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

[GaryC]

So, um, how did this whole thing start, anyway? Who signed this TSA thing into effect at the beginning?

 

[calvinhobbes]

So, um, how did this whole thing start, anyway? Who signed this TSA thing into effect at the beginning?

Wikipedia

The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, sponsored by Don Young in the United States House of Representatives and Ernest Hollings in the Senate, passed by the 107th U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. Originally part of the United States Department of Transportation, the TSA was moved to the Department of Homeland Security on March 25, 2003.

 

[GaryC]

Ah.. Bush.

 

[Blind_Io]

Here's a good one. Like an adolescent boy fumbling at a bra catch, TSA has decided to quietly start using behavioral profiling. Good idea, right? Identify the bad people rather than trying to find bad object. One problem: The Government Accountability Office has found that they have no scientific basis for their program.

Complaints about the full-body scans conducted by Transportation Security Agency (TSA) agents are common. But most of us pay little attention to something that's almost as important to airline security ? the TSA's behavior detection program, known as SPOT. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in May 2010 that the TSA had deployed the program without determining whether there was a scientifically valid basis for it, and the latest report finds not much has changed, DC Insider reports.

Using SPOT, TSA agents are supposed to be able to spot potential hijackers and terrorists using "behavior detection principles." But the GAO found that there is no scientific consensus on whether behavior detection principles can be reliably used for counterterrorism purposes.

In other words, no one can really say whether the program works. Oh well, there were those six terrorist plots.
Say what?
Yes, GAO says that individuals allegedly involved in six terrorist plots successfully made their way through SPOT airports. No other information about those plots was provided but GAO noted that it recommended in May 2010 that TSA study the feasibility of using airport video recordings of the behaviors exhibited by persons transiting airport checkpoints who were later charged with or pleaded guilty to terrorism-related offenses.

GAO said such recordings could provide insights about behaviors that may be common among terrorists or ? on the other hand ? could demonstrate that terrorists do not generally display any identifying behaviors.

TSA agreed and in March 2011 reported that it is ?exploring ways to better utilize such recordings.? No word yet on the results of that exploration.

Here's a link to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11461t.pdf

So they decide to do behavior profiling without even finding out if there are any common behavioral "tells" of a terrorist (apparently they didn't think to look over Israel's shoulder when the teacher passed out the tests) and then implement an untested "principle" that is then promptly defeated.

 

[Top Geek]

Wow, kudos to Wil Wheaton. That's a very informative and powerful summary; certainly, the best I've read.

Though, I can't agree to this:

Edit to add one more thing: I don't believe that all TSA officers are automatically bad people (though we've seen that at least some are.) For example, I recently flew out of Seattle, opted-out, and got a non-invasive, professional, polite patdown. It was still annoying, but at least my genitals weren't touched in any way, which was decidedly not the case yesterday. I realize that most TSA officers are doing the best they can in a job that requires them to interact with people who automatically dislike them and what they represent. It isn't the individual officer who is the problem; it's the policies he or she is instructed to carry out that need to change.

Yes. Yes, they are.

If you knowingly and willingly accept a job position in which you are instructed to sexually assault people under the entirely false pretense that it is for their own good, you are a bad person. You just are.

 

[Blind_Io]

Wil is trying to follow "Wheaton's Law." While I too disagree with Wil on that particular point, he's trying to be magnanimous about it.

 

[Top Geek]

Wil is trying to follow "Wheaton's Law." While I too disagree with Wil on that particular point, he's trying to be magnanimous about it.

I figured as much.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Techs Forgot to Divide by 10, TSA Body Scanners Have to Be Re-Tested

Turns out the TSA?s new body scanners might not be quite as safe as originally thought. According to Switched, the most recent testing of radiation levels of the airport security devices was found to be 10 times higher than previously tested. How did this happen, you ask? Simple. The testers forgot to divide the total output by 10 to get an average reading. Which does raise the question: who are they hiring to do the testing?

