As long as they've got guys randomly swabbing old folks' palms to test for bomb-making materials, and all of the other ridiculous trespasses on personal dignity that comprise their much maligned "security theatre," I won't be flying. Amtrak may have a few threatening "see it, say it" signs at the station, but at least they treat me like a customer and not a maniac.
Due to the broad description of the organization's purpose, it gives them overreaching powers allowing them to secure any mode of transportation. This has led to the TSA expanding its presence and showing up at NFL games:
Edit: For those commenting about NFL game presence without reading the linked article...
> Few people know that $105 million of their taxpayer dollars are going to fund
> 37 VIPR teams in 2012, whose purpose is to "augment" the security of any mode
> of transportation. They don't realize that these VIPR teams can show up
> virtually anytime, anywhere and without warning, subjecting you to a search
> of your vehicle or person.
I love it. I encourage their presence at NFL games. I hope they give football fans a full body cavity search. Let Joe Sixpack endure their absurdity and maybe we'll actually see progress toward ending the TSA.
I've been more violated entering NFL games than going through airport security, on average.
The problem is that the American people want to do anything about terrorists, crime or "for the children" at the expense of our civil liberties. It's entirely irrational. TSA at NFL games will not even remotely begin to change that.
There was a bit of an uproar about the increased security measures at NFL stadiums some years ago but it died down and things went on as usual.
Among other things, several prosecutions of accused terrorists arrested before they could blow stuff up. In almost all of these, the actual instigators were government agents working undercover, and the alleged "terrorists" who were actually put on trial were low-level accomplices who got lured (sometimes even bullied) into participating in the plot.
Intermittent reports of thwarted terrorists plots (Richard Reed shoe-bombing type stuff), plus the fact that we're still at war in Afghanistan, in a standoff with Iran, occupying Iraq, and still hounding Al Qaeda everywhere we can.
Fox News, largely. You know how you see all sorts of ridiculous inaccuracies and jokes at Fox News's expense on the Internet? That's the most-watched news source in the United States.
It can't be blamed on Fox News any longer. They're still cheerleaders for the "War on Terror", but these wars now belong to the current president. Do you see other news outlets questioning the current president's military occupations, drone attacks, etc?
I don't know if I would blame it on Fox. They practically function as the media arm of the Republicans, and it's not just Republicans pushing the buttons for fear of terrorism.
There's also full TSA security at rallies for presidential/VP candidates. Clearly the problem isn't solvable by treating people worse until they won't bear it- the parties' core bases seem to have no problem with being cleared by TSA just to see a speech.
This won't do anything. Give the VIP box seats and season passholders the run-through, search them at orchestral events & the opera, maybe we'll see something. Maybe.
Just because they say they want to monitor Amtrak doesn't mean they can afford to. There are too many stations and the mode of travel itself doesn't lend itself well to surveillance (you board and leave as you please). I'm not saying they couldn't, but it would be a massive undertaking. At best, they could lock down major stations like DC's Union or New York's Penn, and it would all be a joke anyway because a "threat" could've boarded at Wilmington or Ticonderoga.
Also, there is the whole "the entry/exit points are irrelevant given that the damn thing rolls over hundreds of miles of completely unsecured track outside often without so much as a fence around it.
FWIW, I've been on an interstate Amtrak train and watched plain clothed officers or agents of something or other, board at a stop and randomly search bags.
Admittedly I don't know a lot about the NFL, but I was fairly sure it was a sports league. Can you explain to me how it has become a mode of transportation?
I was treated poorly by them a few years back. They demanded a current ID, which I didn't have. The whole reason I was taking the train was because my drivers license had expired and I was waiting for the new one.
You didn't use to have to produce ID to travel inside your own country, shame it's come to this.
I think it's called a ticket because having the ticket is what lets you travel. Stealing tickets is illegal because if you have the ticket, you can travel. If you have to be the person who bought the ticket in order to travel, you don't need a ticket, because you can prove that you're the person who bought it.
Several of the Amtrak stations I have been at have super-creepy "propaganda stations". Basically a TV on a big metal pedestal, sometimes flanked by some potted plants for some reason, that just loop videos about how good their bomb-dogs are at chasing people carrying bombs through train stations, and about how they are all super pleased to be serving the public in such an important manner.
"I won't be flying. Amtrak may have a few threatening "see it, say it" signs at the station, but at least they treat me like a customer and not a maniac."
Uh, huh. Just wait. TSA stands for Transportation Security Administration. Transportation...
Or rather, after reading the article, some naked-image scanners to be removed, and then promptly replaced with others from a different company. No big news here, as far as I can tell.
