
For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance - timf
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/
======
tptacek
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 _should_ be inconvenient. TSA agents are
going to face a torrent of complaints alleging abuse, molestation, &c. Good.
The whole program is abusive.

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 _anything_. You can't simply flip a switch
and capture high fidelity copies of a pat-down search. You can with the
machines.

Incidentally: contrary to popular opinion, security agents, law enforcement,
border control, &c all very much _do_ 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, _and_ they're counting on not dealing with a flood of
complaints. I plan on filing a complaint at the first _hint_ 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."

~~~
bdimcheff
I feel like we need a script to recite when demanding a patdown that explains
to all the people around us why the porno machines and the whole process is so
objectionable. And request to have the patdown out in the open so people can
see what you're willing to put up with to avoid going through the scanner.

~~~
mcargian
most frequent flyers (on flyertalk) have been calling it the nude-o-scope

~~~
tptacek
Why not just call it what it is? It's a strip search.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>Why not just call it what it is? It's a strip search.

Personally if they really want to see me naked they can. It's just a hunk of
meat. But you're lying, it's not a strip search unless you take off your
clothes, ie "strip".

It's a scan of your body. You're perfectly right to object if you don't like
it but it's silly to lie about it IMO.

------
geuis
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.

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'.

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.

~~~
tptacek
I'm flying with my kids in a few months; my plan is to simply record the whole
thing with my iPhone (you may see me in the news shortly thereafter).

If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take
trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job".

The pat-down is better than the machine. Even for kids. Maybe especially for
kids. If you're going to violate my kids privacy, you'd better believe I'm
going to want to be in the actual room.

~~~
dmethvin
> If my son gets upset, I plan to tell him "this is why you're going to take
> trig seriously; do bad in school and you might end up with this crappy job".

That is a horribly disrespectful thing to say in front of someone who is doing
their job. Would you say something like that to a proctologist as they stuck a
finger up your butt? I doubt the TSA people like this either, perhaps some
will even resign over it. But that person has a job and they are doing it as
they are instructed to do. That is the job they use to pay their rent and
bills, so that they won't need to go on the dole and have their bills paid by
your trig-savvy son.

Bitch about the policy all you want, and do what you think needs to be done to
change it. But don't belittle the TSA worker, they can't change anything.

~~~
tptacek
If you have the job that forces you to feel up the crotches of children in
order to encourage their parents to send them through a machine that takes
naked pictures of them without probable cause of having committed any crime,
then I suggest you quit that job.

Are plenty of hardworking people going to have their feelings and self esteem
hurt by this process? Good. Systemetized violations of our most private areas
should cause all sorts of pain.

I might feel differently if these were sworn law enforcement officers we're
talking about, for a number of reasons. I'm generally very respectful of law
enforcement. Fortunately (or not), I'm not forced to confront that conundrum,
since these aren't police officers, but low-skilled "security" contractors
whose sole purpose is to harass citizens in order to create the illusion of
control.

By the way, in the history of all-time worst rationalizations for behavior, do
we even need to talk about "that person has a job and they are doing it as
they are instructed to do"?

~~~
RyanMcGreal
>If you have the job that forces you to feel up the crotches of children in
order to encourage their parents to send them through a machine that takes
naked pictures of them without probable cause of having committed any crime,
then I suggest you quit that job.

 _Thank you for making my day._ That is all.

------
DanielBMarkham
The situation with TSA is becoming more farcical by the week.

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.

It's enough to make me seriously consider whether I want to use commercial air
travel again.

~~~
psadauskas
I would love to stand up to it, but I'd really just rather get to my vacation
place. If it didn't cost several hundred dollars for a plane ticket to get to
that point, I would just drive down to the airport and do it. I guess we could
all print fake boarding passes, though.

~~~
mixmax
They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

 _Martin Niemöller_

~~~
sliverstorm
That's a quote about discrimination. I don't see how it applies; we are all
being discriminated against equally in this case.

~~~
mixmax
It's a quote about standing up to tyranny, and the fact that if you don't
speak up when someone else is discriminated against you may be next in line.

I think it applies very well in this case.

