important that the other people in the situation are. These
people are now easy targets for terrorists: find one of them, and then use a
confident ugly person (maybe me) to smuggle what you need into the airport.

Think about it... even if only one out of a hundred people in the TSA suck, or
one in a thousand, maybe just a handful that suck really bad, that is a
serious issue: to our freedoms, and even our safety. It isn't the government
seeing us (all of us: you, your spouse, and your children) naked, it is "Craig
the TSA screener", and it will still just be Craig when he tells you to
prepare for your family to prepare for their "enhanced putdowns".

(This was all seriously typed on my iPhone in a coffee shop, and was partially
motivated by a question to the OperationGrabAss subreddit regarding "how to
respond to someone who thinks nudity should be ok", which is why I went into
the number of argument levels that I did).

~~~
saurik
Woah, multiple typos in the last line. :( (I wish HN worked better on an
iPhone: the text box is tiny and small. I am going to be writing future
comments in Notes and then copy/pasting them over.)

...when he tells your family to prepare for their "enhanced patdowns".

------
krackpot
Also relevant: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCHSGvNwRY>

~~~
burgerbrain
[from the video] "come up with some sort of game with the child"

Isn't that what most child molesters do?

------
chopsueyar
Did anyone else read further into the thread where a fellow has been
monitoring the TSA agents using a yeasu vx6r HT and recording the
conversations with a digital audio recorder?

He would then burn the inappropriate conversations to CD and send them to the
TSA's office.

Live streaming online would be great.

------
xpaulbettsx
I think the thing that bothers me the most about this situation is not the
backscatter machine, but the punitive "enhanced pat-down". There has to be
more reasonable ways to both ensure flight safety, without resorting to
touching genitals.

~~~
hyperbovine
> There has to be more reasonable ways to both ensure flight safety, without
> resorting to touching genitals.

Maybe there are not. If the plot were executed correctly, the crotch bomber
would have blown up the plane, and it doesn't sound like anything in the X-ray
/ metal detector system was set up to handle that.

The point is, there is no such thing as "ensuring" flight safety. Along with
the benefit of _increased_ flight safety, to each added screening procedure is
associated a cost of loss of personal freedom and privacy. The traditional
debate has vastly overstated the former, and completely ignored the latter.

People who are up in arms about the groping are calling for a fairer
accounting. Terrorism is a very concentrated, visual form of evil, so the knee
jerk reaction is that it must be stopped at all costs. Loss of freedom is, by
contrast, diffuse and widespread, and people are less apt to become emotional
over it. It's inherently difficult to balance the two, and yet it must be
done.

------
amichail
Why can't they use better tech to make the images less objectionable without
compromising security?

~~~
hyperbovine
There are many objections; the nature of the images is only one. These
procedures are also objectionable philosophically, medically, and ethically.
Better tech isn't going to solve any of those problems.