Wow. Do you remember when you learned how to calculate an average? I think it was grade 4.

Hundreds of scanners now have to be re-tested. This bumble does make one wonder how they were determined to be safe in the first place? Were mistakes in calculation made before as well? As reported at Wired, despite this latest folly, the TSA maintains that the scanners still meet all safety standards and will remain in operation. The Association for Airline Passenger Rights is lobbying the government to force a shutdown of the devices until testing concludes, which is forecasted to happen in May.

TSA spokesperson, Sarah Horowitz, said,

Certainly, the errors are not acceptable. It?s not every report. We believe the technology is safe. We?ve done extensive, independent testing. It doesn?t raise alarms in terms of safety.

According to the government, the radiation output of the scanners is minimal, stating that a thousand screenings is the equivalent of a single chest x-ray.

Oh... okay, then, I totally believe you, government

 

[narf]

Shouldn't the correct value then be ten times lower? By my maths, dividing by ten does that.

...unless the new tests are the wrong ones?

 

[Blind_Io]

I think the point is that the government testers don't know how to test the machines properly, which makes everyone question the radiation dosage that has been publicized.

 

[SpitfireMK461]

Shouldn't the correct value then be ten times lower? By my maths, dividing by ten does that.

...unless the new tests are the wrong ones?

I was going to say the same thing, then deciphered the article's ambiguous language. The new testing came up with a number 10x greater than expected because they didn't divide by 10. I'm a bit skeptical on the article's explanation though. I'm guessing the issue is a bit more complicated that it was made out to be.

I also want to know who these testers are.

 

[narf]

I think the point is that the government testers don't know how to test the machines properly, which makes everyone question the radiation dosage that has been publicized.

This schoolboy error is easily explained, and - if re-tests with correct math match the expected values - is no reason to alter anyone's view on the safety, or lack thereof, of these machines.

 

[GRtak]

Maybe they divided one test by ten when they should not of? Who knows, there is not enough reason for me to believe they are being honest about them in any way, shape or form.

 

[Blind_Io]

This schoolboy error is easily explained, and - if re-tests with correct math match the expected values - is no reason to alter anyone's view on the safety, or lack thereof, of these machines.

The inability for the auditors to do basic math and testing is very much a reason to question the machines and the people who run them.

 

[narf]

The inability for the auditors to do basic math and testing is very much a reason to question the machines and the people who run them.

Based on that you should dispise every piece of technology, I'm sure in its life there once was a basic maths error.



Didn't NASA lose some craft over unit conversion troubles, with one contractor using imperial while everyone else used metric? Go on, throw away your GPS, satellite dish, ...

 

[Blind_Io]

The problem with this is that there is a lack of independent oversight of TSA. There's an ever growing mountain of anecdotal evidence of TSA malfeasance combined with nearly complete ineffectiveness as confirmed by their own internal tests. Sure NASA and other agencies have made mistakes, but I'm not forced to fly on the Space Shuttle.

The same people that are shoving this technology down our throats, operating the checkpoints, and getting billions of dollars every year are the ones who we are asking to pretty please tell us if they are fucking up in a major way. We've moved from a military-industrial complex to a security-industrial complex. The scanners don't work, TSA doesn't work, yet those in control of this beast continue to find new ways to justify the infringing on our civil rights. I don't trust their numbers or their test results because there are billions of dollars at stake. You're saying that we should just trust them?

 

[narf]

...like I said, nobody is going to change their opinion on those scanners due to this schoolboy error. You hated them before, you hate them now. No change there.

 

[Top Geek]

Here's a good one. Like an adolescent boy fumbling at a bra catch, TSA has decided to quietly start using behavioral profiling. Good idea, right? Identify the bad people rather than trying to find bad object. One problem: The Government Accountability Office has found that they have no scientific basis for their program.

Hey, guess what?

