You won't believe I learned about the TSA, Trasnportation Security Administration

[WTF]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Yeah, well it wasn't funny to some of TSA's own:

http://www.marthastewardess.com/?p=1769

http://boingboing.net/2010/05/06/nak...er-reveal.html

TSA said it was a "personnel matter," and decried any privacy issues involved.

However, I think the incident speaks for itself.

I don't give a flip if they look at my genitals, but I'm not sure women would have the same position. Especially if they knew there was a cabal of men in the back room leering lasciviously at the x-rays.

The moral of the story is that if you have a tiny penis, don't do something that will get your name in the paper next to the words "has a tiny penis".

[Camille]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

OK people, stop and think about the original post for minute. Aren't you being just a little gullible here? How is it that your troll alarms didn't go off the second this thread hit the board?

Just look at the OP's words and you'll start to see the light. The original post starts off with a paragraph about how the OP was subjected to some sort of outrageous episode - so bad that he had to write his Congressman and BOTH his Senators about it. What was this horrible deed perpetrated on the OP? Who knows? He doesn't bother to say.

Instead he posts a canned rant that's been circulating around the net for the last couple of years. It contains the standard BS about government lies, corruption, oppression of basic human rights, blah, blah, blah all cites to such demanding sources as a website called "hotair.com" (which pretty much says it all).

I'm not going to waste my time going into detail about why 99% of what's in that post is dead wrong. You people are smart enough to use Google and figure it out for yourselves.

All I'll say is one thing about which I have personal knowledge and which I have a moral obligation to say:

Michael Chertoff is NOT a crook. I happen to know Mike and I'll tell you straight up that he's one of five or six people in all of Washington that I'd trust to hold my wallet. We don't happen to agree on politics very often, but this is one guy who has earned the respect of every single person in DC regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. When Bush appointed him to a seat on a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals the Senate confirmed him 88-1. Mike has worked for both sides of the political spectrum. He's won praise from Republicans for running part of the Whitewater investigation against the Clintons while winning awards from the NAACP for his work to end racial discrimination and profiling. Mike does what Mike thinks is right, period. I have never known the man to step outside his bounds and commit an immoral act.

The charge that he abused his position to promote the government purchase of scanners is pure bullshit. It's been running around the right-wing press for months now. There's no substance to it at all. Mike was out promoting the use of scanners years before there even was a TSA or a Chertoff consulting group. It should not be shocking to anyone that one of two companies that make scanners hired the top security consulting firm to promote them. It just happens that Mike's firm is the best. The feds have looked at his company's involvement with RapidScan and cleared the whole deal. This is a ridiculous smear against the guy. It's just BS.

I will now stop feeding the troll. I suggest the rest of you do too.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Regardless of what opposing sides you and the OP are on..it doesn't change what I said, which was that TSA did/do not know how to answer concerns about radiation. I had no idea until getting to the front end of the checkpoint that I would be subject to such a scan...so it wasn't like I could have asked someone else. It's not very good is it when TSA can't reassure their passengers. I couldn't give a toss about being seen naked...it's about safety..and TSA should be able to answer safety question on multiple levels. With all due respect, it doesn't matter to me if the sun rises, shines and sets in Chertoff's derriere...that doesn't answer the question either.

C

[Camille]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Woodyboyb:


To address ONLY the concerns about radiation and safety:

Medical X-Rays penetrate your soft tissue and are stopped by your bones. The X-Rays that make it to the film expose the film. The X-Rays that are stopped by the bones do not expose the film and we see their shadow . This is just like sunlight that misses your body lights up the sidewalk and the sun’s rays that falls on your skin leaves a shadow.

X-Rays have a much shorter wave length and have more energy. The higher the energy they are, the more penatrating they are. In the "old days ". . .like the 1980s . . . an X-Ray technician had to dial-up the power and use slightly stronger X-Rays to get a good image of a verry heavy person. Not its all automatic. The new equipment is all digilel and the power of the X-Rays is much less to get a good picture of anybody.

The airport scanners use X-Rays that are even lower in power. They only penetrate the clothing. The power is so low in fact , that they are reflected from the skin. The digital sensors are so sensitive that they read the X-Rays that scatter off the body. This is low energy and low power.

Pregnancy, and "female problems" (please— no PC e-mail) are emotionally charged issues that get litigated at the drop of a hat whether there is merit to the case or not. A measurable number of pregnancies miss carry even with everything being "right". A measurable number of births are abnormal in some way even with the best pre-natal care. Wanding women and children is just TSA's way of avoiding going to court every time something is wrong.