They're getting rid of the machines that expose people (especially TSA workers) to ionizing radiation. That's news, although the headline is misleading.
Well the TSA workers still have to worry about their baggage x-ray scanners. There have been scattered reports of them malfunctioning in the past and potentially exposing employees to radiation.
The replacement scanners are not backscatter radiation units and they display an icon of a person with a little dot that lights up to highlight where the little icon man has an anomaly.
The generic government response to criticism of these scanners has been that they aren't stored, but (as far as I know) the only agency that has out-and-out said they aren't storing them is the TSA. In this case (the article), the U.S. Marshals Service was storing the images at a courthouse security checkpoint.
1. Did the U.S. Marshals Service claim that they weren't storing the images prior to this discovery?
2. Do you know of any examples of the TSA storing the images (in opposition to what they have claimed they do)?
Why exactly do you feel you have to make lame excuses for the government? We live in the information age and information now is the ultimate power. The high level politicians and bureaucrats are clearly maniacs when it comes to power. IMHO there is no doubt that all information that can potentially be used in a power struggle, such as Rapiscan scans, is not destroyed, but stored by some government agency. Those scans can be used to reliably identify tents of millions of people.
>Why exactly do you feel you have to make lame excuses for the government?
Why do you feel the need to base your entire argument on a slippery slope fallacy? Either they are, and proof is required, or they're not.
The fact that we're talking about the government does not reverse the burden of proof!
>Those scans can be used to reliably identify tents of millions of people.
Have you seen the image output from a backscatter machine? While invasive (ostensibly because they include the genitals), they don't show very good detail. Somehow I efficacy of backscatter machines being used for mass identification purposes and the existence of such a program.
I'm not making lame excuses for the government. At no point did I say that it was ok for them to store the images. My point was that this statement:
They told us they wouldn't store the images on the
previous scanners, but it turns out they were.
was disingenuous. Saying that 'they lied about storing the images' has no basis in truth here (at least without presenting other evidence that I'm unaware of).
I don't know about you, but I don't think that there's any reason to make misleading statements in order to present the case that these images shouldn't be stored.
The point is that making misleading comments (or outright lying) is only going to hurt your cause. People will ignore the message (no matter how right it may be) and attack your methods.
They may do a better job of protecting travelers' privacy than the backscatter units, but they still strike me as being on the wrong side of the same line.
Article doesn't say it, but the Rapiscan scanners are x-ray backscatter based, about which there are significant health concerns. The L-3 (ProVision) scanners are millimeter wave based.
Actually, the article does say it---just above the heading for "Privacy concerns".
It also says, near the end, that of the new contracts, two are with companies that use millimeter-wave, and one is with a company that uses backscatter.
So the privacy thing probably isn't just a cover story, or at least not for the X-ray issue.
I'm not sure if you're trolling? The machines are being removed precisely due to concerns over safety and effectiveness.
Efficiency is the number one reason they are being removed, as stated by the TSA. The backscatter machines produce an R-rated image of the person being scanned. This requires secondary personnel to view the image in a separate area and then communicate back to the primary personnel at the checkpoint. TSA asked Rapidscan to write software which could render a non-R-rated image which could be displayed and interpreted at the checkpoint, but Rapidscan could not or would not.
If you have studied HCI, the simplicity and efficiency of the interface is highly correlated with the ability of the user to complete a designated task. Making the checkpoint more efficient increases TSA personnel's ability to accomplish their objectives.
The UI of the ProVision is specifically designed for 'non-experts' -- it shows a simple stick figure and a bright colored box for any area of the body that triggers an alert. What could be easier to interpret? You can even look at your own results as you walk through.
Whether or not you're a fan of TSA, whether you believe the increased efficiency is simply a face-saving excuse to get the "naked body scanners" out of there, the TSA's rightfully concluded the ProVision (RF, non-ionizing) scanners are a superior product, and everyone should be happier to get to walk through them rather than the X-ray based machines.
Personally I'd be happier not having to queue and walk through any fixed scanner... and they are working on airport designs which will make that a reality.
Maybe, but it's a very plausible one. The mock-ups they had released for how the new scanner displays would work were pure science fiction from a technical standpoint.
The machines served their purpose: they were purchased. Doesn't matter if they get used. It's now time to move onto the next security item that can be purchased for millions of dollars.
The quantum potential of infinite possibilities...
"OSI Systems is “pleased to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement with the TSA” that will involve moving the machines to other government agencies, Chief Executive Officer Deepak Chopra said in a statement. "
> Note that Deepak Chopra, the CEO of OSI Systems (the scanner manufacturer in the article), is not the same person as Deepak Chopra, the alternative medicine doctor.
