What happens when you refuse to pose for TSA or be sexually molested to fly.

Status
Not open for further replies.
More extensive TSA searches in Sea-Tac Airport rattle some travelers

As she waited for her flight from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to Medford, Ore., last month, Linda Morrison noticed something unusual in the waiting area.

"A lady in a TSA uniform came over, put on her rubber gloves and went up and down the rows of seats, choosing bags to go through," said Morrison, a retired corporate recruiter who lives in Seattle. "She didn't identify herself, didn't give a reason for the search. She seemed to be targeting larger carry-on bags."

Morrison was stunned. She expected to be screened at the designated checkpoint area, or maybe at the gate, where the Transportation Security Administration sometimes randomly checks passengers as they board. This was different. "To me, it just felt like an illegal search performed by a police state," she said.

OK, let's get this straight...

Some TSA goon (who didn't even identify herself) went around the terminal building to search the bags of someone waiting around, with absolutely no reason of suspicion?

There's that phrase again: police state. It's being thrown about a lot more since November's pat-down/opt-out fiasco, as public anger over the TSA's new security measures remains high. Which makes the question of whether we're traveling in a police state, or something like it, worth taking seriously.

At least one other reader also reported the roaming searches described by Morrison, also in Seattle. Christine Porter says she witnessed an identical procedure on two separate occasions. "TSA now randomly appears at boarding gates to check boarding passes and IDs as well as potentially hand-search carry-on luggage," she said. "It's irritating."

Is the TSA testing a more aggressive screening procedure in Seattle? I asked the agency.

"TSA officers at airports nationwide routinely screen passengers at the gate area using a variety of methods, including physically searching bags and using explosives detection technology," said agency spokesman Greg Soule. "This additional layer of security is part of our unpredictable approach to keep passengers safe and reduce the risk of dangerous items being carried on planes."
So, basically, you've just admitted that the checkpoint before the gate doesn't work. Nice going.

As is often the case with TSA's answers, I can't tell whether that's a yes or a no.

I put the police-state question to an expert on repressive regimes. "It's absurd to liken the annoyances brought on by airport security to life under a police state," Washington, D.C.-based human rights activist Mariam Memarsadeghi said. "A police state is defined by perpetual fear ? fear of a state apparatus that is incessantly watching over the actions of people for the sole purpose of maintaining its power over them."

Wow, really? Let's see...

Air travelers kept in perpetual state of irrational fear of an extremely rare possibility?
Check.

A government agency that exists solely to serve its own ends of inflated and undeserved power over travelers?
Check.

Maybe the US, as a whole, isn't a police state (at least not yet), but at the airport? By your own definition, Ms. Memarsadeghi, the nation's airports are absolutely in a state of police rule.

The threat American air travelers face is from not the government but international terrorist networks, Memarsadeghi said.
WRONG. The much bigger threat is, in fact, the government. I am in much greater fear of being sexually-assaulted by a government agent than I am of some extremest actually managing to get on a plane and cause a problem. Seriously, if someone has managed to actually get to the airport, they've already gotten too far anyway.

Continued...
 
Last edited:
?noun
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.
 
In that case, your posts are awesome*.

* - see above definition.

Back on topic.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-11-tsa-scans_N.htm

TSA to retest airport body scanners for radiation


The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation ? 247 machines at 38 airports ? after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.

The TSA says that the records reflect math mistakes and that all the machines are safe. Indeed, even the highest readings listed on some of the records ? the numbers that the TSA says were mistakes ? appear to be many times less than what the agency says a person absorbs through one day of natural background radiation.

Even so, the TSA has ordered the new tests out of "an abundance of caution to reassure the public," spokesman Nicholas Kimball says. The tests will be finished by the end of the month, and the results will be released "as they are completed," the agency said on its website.

TSA officials have repeatedly assured the public and lawmakers that the machines have passed all inspections. The agency's review of maintenance reports, launched Dec. 10, came only after USA TODAY and lawmakers called for the release of the records late last year.
Wait, they say the machines are safe but there are records that say the machines are 10x more powerful than they should be. But the machines are safe, really, we know they are because apparently we test them with our eyes closed and never look at the paperwork.

The agency posted reports Friday from 127 X-ray-emitting devices on its website and said it would continue to release results from maintenance tests for the approximately 4,500 X-ray devices at airports nationwide. Those devices include machines that examine checked luggage. Of the reports posted, about a third showed some sort of error, Kimball said.

The TSA announced steps to require its maintenance contractors to "retrain personnel involved in conducting and overseeing the radiation survey process."
Some lawmakers remain concerned, however.

