USA-specific: TSA enhanced pat-down

[Stuart]

Sorry to inquire about a USA-specific topic, but I'm confident that everyone else will be amused at this self-inflicted tempest.

Recent news stories in the US say that the TSA (Transportation Security Agency, the folks that frisk you for weapons before you board a plane) have tweaked their policies as of 29oct. You're still given the choice of an X-ray-based scanner that can see through your clothes, or a pat-down, but the pat-down has been ... "enhanced." The enhanced pat-down is quite thororough, including pulling your underwear free of your waist and looking for weapons, and gloved-hand contact with your privates. The latter is done through your clothes, and it's described as very invasive, and that's presuming you're wearing pants. Women are not exempt, and probably suffer more than men.

Here's a link to a representative article:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions ... ights-5889

Has anyone here gone through this madness wearing an unbifurcated garment? What was your experience?

stuart

[TomH]

There was a quick blurb on local TV that women in skirts require a special search. Guess that would apply to all skirts

Tom

[crfriend]

I am so glad I gave up flying years ago.

This is what's known as "Security Theatre": going through all sorts of motions in front of -- and to -- the travelling public knowing full well that it's not doing one whit of real good. 95+ percent of real security is done behind the scenes by analyzing passengers' motives, backgrounds, and patterns -- and that's where the emphasis should be placed. Where it should not be being placed is on somebody's private parts -- whether they're wearing a skirt or not. That the travelling public is willing to submit to such offences and inanities in the name of "security" points up just how complete Al Quaeda's victory has been.

I'll take my car or the train next time I go any distance.

[Mugs-n-such]

Hear! Hear! I feel like taking the car or bus next time too. I wonder though, I'd like to fly to Germany to visit an old friend, but I guess the only alternative I would have there would be to go by ship. I suppose ocean travel is fairly safe nowadays, but I keep on thinking of the Titanic. Does anyone know the stats regarding safety of airlines vs. passenger ships? It would be interesting to know. I'm not trying to change the subject, really, but if we are looking for alternate transportation, it would be nice to know!

[Milfmog]

While I tend to agree with Carl's assertion that most airline / airport security checks are about being seen to do something rather than actually achieving anything, I can't help feeling that there is something of a media driven frenzy of studied indignation about this.

I was talking with some friends and ex-colleagues about this the other day, all frequent travellers themselves and in regular contact with many other regular travellers; none of them were aware of a change in TSA regulations either from first hand experience or from conversations with others who've flow in or out of the States recently, although all were aware of the stories in the media. Before swallowing too much media hype it is often a good idea to quietly ask yourself whether you have any evidence from another source that supports the story.

I follow a number of news feeds from different parts of the world and this item was one of the feeds emailed to me overnight. It may help to bring a little context and a sense of scale to the discussion.

Have fun (and try to keep things in perspective),


Ian, (who will now sit back and wait for a tirade of righteous indignation).

[hydroman47]

I wonder what would happen if everyone didn't travel for one week.

Rusty

[rick401r]

It will be interesting to see if the drive to "opt out" of the xray scan will happen today. It would mean everyone would have to go through the patdown procedure causing a massive backup at security checkpoints. A major inconvenience for the TSA agents and perhaps send a message that the people have had enough.

[jaycee]

This may be USA-specific now but I doubt that it will be long before the likes of the UK follow suit. The article in a UK newspaper that baffled me was the one where a US citizen refused to go through a body scanner on his return to the US from Paris. Why on earth would they want to scan him *after* his flight?

On a different note, I wish I was brave enough to fly in a skirt. 12 hours cooped up in cattle class in tr*users is not fun!

[mountain-mug]

jaycee,

You are absolutely on the mark! Sitting cramped up in the sorry excuse for a seat in cattle class is no fun! So I don't do it. I only travel a couple of times a year by plane now, but for a number of years I've only worn skirts on the plane. Travel is stressful enough without the misery of tr*users! People may stare, and the TSA folks do a double-take, but it is worth it. And I have had some great experiences in airports, even having people come up and ask to have their picture taken with a man not afraid to show some individuality. Of course, the best was when a very cute gal asked to have her traveling companion take a pic of the two of us! Just put on the skirt and do it! Life is too short not to.