I don't think worries about safety, health and radiation should keep you awake at night.

Now: The concerns about civil rights, civil liberties, personal privacy and corruption are all legitimate issues. We should all worry about that.

Thank you! That is helpful information.

C x

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by Camille

Regardless of what opposing sides you and the OP are on..it doesn't change what I said, which was that TSA did/do not know how to answer concerns about radiation.

Sorry C. I didn't say anything about radiation because ICU had already covered it.

As ICU points out, the principle on which these scanners work is that the radiation is of an energy and frequency that doesn't penetrate your skin. It bounces the radiation off of you. If the beam went through you the thing wouldn't work. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of the X-rays make it past the layer of skin cells on the outside of your body. Any increased risk of damage from these machines is so small that it's not measurable. You're at far, far greater risk getting a sun tan than you are from being scanned at an airport.

Sometimes tech heads like me forget that other people don't have a physics degree. You're completely correct that TSA should have some way to explain all this to people. There should be a pamphlet or some other means to ease people's minds about the process. I'm actually surprised there isn't one.

So, I wasn't trying to smack you down. I was just trying to point out that the whole thread was a politically motivated rant - more of a commercial than an actual discussion starter - and that we shouldn't be buying into that kind of thing here. I'm sorry if it appeared that I was dissing you in any way. That surely wasn't my intention.

Cheers,
Mazo.

PS - I'd have had no problem if the OP just asked "What do people think of these new airport scanners?" I think that's a legit post around here. It's the 10,000 manifesto stuffed with half-truths and outright political attacks that bothered me. No place around here for that IMHO.

[woodyboyd]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I was just trying to point out that the whole thread was a politically motivated rant - more of a commercial than an actual discussion starter.

I'd have had no problem if the OP just asked "What do people think of these new airport scanners?" I think that's a legit post around here. It's the 10,000 manifesto stuffed with half-truths and outright political attacks.

How is my complaining about a TSA agent fondling my testicles and scrotum in front of his supervisor politically motivated? Because that is what I complained about.

The rest of your post is a babbling nonsensical mixture of ad hominems and straw men.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I happen to know Mike and I'll tell you straight up that he's one of five or six people in all of Washington that I'd trust to hold my wallet.

Good for you. Does that mean you don't get the scrotal rub down when you go through the scanners?

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Michael Chertoff is NOT a crook.

And where did I say he was? I barely knew who he is. I thought Chertoff is just another one of these unethical government scumbags who takes a government post and parlays it into some high paying private sector job when he get out like Robert Rubin and Phil Gramm did.

Not that I know or quite frankly care about your friend, but seeing as how you defended him so vigorously, I figured your response to me WAS politically motivated.

Your "friend" is a political hack. According to wiki, Chertoff investigated the Clintons over Whitewater, coauthored the Patriot Act, and "In April 2008 Chertoff was criticized for waiving the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other environmental protection legislation to construct a 700-mile (1,100 km) fence along the Mexico–United States border".

I don't know about everyone else but I am sick and tired of seeing when the government screws up, the political parties do the finger pointing, and nothing ever gets better. The TSA has just sucked just as badly under Obama as Bush.

Seeing as how you think my post was politically motivated, what was my evil scheme? The Congressional vote against these damned scanners was pretty bipartisan. You don't get a 300 to 100 vote with Congressmen voting across party lines.

[Rudyard K]

11 hours and some 12 posts ago, I asked what should be done.

It always amazes me that when it comes to complaining about what others are doing...everyone is an expert and has an opinion. But ask for a solution...on a blank sheet of paper...and the silence is deafening.

TSA is charged with trying to make air travel safe for those fly. They must do so within the confines of our laws and regulations. They must do so and try to allow airlines to maintain a profitable business.

I'll ask again...What's your plan? You've got a blank sheet of paper.

[woodyboyd]

ICU812, I have read about the safety with regards to radiation, and it sounds good.

However, if it is so safe, then why is the government so worried about lawsuits?

So let me get this right. They are profiling when it comes to potential lawsuits but not when it comes to terrorists?

Only the TSA/government could have such screwed up "reasoning".

[Ansley]

Pay more attention to how Israel does things.
http://www.israel21c.org/20100315778...y-technologies

[woodyboyd]

Rudyard, the reason no one answered you is because there already is a system in place. The TSA has no fly lists, metal detectors, agents, and machines to detect trace amounts of bomb making particles. Some people have used the phrase "thousands standing around" to describe the TSA.

After the numerous fiascos with the no fly list, clearly, this low tech list should be the first area to be upgraded instead of high tech scanners. But private industry run by former government employees don't make money off better lists.