The TSA "has repeatedly assured me that the machines that emit radiation do not pose a health risk," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a written statement Friday. "Nonetheless, if TSA contractors reporting on the radiation levels have done such a poor job, how can airline passengers and crew have confidence in the data used by the TSA to reassure the public?"

She said the records released Friday "included gross errors about radiation emissions. That is completely unacceptable when it comes to monitoring radiation."

U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, also was troubled by the information posted by the TSA. Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairs a House oversight subcommittee on national security and has sponsored legislation to limit the use of full-body scans. He has been pushing the TSA to release the maintenance records.

At best, Chaffetz said, the radiation reports generated by TSA contractors reveal haphazard oversight and record-keeping in the critical inspection system the agency relies upon to ensure millions of travelers aren't subjected to excessive doses of radiation.
"It is totally unacceptable to be bumbling such critical tasks," Chaffetz said. "These people are supposed to be protecting us against terrorists."

In the past, the TSA has failed to properly monitor and ensure the safety of X-ray devices used on luggage. A 2008 report by the worker safety arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the TSA and its maintenance contractors had failed to detect when baggage X-ray machines emitted radiation beyond what regulations allowed. They also failed to take action when some machines had missing or disabled safety features, the report shows.

Chaffetz said the TSA's characterization of the maintenance mistakes "sounds like an excuse rather than the real facts."

"I'm tired of excuses," Chaffetz said. "The public has a right and deserves to know. It begs the question, 'What are they still not sharing with us?' These are things you cannot make mistakes with." Chaffetz said he expects to address some of his concerns during a hearing Wednesday.

The full-body scanners, called backscatter devices, are supposed to deliver only a tiny amount of radiation ? about as much as an airplane passenger gets during two minutes of a typical flight.

Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University, said Friday he wanted to scrutinize the 2,000 pages of reports the TSA posted. He has expressed concerns about the potential for the scanners to break and the importance of proper maintenance and monitoring.

"Mechanical things break down," Rez told USA TODAY in December. Rez also has voiced fears about the potential for a passenger to get an excessive dose of radiation or even a radiation burn if the X-ray scanning beam were to malfunction and stop on one part of a person's body for an extended period of time.

He said Friday that the contractor mistakes TSA identified only heighten his concerns.
"What happens in times of failure, when they can give very, very high radiation doses. I'm totally unconvinced they have thought that through," Rez said of the TSA. "I just see a large, bumbling bureaucracy. Of course it's not very reassuring."

The TSA's Kimball disputed such characterizations.
"Numerous independent tests have confirmed that these technologies are safe, but these record-keeping errors are not acceptable," he said. For instance, "the testing procedure calls for the technician to take 10 separate scans" for radiation levels, "add them up and then divide by 10 to take an average. They didn't divide by 10," Kimball said.
"We're taking a number of steps to ensure the mistakes aren't repeated," he said, "and the public will be able to see for themselves by reviewing all future reports online."
The TSA is responsible for the safety of its own X-ray devices. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it does not routinely inspect airport X-ray machines because they are not considered medical devices. The TSA's airport scanners are exempt from state radiation inspections because they belong to a federal agency.

Some of the records were written by employees of the machines' maker: Rapiscan Systems. In a written statement, the company's executive vice president, Peter Kant, said, "The mistakes were the result of calculating and procedural errors that were identified by Rapiscan management and have been corrected. In actuality, the systems in these airports have always been well below acceptable exposure limits."
Rapiscan Systems said in a Dec. 15 letter to the TSA that company engineers who tested the backscatter machines were confused by inspection forms and instructions, leading them to make mistakes on the forms that vastly inflated the radiation emitted by the machines.

Rapiscan vowed to redesign its inspection forms and retrain its engineers.
The TSA released inspection reports from 40 backscatter machines, and reports for 19 of those machines had errors, including six that were deemed "considerable."
In a written statement sent to USA TODAY, TSA Administrator John Pistole said the equipment is safe.

"Independent third-party testing has confirmed that all TSA technology is safe," Pistole said. "We are also taking additional steps to build on existing safety measures in an open and transparent way, including commissioning an additional independent entity to evaluate these protocols."
Open and Transparent? My ass. It took a member of congress months just to get TSA to release these documents. The only thing TSA wants to be open is your bags and the only transparency they are interested in is the ability to see through your clothing.

Ok, granted this is The Daily and I have no idea how reputable they are yet...