[couyalair]

I too travel in kilts (warmer in air-conditioned / refrigerated planes).

I have not yet been subjected to any pat-downs (/fondled?), but in any case, fail to see why it should be any more stressful in a mug than in trousers.

Martin

[rick401r]

I read this article: http://www.whiotv.com/travelgetaways/25 ... 42010&ts=H

This portion of the article caught my eye.
Another traveler, Robert Shofkom wasn't too worried about delayed flights, maybe just strong breezes. The 43-year-old from Georgetown, Texas, said he planned for weeks to wear a traditional kilt - sans skivvies - to display his outrage over body scanners and aggressive pat-downs while catching his Wednesday flight out of Austin.
"If you give them an inch, they won't just take in inch. Pretty soon you're getting scanned to get into a football game," the information technology specialist said.
Shofkom was disheartened when his wife informed him Tuesday that the Austin airport doesn't yet have body scans. But he decided to wear the kilt anyway.

It's as I expected, people are sheep. They allow themselves to be led to the slaughter. They don't like it, but they're not willing to do anything about it.

[crfriend]

[...] It's as I expected, people are sheep. They allow themselves to be led to the slaughter. They don't like it, but they're not willing to do anything about it.

But what about the final sentence: But he decided to wear the kilt anyway. ? I'd not call that sheep-like behaviour at all; the man stood up, and executed on what he believed in.

Tempest in a teapot or not, what I hope that this will actually get folks here in the US of A (and elsewhere) to actually think about what security (as opposed to "security" -- note the quotes) means and what it takes to achieve it. We've got "security theatre" here in the US all over the place. For instance, the last time I got called for jury duty I got the third degree because my hair-clasp and reading-glasses set off the metal detectors. Formidable weapons, those.

When it comes to flying -- and I haven't done that since late 2000 due to health concerns -- I was already mighty sick of security theatre by 1995 and actively sought alternatives to air transport wherever humanly possible. So, in no small part, my solution to the problem was simply, "don't fly." I don't need the hassle, the humiliation, the inhumanity, and the health risks posed by going from 10,000 feet ASL to SL in 15 minutes (pre-deregulation, air carriers in the US pressurised their aircraft to 5,000 feel ASL; now they're admitting to 10,000 feet (and it's likely closer to 12,000)). I "voted with my feet" -- and my money. If enough folks did likewise the system would change -- and it'd change for the better.

Similarly, if every last bloke that ever fancied "shoving both legs down one pipe" decided to do so -- to vote with his feet" (or at least his legs) -- I think the fashion landscape might be rather different than it is now.

[r.m.anderson]

My understanding of the matter is you go into this machine that does a magnetic resonance (x-ray) picture of your
human form and if something questionable appears then the "Pat-Down" inspection may take place.
If nothing comes up on the screen then you just pick up your life and move on.
Now if you refuse to undergo the machine inspection and there are two types then you must submit to the "Pat-Down"
or be refused boarding and may be subject to further legal action depending on the circumstances.
If something comes up on the TSA viewers screen (remote location) then another agent at the inspection point will be
notified to ask you some detailed questions about why say for instance you have a metal (bone) replacement part;
heart monitoring device; other medical devices; etc. A "Pat-Down" inspection of that specific area will be done with or
without the aid of wanding device as a confirmation of the medical or another condition.
Wearing clothing with metal buttons; zippers; kilt belt/buckle straps will trigger the attention of the TSA folks.
It should be obvious that these methods of fastening clothing about the body is normal and after the initial uptick of
getting to understand what the public is wearing the inspection procedure will be become easier with less complications.
Something about making a mountain out of a mole hill !
Still yet I would not want the TSA people to get toooo relaxed and let everything pass.
Would be better if we had security like the Israelis where they profile the individual rather that the clothing they are wearing.
So wearing a kilt or a kilted skirt by either sex should not be any more troubling than wearing the dreaded "Pants" !
The xray machine is going to see the same image no matter what a person wears through the inspection point.
Sure this method is invasive but in a limited manner. It is the "Pat-Down" physical inspection that gets the ire of most of the
protesters. Refuse the machine inspection and what you will get presently is the full "Pat-Down" until a better method is found.
It is as if you protest too much you have something to hide and are asking for the full monte and you are going to get it !
Suggestion go with the flow - relax - make it easier for all concerned and something else to concern yourself with is if you are
a protester and make an issue of the inspection you may be refused boarding and with a NON-Refundable ticket you may not
get your money back without a hassel !

