This Whole TSA Debate...

[Five-0]

I'm curious as the members' opinions on the whole TSA searches issue. I found this blog spot that gives permission to post the account of a scenario in as many places as possible here:

<Insert title here>: TSA encounter at SAN

This all happened Saturday Nov. 13th.

Here are also three videos of the encounter. These are mainly for the audio though:







Thoughts and/or Opinions Wanted!!!!

[Jks9199]

I think that he had every right to refuse the searches -- and the TSA and airlines had the authority to say that if he doesn't go through a search, to their satisfaction, he can't fly on a commercial airline.

But they fucked up when they decided that he couldn't leave. The comparison to either a DUI or border checkpoint is actually reasonable here: someone turns off before the checkpoint, you don't automatically stop 'em. You develop a reason for a lawful stop. This guy is told that he must leave -- then is being told that if he doesn't go through a search, he can't leave. Is he doomed to live in San Diego Airport for the rest of his life? Will he go down like Charlie on the MTA, doomed to a limbo existence in the periphery of the secure area at the airport?

[lewisipso]

Good grief. This is simple. They had his information. Let him go. Another of many reasons I try to avoid air travel. I'm trying to tread a little careful here since I do only fly if forced. However, either go through the requested search or don't fly. I don't understand why they continued to detain him. And did I hear somebody fell the need to just openly ask for a professional courtesy? Shit, as if things weren't already complicated enough let's just throw a badge in the mix for good measure.
You're squirrelly when somebody gets close to your "junk"? Here's your property, there's the door. The car rental place is just down the road. Oh. Have a nice day.The last thing he says is "Sorry for the hassle." If I were a betting man I'd say the hassle hasn't started yet. Anyway this is just my opinion. The way I see it if somebody wants to bring down a plane eventually they will figure out a way. It's only a matter of time. Hell at this point it seems the cargo hold is more dangerous. The next thing we're going to hear is a cat was discovered in the hold with a block of C-4 shoved up it's ass.

[countybear]

It was a setup from jump street. I'm just glad that from the looks of it the airport cops didn't take the bait.

[Odd]

The next thing we're going to hear is a cat was discovered in the hold with a block of C-4 shoved up it's ass.

Is it bad I laughed? Sorry cat lovers, in my defense I did cringe too. Not to make light of your point which I agree with.

[bayern]

My next flight is planned for May 2011 to Europe. The shit will hlit the fan before then. Either we will walk on the Airplanes naked or sanity will prevail. We are so damn afraid of "offending someone" that we take extreme measures TO OFFEND EVERYONE!"

What the hell, when running traffic, only stop GREEN, BLUE RED, ORANGE and the offbeat color cars; that way BLACK, WHITE, BROWN and YELLOW cars won't be offended. Don't stop trucks, the Weight Challanged won't be offended; don't stop compact cars; the height challanged will be offended.

[gopherpuckfan]

I didn't watch the videos, but if he got in line at the screening checkpoint (which is considered to be submitting to the screening process), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has said that he may not refuse to be screened. We just had an email sent to us by our command staff that reminded us of this in light of the new body scanner we have here. The passengers have 2 options then: Submit to the screening process, or be detained by a federal agency until they submit to screening. While the Supreme Court hasn't made a firm ruling on this one way or the other, they have said "Because the owner or operator of commercial premises in a ‘closely regulated’ industry has a reduced expectation of privacy, the warrant and probable-cause requirements, which fulfill the traditional Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness for a government search have lessened application".

The 9th Court stated in U.S. versus Aukai:
No. (the name of the link is No. 04-10226, not No. )

"The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world.6 Such a rule would afford terrorists 7 multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by “electing not to fly” on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area 8 of an airport."

Make no mistake, I'm not a fan of TSA (waste of money) and think a private company could do an equal or better job under tight regulations, but so far the legal rulings are clear.

[Jenna]

Is he doomed to live in San Diego Airport for the rest of his life? Will he go down like Charlie on the MTA, doomed to a limbo existence in the periphery of the secure area at the airport?

Then he could make a movie about it!

The next thing we're going to hear is a cat was discovered in the hold with a block of C-4 shoved up it's ass.

But seriously, I don't care too much either way about the security procedures; I just want to get where I'm going, and whatever brief discomfort might be involved with security procedures are the least of my concerns. I'm a bit concerned about the radiation malfunctioning on the backscatter machines (I believe they are safe when functioning well but I've read that they could be unsafe if they malfunction), so I opt for the pat-down if I'm not in a hurry, but if I'm in a hurry I just go through whatever line is fastest. It's not a big risk when compared to all the other risks one faces while traveling.

[Five-0]

My next flight is planned for May 2011 to Europe. The shit will hlit the fan before then. Either we will walk on the Airplanes naked or sanity will prevail. We are so damn afraid of "offending someone" that we take extreme measures TO OFFEND EVERYONE!"