~~~
hurfadurf
It's a quote about slippery slopes that uses discrimination as an example. As
is popular with that quote, we could adapt it into something a bit more
applicable:

They first made us run our shoes through the X-Ray machine, and I complied
because it wasn't that big a deal.

Then, they installed the full-body scanners, and I complied because I just
wanted to get home for Christmas.

Then, they started requiring social security numbers when buying plane
tickets.

Then, they began keeping all air travellers' fingerprints and retina scans on
file...

The question is not against whom they're discriminating (clearly, that's not
applicable in this case), it's to what length they (and, by extension, we) are
willing to go.

~~~
rapind
While you're slippery slope description is entirely valid on it's own. It's
not the gist of the quote.

This is about apathy towards injustices that don't directly impact you and a
lack of foresight. I.e. Wow that's so wrong, I'd raise a stink if it happened
to me.

------
philwelch
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):

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.)

2\. Upon entering security, strip completely naked.

3\. Opt for the pat down and take a dive, claiming the screener hurt your
testicles.

4\. Opt for the pat down; pretend to enjoy it.

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.

~~~
StavrosK
Jesus, guys, this is supposed to be a startup forum. Just create and sell
aluminum underwear, you'll make a killing and what are they going to do?
Outlaw underwear, or force you to take it off?

~~~
pjscott
Realistically? Once they see that the strip search machine isn't working on
you, they'll go for a pat-down. What you really need is an aluminum codpiece.
Preferably one with the phrase "What now, bitches?" engraved on it.

You'd probably be arrested out of sheer spite, but just think of all the blog
pageviews you would get later! Add enough advertising and try to create
secondary drama with some followup letters to the TSA, and you could make a
fair amount of money with just audacity and a metal codpiece.

~~~
aohtsab
> You'd probably be arrested out of sheer spite

You're probably right, and this makes me very sad. For all the supposed rights
US citizens fight to defend, both the TSA workers and air travelers are just
rolling over at the threat of being called a "terrorist".

Keeping the public terrified makes for easy prey.

~~~
lambda
What we need, then, is a dedicated civil disobedience campaign against it. If
just one person does it, it ruins their day, week, or even several months
dealing with the court battles. If 100 people do an act of civil disobedience,
it becomes a movement; it might make some more significant news, attract some
more significant attention.

If a thousand, or ten thousand people engage in civil disobedience, it starts
to put a real strain on the system. It overwhelms the TSA. The court costs
become prohibitive.

Why do we have so many people going to a rally in DC that won't really do
anything (rallys almost never do)? And most of them will likely meekly go
through security, without a fuss, on their way there. Why don't we instead
organize 10,000 people to take a flight on the same day, and all wear aluminum
jock straps and bras, or strip nude as they go through security? This would
demonstrate how ridiculous the system is; this would help overburden an
already overly expensive system to the point of breaking.

But of course, it's easy to talk tough on the internet, and a lot harder to
get people to actually do anything. We all have our jobs to do, families to
support. We have rallies for "truthiness" to go to. Or some of us don't even
know where to start; don't know how to assemble such a group, and get them to
follow through with it.

But perhaps we should put all that aside for freedom's sake, and go out, and
disobey authority in a civil manner; it's our country, and we need to take it
back.

------
mynameishere
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 _actually under
the impression_ 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.

But of course, terrorism isn't actually a problem and never was.

~~~
hugh3
_I mean, what is the simplest way to prevent another 9/11? Steel cockpit doors
and a communications shutoff between cockpit and everything outside._

Well you've still got the bomb-on-plane problem, which is what the latest
three rounds of security increases have been in response to -- there was the
shoe bomber, and then the liquid-mixture plot, and then the underpants bomber.