Note that Deepak Chopra, the CEO of OSI Systems (the scanner manufacturer in the article), is not the same person as Deepak Chopra, the alternative medicine doctor.
please don't help perpetuate the phrase "alternative medicine", if it was effective, it would just be called "medicine". A better description would be "Deepak Chopra, the charlatan"
I have no idea who this guy is, but often "alternative medicine" is very effective. In poorer countries it's often performed by smart professionals, who are using experience accumulated over centuries or even millennia - what plants help what conditions, etc.
Professions who help people just by listening. It has been shown that most of the positive benefit people experience from many of these therapies is just the fact of having someone that cares (or at least appears to) listen to your problems for an hour and provide support.
Evidence based medicine is simply "medicine", no matter who performs it, whether it's a witch doctor, a MD or herbalist. There's no need for other terms.
What I don't get is the 1973 court decision allowing these searches:
"In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft [...] [an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.” " (source: http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-...)
So our forefathers obviously intended "reasonable searches" to include strip-searching the entire population of travelers to ensure they are not bearing arms. Riiight. According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_... ), in colonial America the government regularly searched houses and seized property without warrants (general searches) to enforce taxes. There was a legal battle over this, AND
--->>> John Adams viewed it as the spark in which originated the American Revolution.
Seriously, how in the world can we be so ignorant as to ignore our history and try to enforce constitutional amendments without sensible historical context.
Lawyer here. The administrative search exception to the fourth amendment means that an administrative agency can search to enforce an administrative regulation without a warrant. The most common example of this that everyone would understand is a county health department inspecting a restaurant licensed to sell food to the public.
In other words, because a restaurant has submitted to the licensing scheme of a county, it impliedly gives the county the right to search it without a warrant. Consider how a county health department could do its inspections if it had to get a warrant to do so each time it needed to.
So, in essence, in the case above, the Supreme Court is saying that since you're submitting to the government's regulations by choosing to fly, they don't need a warrant to search you.
I will mention that IAD airport in TSA's backyard still have a complete array of Rapiscan scanners, with no sign of being replaced. Each scanner is slightly rotated away from the next. One might postulate that the xray leakage off to the sides of the scanners would have a compounding effect on TSA workers if the scanners were arranged perfectly in line.
Many times I've flown with knives in my carry-on without realizing it until after the flight. Why go through all this security when it doesn't even work? Makes me suspicious it's all for show and to fill some company's pockets.
You could walk through the security check without an knives, and sneak a bit of glass out of an airport bar on the other side. Why bother with knives, when you can make a prison shiv using things you can buy just before boarding a plane?
The real answers to hijacking are (1) locking the cabin door from the inside and (2) passengers understanding that they are not just going to be flown to Cuba. The security checkpoints are almost entirely useless.
I suppose it depends on your airport; my local one is a tiny regional airport with a bar but not many opportunities to score some silverware. In the end, if your evil plot requires silverware, I suppose you would just go to a larger airport; the nearest international airport is only 2 hours away from here.
Simple solution: Opt out of the naked scanners, every time. I've gotten used to the pat downs and they don't bother me at all. I just give myself an extra 10-15 minutes lead time when arriving at the airport.
They're still not removing the body scanners entirely though, just the ones that can't display a generic outline. The privacy violations and radiation exposure will continue.
I don't doubt that health harms are minimal if any, but every time I go through these I get a very weird sensation in my torso which I'm just not fond of, so I've started opting out since December.
I personally don't mind the patdown at all, and the TSA personnel have all been professional each time I've requested to opt out. I do wonder what would happen if a significant minority started opting out, since that would most likely clog the system pretty badly.
I've opted out every time I've ever ended up in a scanner line, but the millimeter wave stuff is absolutely significantly more safe than the backscatter, specifically because it doesn't use ionizing radiation.
Of course, it's also easily defeated[1][2] by anyone that knows what they're doing, so it's not like it's keeping us particularly safe.
From TFA: "TSA has contracted with L-3, Smiths Group Plc (SMIN) and American Science & Engineering Inc. (ASEI) for new body-image scanners, all of which must have privacy software. L-3 and Smiths used millimeter-wave technology. American Science uses backscatter."
I thought I'd heard that the radiation dose was on the order of what you'd get from 2 minutes of your airline flight. [1] I was far more worried about the nude photos, and always opted out before the backscatter machines were replaced with millimeter-wave. "Being groped is uncomfortable for 5 minutes; having nude photos floating around some TSA agent's computer is uncomfortable for a lifetime."
Until there is independent 3rd-party verification that indeed the radiation dose is that what I get from flying for 2 minutes, I won't trust the TSA telling me so, or the company that is making billions of the machines.