The scanners should be used as secondary screening. You don't adopt a new system until you prove it is better than the old one. People should be told that they are electronic strip searches, and their naked body will be seen. If the person refuses, a pat down should be done.

Based on my two times going through airports with scanners, the TSA agents have no fucking clue as to what to do with the scanners or their protocol, and the public has been badly informed as to what to expect from these scanners.

[Camille]

In response to Rudy's question...what exactly do the new scanners do that up the security? In other words, what are they picking up that the old scanners don't that is SO critical? Clearly not metallic elements. I'm guessing refusing a scan and being passed over for a patdown isn't go to fly. That's just a guess though. Now is it because a patdown isn't going to find things like swallowed balloons of drugs or other illicit compounds yet a scanner will? Very clearly there is a sense that something has been/is being missed by the current system..but is it a techincal issue or a people issue? There definitely needs to be more information about the radiation (or lack thereof) with this new system. Those lines are going to get really long when people start asking concerned questions because they are not being fully informed prior to security. Good lord, there are notices all over about what you can and cannot take through...why not a few about the new system?

C

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Now: The concerns about civil rights, civil liberties, personal privacy and corruption are all legitimate issues. We should all worry about that.

What civil right violations? I didn't know there was a "right to fly." As I long as security measures are consistently applied of can be justified, what the problem?

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I thought there was some type of vetted list you could join that allowed you to bypass much of the airport security. It was proposed and advertised about 2 years ago.

.

I too remember a bunch of advertising for such a service. While I like the idea, I'm not usually an "early adopter" and as a result didn't jump in. After the initital ad blitz I haven't heard a thing about this. Not sure if it is still operational.

[TexTushHog]

I'm not a big fan of the "scare the shit out of the public" "war on terror." However, I do think that some screening of airport passengers is warranted. I don't find this technology particularly offensive in the grand scheme of things (at least as compared to any other methods of screening), even though I am a supporter and card carrying member of the ACLU.

It's a difficult problem and there are no perfect solutions. Simple as that. Could we incrementally improve? Probably. Would it be easy? Probably not as easy as we think. Frankly, I'm content to let those who get paid to think about these sorts of things deal with it. I don't want their job and wouldn't take it if it was offered to me.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I'll ask again...What's your plan? You've got a blank sheet of paper.

Get rid of the entire TSA system. Reinforce cockpit doors (already done in most cases). Take the billions saved and put it into surveillance of terrorists where it might actually do some good.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Ansley

Pay more attention to how Israel does things.
http://www.israel21c.org/20100315778...y-technologies

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Get rid of the entire TSA system. Reinforce cockpit doors (already done in most cases). Take the billions saved and put it into surveillance of terrorists where it might actually do some good.

Agreed.

Several years ago, a lady wrote an article for one of the Sunday magazines that are distributed with newspapers. Don't remember which one, but it made an impression on me.

Seems she was going through an Israeli airport customs area, and while standing in line, she struck up an innocuous conversation with a guy who was next in line. Unbeknownst to her, every member of the line was under surveillance. When she got to the front of the line, she was ushered into a separate room, and was "cross examined" by the Israelis regarding the conversation: who started it, what it concerned, what she thought of the other person in line, where did he come from, had she ever met him before, did she know him, what did he say about his traveling, etc.

It is definitely a different kind of screening. And we could learn a lot from it.

The practice DHS has made of hiring minimum wage screeners, and subjecting all passengers to the same screening only defeats the screening process. If we in the US want to ensure security in the air, it's NOT with the current system. It's with an intuitive system that works on many levels, and uses professionals who are well trained in seeing what is meant to be unseen.

Quite frankly, there is an argument to be made against the establishment of TSA at all. First of all, hijacking of airplanes is not an everyday occurrence. If I remember correctly, prior to 9/11 a hijacking had not occurred in the US for more than 10 years. And since 9/11 it has been a decade w/o a hijacking in the US. And, despite DHS/TSA sticking its chest out and saying it is because of their screening measures, I really don't believe it. There are ways to get weapons (or even WMDs) on planes if a person is intentional about it, and was determined to hijack a plane. I don't think DHS/TSA can take the credit because I don't think their screening is that effective.

Second, the cost benefit analysis (although I haven't done it) would probably fail.

Third, in Israel, there's a reason for them to have this kind of security in place. Here, not so much, I don't think.

In any event, Ans, you make a very good point.

[Texas Contrarian]

I know a guy who travels to Israel regularly. His succinct observation:

We look for weapons (and often in an almost comically clumsy, ham-handed manner).

The Israelis look for terrorists.