You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were
increasingly shitty bombs. Why were they increasingly shitty bombs? Because
they've been progressively closing loopholes. The underpants bomber might have
been successful if he were shoe bomber number two, but he wasn't, because the
bomb-in-shoe loophole has been closed.

People like to use the words "security theater" a lot because it makes them
feel clever, and yes, the TSA like any government department has its own
particular forms of insanity. But there's _actual_ security accomplished there
too. In the 1980s it was possible to sneak a 747-destroying bomb into a plane
in a suitcase... now they're reduced to sticking dynamite up their butts.

Also, communications shutoff between the cockpit and outside is crazy. What
happens when there's a medical emergency onboard? Let 'em die because the
pilots aren't allowed to know about anything that happens in the passenger
cabin?

~~~
bhickey
> You'll note that none of these plots worked. Why? Because they were
> increasingly shitty bombs.

At the risk of the FBI stashing a tracking beacon in my car (ha! I don't even
have a car!) I'm going to take your bait.

Richard Reid's bomb didn't fail because he had to hide it in his shoe, rather
than doing the ol' Ramzi Yousef "hide it in the life jacket routine." Umar
Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't fail because he had explosives shoved down his
shorts.

They failed because they were untrained. These guys displayed a Carlos the
Jackal level of buffoonery in their conduct. The July 21nd attackers didn't
fail because of the crack police work that went on to murder Jean Charles de
Menezes. They failed because they were too stupid to build bombs. (Who would
want to target Hackney anyway? It's just a bunch of tyre shops and fish &
chips.)

For the most part, people who want to do us harm aren't particularly smart.
Bright people tend to have more opportunities in life and are less to see that
all go up in a puff of smoke. Of the 9/11 hijackers, only one had a
girlfriend. Atta was a trained architect, but for the most part they were a
bunch of college dropouts. We aren't faced with some "evil people somewhere
insidiously committing evil deeds," we're faced with a bunch of bumbling fools
with nothing better to do than kill themselves.

Look at the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack. They had a deadly neurotoxin that they
saw fit to unleash with pointy umbrellas and newspaper rolls. Good job team,
way to unleash your crazy new age apocalypse.

It isn't a matter of loopholes getting closed. Attackers are simply dumb.
Really dumb.

~~~
sensemaker
At least there are enough security against dumb attackers.

~~~
bhickey
No.

Did you notice the part where some idiot smuggled plastic explosives on board
a plane in his underwear? Security failed in this situation.

------
jdvolz
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.

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).

Edit: I hadn't even considered that maybe people who like to feel others up
with sign up to work for the TSA

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

~~~
swolchok
Senators are Congressmen. Did you mean your representatives?

~~~
ckinnan
Actually, by convention, Congressman or Congresswoman refers to the
Representatives only.

~~~
swolchok
Congressman, n. A man who is a member of the U.S. Congress, especially of the
House of Representatives.

<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/congressman>

------
hvs
On the plus side, you can finally (kind of) make a stand against all of this
security theater by opting for the pat-down:

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.

------
iuguy
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.

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.

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.

It's a definite loss for me that I may never return to the US, but I have to
make a stand somewhere.

~~~
TamDenholm
I pretty much feel the same as you, I would like to go to America but to me
it's just not worth going through an American airport. The alternative ive
come up with is to fly to Canada or Mexico and then drive into America where
(as far as I know) there aren't these scanners.

------
runjake
This isn't the kind of freedom I served my country for.

If this article is true, it's a highly-disturbing downfall for American civil
liberties.

------
ErrantX
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).

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.

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).

Just saying.

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.

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.

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.

Which makes a change :)