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/02/26/news-tsa-scanner-1-2/

I can't quote the article due to the way it's displayed, but apparently TSA wants to roll out a portable DNA scanner later this year.

Are you fucking kidding me on this?
 
Last edited:
Ok, granted this is The Daily and I have no idea how reputable they are yet...

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/02/26/news-tsa-scanner-1-2/

I'm guessing about as reputable as Fox Faux News...

Fox Completely Fabricates Report That TSA Will Screen Passengers' DNA

A Fox & Friends segment reported that the Transportation Security Administration will begin testing airline passengers' DNA at airports. In reality, the Department of Homeland Security is planning to test a portable DNA screener for use in certain immigration cases; the TSA is not testing the device and says it has no plans to test DNA.

Still, it's terrifying that the TSA's parent department is actually considering it at all.

EDIT: Hmm... OK, I actually read the DM article. I didn't see TSA mentioned anywhere, only the DHS. It seems pretty accurate if the Media Matters article (above) is any indication. Again, though, it's hardly far-fetched to believe that TSA will take an interest in this.
 
Last edited:
Remember how airports could opt out of TSA enforcement and get private companies to do the job better for less money? Remember how TSA canceled that program right around the time they unionized?

Well, it looks like TSA flat out lied about the cost of the program.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/9/tsa-cooked-data-on-airport-security-watchdog-repor/

The Transportation Security Administration ?cooked the books? to understate the costs of using federal workers rather than private contractors to screen airport passengers, a key TSA critic in Congress charged Wednesday.

Federal auditors found the agency erred in its cost comparisons, and a skeptical lawmaker said TSA did so to stop the use of private contractors to do screening ? an option Congress wrote into the 2001 law that created the agency.

Sixteen airports throughout the country use private screeners under the Security Partnership Program (SPP), but TSA has barred other airports from joining the program.
In a letter to Congress released Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said TSA?s new estimates show that private screeners are just 3 percent more expensive than federal workers - not 17 percent, as the agency previously had stated.

Auditors said that earlier TSA estimates had not accounted for the costs of workers compensation, liability insurance, retirement benefits and administrative overhead involved in using federal employees.

?TSA cooked the books to try to eliminate the federal-private screening program,? said Rep. John L. Mica, Florida Republican and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. ?GAO found that TSA ignored critical data relating to costs.?
Mr. Mica said the revised 3 percent cost difference is likely still too high because it does not take into account ?the full cost of TSA?s bloated and unnecessary bureaucratic overhead.?


The GAO found that TSA?s methods for comparing the cost and performance of private and federal screeners had improved since the auditors? last report in January 2009, but it is still lacking in important respects.

The flaws ?reduced the reliability? of the agency?s cost estimates ?by increasing the costs for private-contractor screeners relative to federal screeners,? the auditors wrote.
Mr. Mica said he thinks that if all the costs are tallied fairly, private screeners would prove at least as effective and cheaper than their federal counterparts.

?I am confident that the private sector can not only perform better, but do so at a lower cost to the taxpayers,?
he said.

As chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, Mr. Mica was one of the authors of the 2001 Aviation Transportation Security Act, which allowed airports to opt out of using federal screeners and hire private firms to screen passengers under TSA supervision.
Five airports recently have applied to join the SPP but have been denied by TSA officials, Mr. Mica said.

In January, TSA Administrator John Pistole announced those applications were being refused and that no other airports would be allowed to participate in SPP unless they could demonstrate a ?clear and substantial advantage? in doing so.

Mr. Mica said his staff will continue to investigate the ?distortion and misstatement of facts used in the denial of each of these five airports? participation in the federal-private screening program.?

He said he also is looking into the ?the metrics, if any, the TSA used to determine if a ?clear or substantial advantage? existed and what the implications are for the future.?
?It is my intent to make certain that TSA cannot arbitrarily deny any future application from an airport to participate in the private screening program,? he said.

Other lawmakers already have acted to stop what they say is the agency?s bureaucratic end-run around the intent of Congress to allow airports to opt out of using federal screeners.

For example, language inserted by Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican, into legislation that would overhaul the Federal Aviation Administration aims to force the TSA to allow airports to join the SPP.

Within 30 days of the bill becoming law, the provision states that the TSA administrator ?shall reconsider and approve? any application to join the SPP submitted earlier this year. If the administrator does not grant the applications, he must report the reasons to Congress.

A TSA spokesman said the decision to stop more airports from joining the SPP is in line with Mr. Pistole?s vision of TSA ?as a federal counterterrorism network.?
TSA?s ?ability to push out intelligence information to our frontline work force and quickly change procedures based on threat and intelligence is paramount to effective security,? spokesman J. Kawika Riley told The Times.