This was really the point of my post. We are always looking for weapons/explosives. We should be taking a page from the Israeli play book and look for terrorists. When you are looking for them you even start disrupting the dry runs. The problem is that the TSA will not hire people qualified enough to pull this off. Just my thoughts.




Really?

[gopherpuckfan]

We should be taking a page from the Israeli play book and look for terrorists. When you are looking for them you even start disrupting the dry runs. The problem is that the TSA will not hire people qualified enough to pull this off. Just my thoughts.

The difference is the Israelis don't have our Constitution or Bill of Rights to contend with. My department received training in Behavior Pattern Recognition from a former El-Al security expert. He talked about how restricted we are and that there are plenty of things they (the Israelis) can do that we can't. We have to find solutions within the confines of our Rights.

[MacLean]

It was a setup from jump street. I'm just glad that from the looks of it the airport cops didn't take the bait.

The cops didn't take any bait, but that Fed attempted to make an illegal detention.

[MacLean]

The best planned protest I have heard is to wear a kilt to the airport on "opt out" day.

We'll see how many of the "patdowns" they'll do that day.

[Five-0]

The best planned protest I have heard is to wear a kilt to the airport on "opt out" day.

We'll see how many of the "patdowns" they'll do that day.

Do you have one in my size? 38" in the waist.

[MacLean]

Do you have one in my size? 38" in the waist.

I'm a 36, but they are somewhat adjustable.

Depending on how tall you are, that's the real issue.

Too short and you look like it's a skirt. Too long and it's a dress.

[Five-0]

I'm a 36, but they are somewhat adjustable.

Depending on how tall you are, that's the real issue.

Too short and you look like it's a skirt. Too long and it's a dress.

Yeah I might need a longer one because I'm so long. Or ummmm tall....

I wonder what would happen if I found a way to write a message on on undershirt like "FAH Q TSA" that was only visible to the screener of a backscatter machine. Think I would be singled out for further "inspection". Is so, what would the justification be?

[Odd]

This was really the point of my post. We are always looking for weapons/explosives. We should be taking a page from the Israeli play book and look for terrorists. When you are looking for them you even start disrupting the dry runs. The problem is that the TSA will not hire people qualified enough to pull this off. Just my thoughts.

The difference is the Israelis don't have our Constitution or Bill of Rights to contend with. My department received training in Behavior Pattern Recognition from a former El-Al security expert. He talked about how restricted we are and that there are plenty of things they (the Israelis) can do that we can't. We have to find solutions within the confines of our Rights.

Hmm. Well, maybe that's no good then. But hey, after being irradiated and patted all over maybe the public will be more open to hearing how this profiling operates. So in case it can work...

Having never flown in Israel or talked to anyone there I'm going by articles about their screening. This American Spectator from last January and a strangely similar report today from TheStar.com make it sound reasonable enough.

So let me throw this out there. Don't even try to fix the TSA. Kick them out.

Byron York's report in the Washington Examiner says that very thing is possible. Ok, then what?

Well, let me clarify that "kick them out" thing. Kick them out of one major airport. Not some podunk place with a thousand boardings a month. One major hub where passengers will see first hand how changes are working.

Instead of hiring some private contractor to implement their version of Israeli security, ask our friends in Israel if they can spare enough people to run that airport for a year. Bet the first plane from Jerusalem would be cooling off in a US airport by morning. No pale imitations of the Israeli security: hire the real deal. And then step back, way back. Give them whatever they want to remodel the screening area - no, the whole airport complex - and let them hire local people to train. Learning how they screen their applicants is part of the process too, no? This is why TSA gets ripped out and replaced, not co-mingled.

Now over this year either this is going to be a model airport and the word will get around or it's going to prove to be unworkable in this country and the TSA can roll back in, no harm done. Is there any chance security is going to be less at this airport over that year?

In sports we've come to accept the free agent system. The hometown hero story is great, but when you want to win go find the best. Right now we have the Detroit Lions, and griping about them or telling them to copy the way the Patriots play doesn't work. Bringing in the Patriots coach to whip those Lions players into shape doesn't work either. You never fairly evaluate the coach until he has his staff, his players. So let's do the cleanest, simplest, directest thing.

Hire the Patriots.*

Why not?

(*author is a Packer Backer, but chose the team with the better record for the metaphor)

[countybear]

For those who believe that "federalization" is the answer to everything, I give you TSA.

[MacLean]

I wonder what would happen if I found a way to write a message on on undershirt like "FAH Q TSA" that was only visible to the screener of a backscatter machine. Think I would be singled out for further "inspection". Is so, what would the justification be?

I'd say the justification would be paying off my house, my car, and my children's college tuition.

[lewisipso]

TSA full body scan: Man faces $11K fine for refusing TSA screening - chicagotribune.com

[lewisipso]

One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans

More fuel to the fire.