~~~
tptacek
I said the same thing a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the story you're
commenting on provides context that invalidates that point: the TSA has
stepped up the intrusiveness of the "opt-out" pat-downs. According to Jeffrey
Goldberg, who is _probably_ not making this up, they are deliberately touching
people's crotches in an effort to discourage people from taking the pat-down.

~~~
Silhouette
Fortunately, this sort of thing tends to attract the wrong kind of attention
after a while. When enough people find your behaviour offensive enough, they
will stop using your service. That will hit your bottom line, and that will
make it bad for business.

Maybe most people will tolerate this kind of abuse even if they don't like it,
but even running 90% full planes instead of 100% is a serious dent in your
profits in this sort of industry. Sadly, I suspect the comments by the various
air industry executives in the UK over the past week or so are motivated more
by falling profits than any ethical problem with these devices, but if the end
result is the same in practice, I welcome their opposition anyway.

Also, as someone pointed out on (I think) the BBC News story about those
comments, it is not exactly in the airlines' interests to have their planes
blown up. If we assume that the executives at such businesses are at least
reasonably aware of the real effectiveness of these security measures, the
fact that they are still now openly saying things have gone too far is quite
telling.

------
jedwhite
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.

As the author points out, detailed background checks would be far more
effective than either looking at or touching people's privates.

~~~
io
But would it be less of an invasion of our privacy?

~~~
jedwhite
Yes. Simple background checks based on public records and customer history /
credit checks are things that we already accept every time we deal with any
financial institution or government agency. A programmatic check would exclude
the vast majority of travellers as potential terrorists. And manual inspection
by a junior intelligence analyst most of the rest, leaving senior analysts to
evaluate more serious threat cases.

That would be far less intrusive and far less invasive a procedure than
violating the physical privacy of very many and in some cases every traveller,
which is where this is already heading at several major airports.

~~~
darklajid
Hmm.. You mean like "Your dad is from Egypt, let's put a gps sender on your
car and treat you 'special' at the airport from now on, since our background
check thinks you're part of the target group"?

Seriously, how would a background check work? What are you looking for? Ethnic
background obviously would be the biggest failure (although still done, see
above). Credit history? Police records (international? Good luck with that)?

Either you disclose what you are looking at and "the bad guys" can trick your
check. Or you don't and you're back on the security by obscurity road, doing
"arbitrary" (to the public) things, annoying probably just as much.

I think this idea is just as flawed as the current procedure. And I surely
hope no one is starting something like that, since this whole security BS
seems like a race of arms to me lately..

~~~
jedwhite
You need to take an exclusion approach. Most passengers on US air flights have
clearly established records. If you can take the majority of people out of the
current overkill security theatre, that means they can go through standard-
level security queues quickly (note no one is proposing dropping security
here). I dread standing in the densely packed security lines at DIA. A single
suicide bomber could kill several hundred people on a busy day there without
ever passing a security checkpoint (as the author points out this is now the
bigger risk). If you can reduce the number of people who need to remove shoes,
liquids and have back-scatter and pat-downs to a small minority, then everyone
will be safer. I'm a libertarian (in the Jefferson sense). But I agree to
reasonable security checks voluntarily by choosing to fly. But invasion of
privacy has gone too far when someone makes me walk through a Dick Measuring
Machine or is "meeting resistance" for the sake of public relations theatre.

------
mixmax
_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 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.

~~~
jamii
The IRA managed to cause plenty of fear by bombing shops and train stations.
From Wikipedia:

The Troubles' impact on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland produced such
psychological trauma that the city of Belfast had been compared to London
during the Blitz. [104] The stress resulting from bomb attacks, street
disturbances, security checkpoints, and the constant military presence had the
strongest effect on children and young adults. [105] In addition to the
violence and intimidation, there was chronic unemployment and a severe housing
shortage. Vandalism was also a major problem. In the 1970s there were 10,000
vandalised empty houses in Belfast alone. Most of the vandals were aged
between eight and thirteen. [106] Activities for young people were limited,
with pubs fortified and cinemas closed. Just to go shopping in the city centre
required passing through security gates and being subjected to body searches.