And for those of you celebrating "Thanksgiving" - "Happy-Bird-Day" !
"Kilted-One-Way-or-Another"
rm

[crfriend]

My understanding of the matter is you go into this machine that does a magnetic resonance (x-ray) picture of your
human form [...]

The devices are certainly not X-ray based as the level of international outcry regarding radiation exposure would be enormous, and would come from other governmental and state agencies; nor are they conventional MRI devices as those are too slow to be practical in high-volume settings. These are millimetre-wavelength microwave devices that operate quite like close-in RADAR via the backscatter of microwaves from the subject and are capable of generating remarkably detailed images -- and it's the level of detail that's put people off. Modifications to the devices' software is in the works to obscure the intimate anatomical details, but those are a ways off; there have also been experiments done where the humans who interpret the images are located in a facility remote from the actual scanner thereby cutting down on some of the perceived prurience of the matter.

The unfortunate problem is that the public's anger is misplaced in this -- ultimately it's not about "enhanced" scanning and technology, it's about "theatre". This is yet one more knee-jerk response to a couple of (failed, I'll add) attempts to get something onto an aircraft. Where the focus should be is to keep the devices away from the airport -- and those trying to carry them -- in the first place. But, that work is invisible to the general public and won't get noticed. So we get theatre instead of real intelligence-driven security work, and limited resources are diverted into said theatre instead of being applied where they'd do vastly more good.

Would be better if we had security like the Israelis where they profile the individual rather that the clothing they are wearing.

Bingo!

Suggestion go with the flow - relax - make it easier for all concerned [...]

I politely disagree. If we are to "go with the flow" we are tacitly approving the system that's been put in place, and it's a system that is deeply flawed on a number of levels. If nobody says anything about it, what's next? Strip-searches at the gate? Making everybody fly naked? (Ridiculous scenarios, of course, but that's the logical end-game with the course we're on currently.)

My opinion on this is to make a stink by simply not flying when you can realistically avoid it. Take the train, drive, or call one's relatives. Business travellers can use video-conferencing. Money speaks with vastly more authority than "protest".

And for those of you celebrating "Thanksgiving" - "Happy-Bird-Day" !

Seconded!

[r.m.anderson]

In reply to crfriend's reply of my quote:
Quote:
Suggestion go with the flow - relax - make it easier for all concerned [...]

I politely disagree. If we are to "go with the flow" we are tacitly approving the system that's been put in place, and it's a system that is deeply flawed on a number of levels. If nobody says anything about it, what's next? Strip-searches at the gate? Making everybody fly naked? (Ridiculous scenarios, of course, but that's the logical end-game with the course we're on currently.)

My opinion on this is to make a stink by simply not flying when you can realistically avoid it. Take the train, drive, or call one's relatives. Business travellers can use video-conferencing. Money speaks with vastly more authority than "protest".

x-x-x-x-x-x-x

I agree with you !

Yes - protest and take other means of transport.

"BUT" when A protest interfers with the flight schedule of others including myself so our flights are delayed potentially missing
connections and arriving later than planned then I draw a line against such conduct. Something else to consider when a passenger
becomes a problem and the airline refuses to transport that passenger because of non-compliance of security rules the airline must
retrieve his checked baggage if he has any and let the authorities do what they deem best in the interests of security.
This may result in further delay removing the unruly passengers baggage.
So if someone or a group of people want to by pass the imaging security point and tie up TSA agents for a lengthly "Pat-Down" !
Pretty Please don't do it holding up the rest of us from making our flights.
So my statement of "Go with the flow" was meant to take the protests elsewhere but don't do it at the TSA security check point
screwing up the traveling public.
Fortunately the news media has been reporting very little if any protesting activity in this respect.

rm