Skin cancer, as well as various other cancers run in my family, I don't want to risk it.
Although, coming back from Europe to the US nothing says "Welcome to flying back to the US" than a grope from some security guy at Amsterdam airport that is paid to be there because the US initiated new rules requiring all flights to the US to have RapiScan machines for full-body imaging, or the grope at the first arriving airport with my connecting flight back to the city I live in.
Your source is the same government who's trying to get you to go through these things. The issue is, I don't know, you don't know and the TSA guy sure as hell doesn't know. Those scanners are one of the few places in the world where you can get an xray scan by someone who isn't a certified xray machine operator.
If only we the people had that kind of power. Unfortunately we've submitted ourselves to staggering invasions of our rights to safeguard our illusion of security. The train has left the station and it ain't coming back.
As someone who used to travel extensively for work, I've been through these things dozens of times. I consider myself a modest person and wouldn't walk around a locker room without a towel, but I don't see what the big deal is with these scanners. Who cares if someone you don't know who doesn't know your identity can see a blurry outline of your junk? Its like two ships passing in the night.
Edit: I will admit trying to avoid them. Not for privacy reasons but because they are sloooow. The line going through the regular x-ray always moves much faster.
> I've been through these things dozens of times... I don't see what the big deal is with these scanners.
* They are unnecessary
* They are a forced indignity
* They are security theater
* They should be unconstitutional
* They are a huge waste of money
Why is it even necessary to ask your question? Do you realize that they feel up your junk if you (doublespeak) "opt-out"? As kids, these are things we thought Soviet Russia did to their people.
I completely agree. The pictures these things produce aren't recognisable as more than a vague outline. I think sometimes people forget that they aren't actually that unique. We're all naked under our clothes. Most people aren't special enough that anyone cares about seeing a pixelated naked image of them.
The guy in the TSA booth sees thousands of naked people a day. He's not laughing at you, he's just trying to get through his day. It's similar to how going to the doctor with something embarrassing seems like a huge deal for most people, but to the doctor you're just the nth person that week pulling down their trousers.
TSA agent: 'We laugh at your nude images, dear passengers'
“Things like this are what happens (at the very least) when you put people who are fresh out of high school or a GED program … with minimal training and even less professionalism, into the position of being in charge of analyzing nude images of people in a hermetically sealed room.”
Earlier this year, a woman filed a complaint against the TSA, claiming she was forced to pass through the nude body scanner three times so the agents could repeatedly see her naked. Passenger Ellen Terrell told CBS 11 News that she was told by an agent that she has “such a cute figure”, then singled out for a ‘random’ body scan. She was asked to pass through the nude scanner three times and heard the agent talk to the back room employees over a microphone.
“Guys, it is not blurry, I’m letting her go,” she heard the agents tell the back room employees.
> It's similar to how going to the doctor with something embarrassing seems like a huge deal for most people
Except the doctor serves a purpose and the TSA is just a jobs program and waste of money. Remind me how many of these caught terrorists per million dollars spent.
Airport screening was introduced in the US in 1973. In the 5 years prior to this there was 12 major aircraft hijackings originating from the US. In the 5 years after this, there were 2.
Airport screening effectively ended the very rapidly increasing number of aircraft hijackings which occurred in the early '70s. There were of course other factors in play, but the sharp drop (1972 saw 6 major hijackings) after the introduction of airport screening is certainly a good indicator of the effectiveness of airport screening.
Airport screening isn't completely effective, but it's fairly demonstrable that having a layer of security when boarding an aircraft does act as a deterrent to aircraft hijackings. It doesn't completely stop them, but it does make a difference.
I'm not going to defend the TSA as an organisation, but to say that airport screening as a whole serves no purpose is not really based in fact. It's almost certainly possible to bring banned items onto aircraft, and it's fairly reasonable to assume that if someone is dedicated enough they will find a way to cause death, but what airport screening does do is act as enough of a deterrent that aircraft hijacking isn't seen as an easy crime. The rapid drop in numbers post-screening shows that.
Yes, I'm sure you're glad to show everyone your nakedness unprompted, but expecting all others to do the same regardless of comfort level is a jerk move.
I didn't mind skinnydipping with friends, but I don't want to walk around my office or around people I don't know looking at me naked and storing images, as these are programmed to do.
Does anybody have a link to the site that tracks user-submitted reviews of security lines sorted by airport/terminal/airline and tells you which lines are forced through which types of scanners?
A step in the right direction, but they are going to replace them with yet another scanner. I wouldn't mind them not shooting any waves at me at all just so that I can board a plane.