------
meelash
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?

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.

Not sure how crazy of an idea this is; it came to mind and I figured I'd throw
it out there. :)

~~~
Aqua_Geek
I think the length of runway required to get a 747 off the ground would make
this prohibitive (as if the cost of an aircraft carrier didn't already).
_Nimitz_ class carriers are just over 1,000 ft in length. A quick Google
search reveals that a 747 needs about 6x that for safe takeoff/landing.

~~~
meelash
Yeah, turns out the cost is also more than an order of magnitude- an aircraft
carrier is somewhere in the high single digit billions of dollars, where as
your jumbo jet is in the hundreds of millions....

------
bugsy
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.

~~~
corin_
Not many people calling them heros here...

------
ckinnan
EPIC is fighting the machines in court and online.

They have an incident report page:

<http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/>

~~~
miles
Check out their "Stop Whole Body Imaging" page as well:

<http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/>

------
motters
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.

As the article says, a determined terrorist will get through either of these
procedures anyhow.

------
bittermang
I was hoping this was going to be an article about backlash, or a new approach
to security screening.

Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.

~~~
epochwolf
> Instead, Resistance was literally a euphemism for the author's penis.

I was under the impression it was his testicles.

From the article: 'That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the
actual name I've given to my testicles."

------
drags
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.

~~~
tptacek
They already have to do the pat-down for anyone who trips up the machines (or
who can't, for instance because of implants or a wheelchair).

------
nagrom
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.

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.

------
whichdokta
Cue fond personal memories of living in South Africa in the 80s...

Used to be so bad you made sure to not wear jeans&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.

Then they freed the great terrorist Nelson.

Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as
you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama.

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.

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.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Yeah, that's right... Here in .za we felt exactly the same way about him as
> you yanks do about the great terrorist Osama.

"We" being who, exactly?

~~~
whichdokta
Us middle class white folk who didn't understand what all the fuss was really
about till years later.

~~~
ceejayoz
So... the folks who benefited from apartheid don't much like Nelson Mandela?
That's /shocking/.

------
Mithrandir
According to ABC News [1], these new "pat-downs" will not likely prevent
someone like the Underwear Bomber from boarding.

1: [http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure-
airports/story?id...](http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tsa-pat-procedure-
airports/story?id=11998304&page=2)

------
curtis
* ... 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.*

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.)

~~~
tptacek
In the history of air travel has anybody ever breached a secured airplane
cockpit (of any sort?).

To the extent that we're concerned about the security of cockpits, maybe our
efforts are best directed towards better cockpit doors instead of strip-search
machines.

~~~
Cushman
United Airlines Flight 93.

~~~
tptacek
The cockpit doors on UA93 were not reinforced.

~~~
Cushman
I'm assuming "in the history of air travel" means "ever" not "since we started
reinforcing them."

------
karzeem
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.

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.

~~~
cjbprime
The point of the linked article is that this is changing, and the TSA agents
are now instructed to grope your genitals.

------
ibejoeb
_(Not-so-farfetched) conspiracy theory alert_

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.

Two things here are very unfortunate:

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.

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 _Richard Reid_ and _Christmas Day Bomber_.

No matter what happens now--letters to Congress, TSA abuse reports,
journalistic stunts--I fully expect to get my bread buttered at the airport.

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.

~~~
tptacek
That is a far-fetched conspiracy, especially compared to the direct, obvious,
immediate tactical simplicity of "send crazy shit to the US to make them
overreact at great cost to themselves" for terrorist groups.

~~~
ibejoeb
Really? You don't think governments pull PR stunts too?

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

------
sliverstorm
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.

Hell, it's just a little extra incentive to keep myself healthy, so I look
good when I go through ;)

~~~
watchandwait
You are missing the point. This debate is about freedom and dignity, and not
having to cow naked before government agents to simply take a domestic flight.

With these machines, America is less free.