:rolleyes:

Really, what do we expect at this point? Pistole is building himself a nice little empire behind walls of government bureaucracy.
 
And apparently he can simply order airports to do whatever he wants without any checks. Congress needs to put a leash on this now.
 
The TSA says that the records reflect math mistakes and that all the machines are safe.
Y'know, it was effectively a "math mistake" (or multiple "math mistakes") that caused Therac-25 to inundate patients with fatal amounts of radiation. So-called "math mistakes" are beyond unacceptable when radiation is involved.

Now, I know very little about radiation, but I do undertake computer programming in my job, so I do know a know or two about how software and hardware interact. That said, why are these machines even capable of emitting radiation more potent than applied in practice? Is it something necessarily inherent in the design of radiation equipment or have these machines been over-designed? Software is far too volatile to be the "last stop" in limiting power output.

Indeed, even the highest readings listed on some of the records ? the numbers that the TSA says were mistakes ? appear to be many times less than what the agency says a person absorbs through one day of natural background radiation.
That statement is so laughably fallacious that its utterance should be grounds for dismissal and charging with criminal negligence. For what little I know about radiation, I do know that what defines the parameters of radiation is not a single dimension; potency, duration, type, penetration, wavelength, amplitude and host of words I probably don't know exist are all things that need to be taken into account.

Saying that "the amount of radiation is less than blah, blah, blah and is therefore completely safe" is like saying that a bullet fired from a gun can't hurt you because it weighs less than an ounce, all the while completely ignoring it's speed, direction, distance and all of the other factors that actually matter.

Actual, independent experts on the subject have come out and said that the information the TSA is releasing is pathetically insufficient to draw any worthwhile conclusion... and is anyone surprised?
 
Last edited:
If these TSA officials are claiming the radiation is safe, why don't they go in and fix the Japanese reactors?

Sorry to go OT, but I can't sleep and that brings out the inner deutchbag in me. :p
 
A link I found on a Slashdot story about the TSA's radiation claims: http://www.okianwarrior.com/MathView/BackscatterSafety/

I have no idea what sort of credentials this guy has (if any), but he makes some very interesting points, particularly those in regards to false comparisons.

Basically, it's completely wrong to compare one situation to another when measuring risk (ie.: airport scanners vs. medical scans). The only reasonable comparison to make is, "scanning vs. not scanning".

That makes a good amount of sense and logic.
 
Last edited:

So much for TSA's policy of allowing taping.
 
Ever notice that, if you replace every instance of "national security" with "job security", everything the TSA says makes complete sense?

So much for TSA's policy of allowing taping.
Their policy, at any given time, depends on how well some blue-shirted goon slept the previous night.
 
Last edited:
One thing I noticed when reading about earthquake in Japan. (I don't know if this is mentioned before) Apparently you can take as much liquids on internal flight in Japan as you want. They check the bottles with some high tech device, which tells if it's explosive or not.

Why doesn't the rest of the world have those?
 
Why doesn't the rest of the world have those?
It's because a high-tech scanner that goes "blip" doesn't intimidate you nearly as much as an ill-tempered power-tripping security goon yelling at you because you forgot your empty 0.5 litre water bottle* in your carry-on.

*which is of course a significant threat to the safety of any aircraft
 
I may be showing my cultural ignorance, here, but I hear that the Japanese have a high regard for things like honor and respect. Those two words are foreign to an American drunk on a drop of undeserved power.
 
Funny you mention drunk, cause as soon as a Jap has 2 glasses of anything resembling alcohol, honour and respect are the first thing to fly out the window, followed by their clothes.
 
I may be showing my cultural ignorance, here, but I hear that the Japanese have a high regard for things like honor and respect. Those two words are foreign to an American drunk on a drop of undeserved power.
I think the Japanese are different because their respect goes both ways. Both parties bow. The TSA and other assorted rent-a-cops security personnel will rather make you bow and kneel before them while they scream this at you:

 
The TSA and other assorted rent-a-cops security personnel will rather make you bow and kneel before them while they scream this at you:

Funny how every TSA agent and other airport security I have ever encountered has treated me with courtesy, even during peak boarding times.
 
Nobody can be bothered to try anything at your dinky little airports in the Dakotas, so it's not SRS BSNS :p
 
True, the only airports I have experience with are FSD and Phoenix-Mesa, both of which are single-terminal. I wonder if the larger ones have more problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top