------
danielnicollet
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 ;-)

------
dholowiski
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.

~~~
gonzopancho
I live in Hawaii.

~~~
dholowiski
Hm. Google maps suggests you take up kayaking.

------
miles
Just donated $100 to EPIC's <http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/> .
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?

~~~
SapphireSun
I am totally against this increase in security because it's unnecessary and
gives a security agency the idea that it has undue power over the people.
However, I honestly don't understand why so many people are so pissed off at
getting touched or seen. I feel like I'm comfortable with my sexuality and the
nature of the invasiveness is a nonissue, it's merely the fact that it's
escalated _again_.

------
stevenp
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.

------
ax0n
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.

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

------
random42
I wonder what gandhi would have to say/do on this.

~~~
ceejayoz
I suspect he'd just walk.

------
corin_
As good as this article is, the reason I'm most glad I read it is for its link
to his other article
([http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-
thin...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-
carried/7057/1/))

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.

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.

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.

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.

~~~
nagrom
One anecdote to counter yours: when I came into Glasgow about 6 years ago, I
had a few bottles of vodka with me - you're only allowed one. I asked a member
of staff about it and he just said don't do it again, and waved me through.

On the other hand, the only place that I've had trouble with my passport (it
was kid of dog-eared at the end of its life) was also Glasgow. It depends
which security officer you get.

~~~
corin_
<Insert typical English joke about Scottish people and alcohol>

~~~
nagrom
You know, if you're going to play on stereotypes, you could actually amuse us
with a real joke.

~~~
corin_
Something about deep-frying perhaps? (Sorry)

------
HilbertSpace
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.

In a little more detail, we already have plenty of _policy precedents_ 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.

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.

So, with this background, we can get to the _policy_ we need in just two
steps:

Step One. For a _policy precedent_ , we can remember the "Bush doctrine" as in

September 11, 2001

Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation

8:30 P.M. EDT

as at

[http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...](http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010911-16.html)

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts
and those who harbor them."

With more there is, also by President George W. Bush,

September 20, 2001

Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People

9:00 P.M. EDT

as at

[http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...](http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010920-8.html)

with

"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."

Step Two. We need only to regard an act of terrorism against the US as an _act
of war_ against the US. We have plenty of _policy precedents_ about war.

Then the policy we need is simple:

We don't defend against the attacks and, instead, retaliate against them and,
thus, _deter_ future attacks.

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.

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 _win_ 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 _collateral damage_ 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.

We don't attempt to _build a democracy_ in their country, don't _occupy_ their
country, and, really, don't even set foot in their country.

We will have to destroy at most only a few sh!tpit countries.

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
_effectively re-educated_ , 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.

There are several pieces of good news for us here:

(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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

(B) The Muslim Jihaders have only really crude means of making war, which is
NOT a reason for us not to retaliate, effectively.

(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.

(D) None of the Muslim countries can defend against being leveled by the US
within 24 hours.

(E) Our main problem is just that we are too eager to _be nice_ , to mess up
our own economy to _be nice_ , and to be reluctant to take the retaliation we
are fully able to take.

As of just the last few days, near the top of the list is Yemen. Level it.
Good riddance.

It's time to put a stop to this Jihad nonsense. Quickly. Period.

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.

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.

"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.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

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.

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.

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.

If none of the above _policy precedents_ 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 _cavity searched_ by strangers and where there is no effective
guarantee of any _clinical_ 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?

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

~~~
philwelch
He seemed a little more interested in something up the vagina, if that makes
you feel any better.

------
hugh3
_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 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.

~~~
orangecat
But that's the point, it's not clever. It's blindingly obvious, virtually
impossible to stop, and it hasn't happened. So terrorists are either
incredibly stupid or extremely rare. Either case suggests that we are spending
way too much in both money and freedom defending against the alleged threat.

~~~
shasta
I guess we'll have to start screening people before they get in the line,
then.