Terrorists Slip By TSA Behavior Detection Officers

Years after implementing a costly passenger screening program, the Homeland Security agency responsible for protecting the nation?s transportation system failed to detect terrorists at U.S. airports on nearly two dozen occasions.

As a result the terrorists slipped right through ?security? checkpoints and boarded commercial airplanes, according to a government report that?s difficult to swallow nearly a decade after the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history. Unfortunately, it?s true and, not surprisingly, it involves the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which was created after 9/11 mainly to prevent terrorists from using planes as weapons of mass destruction.

The agency?s perpetual blunders have been well documented by Judicial Watch over the years, but this seems to be the icing on the cake for an agency with unlimited resources and unconditional support from Congress and the White House. A heavily-touted and quite expensive TSA program that targets terrorists by observing their behavior has failed miserably, according to a congressional probe conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Known as Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT), the innovative project was implemented with great fanfare to enhance aviation security after Islamic terrorist slammed commercial jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. In 2010 SPOT cost taxpayers nearly $212 million and the Obama Administration wants $232 million for it this year.

But on at least 23 occasions its highly specialized Behavior Detection Officers failed to stop terrorists from boarding planes, investigators found. At least 16 people who were later charged or pleaded guilty to terrorism charges slipped through eight different U.S. airports with SPOT programs, according to the GAO?s findings.

It gets better. Most of the airports where terrorists boarded planes rank among the top 10 highest risk on the TSA?s Airport Threat Assessment list. For instance, an individual who subsequently pleaded guilty to providing material support to Somali terrorists boarded a plane at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport en route to Somalia an another who later admitted providing Al Qaeda with material support took a plane at Newark Liberty International Airport to participate in a terrorist training camp in Pakistan.

Before pouring more taxpayer dollars into this dubious security program perhaps the Obama Administration should consider a point made by congressional investigators in their report; ?the TSA deployed its behavior detection program nationwide before first determining whether there was a scientifically valid basis for the program.?

So, a program with no scientific basis doesn't work. I'm shocked.

...like I said, nobody is going to change their opinion on those scanners due to this schoolboy error. You hated them before, you hate them now. No change there.

Well, you're right: people will have their irrational fears now and they will have them later.

 

[calvinhobbes]

It gets better. Most of the airports where terrorists boarded planes rank among the top 10 highest risk on the TSA?s Airport Threat Assessment list. For instance, an individual who subsequently pleaded guilty to providing material support to Somali terrorists boarded a plane at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport en route to Somalia an another who later admitted providing Al Qaeda with material support took a plane at Newark Liberty International Airport to participate in a terrorist training camp in Pakistan.

I don't wish to play devil's advocate, but isn't "material support" the charge of choice for those cases where nothing truly serious would stick?

 

[tigger]

I don't wish to play devil's advocate, but isn't "material support" the charge of choice for those cases where nothing truly serious would stick?

Yeah, "material support" can be used pretty broadly. Originally it meant providing tangible goods (donations, arms, whatever) to groups that the State Dept had deemed terrorist organizations. The PATRIOT Act redefined "material support" to include providing personnel, training and "expert advise or assistance." That intentionally vague language is possibly unconstitutional.

 

[Top Geek]

It?s come to this: Six-year-old gets TSA patdown

Via Fox Nation, here?s the best idea that the richest, most technologically advanced country in the history of the world can come up with to guard against the slight ? but real ? risk of children being used as mules for weapons. And believe it or not, it could have been worse. From an item on the TSA Blog posted last November:

Myth: All children will receive pat-downs.
Fact: TSA officers are trained to work with parents to ensure a respectful screening process for the entire family, while providing the best possible security for all travelers. Children 12 years old and under who require extra screening will receive a modified pat down.

It doesn?t look real ?modified,? frankly. But that?s the bad news. The good news is that the feds finally figured out that it?s better to stop people affiliated with terrorist groups from boarding a plane in the first place than to let ?em board and question them when the plane lands. Great to hear, coming just ? 10 years after 9/11. Hopefully by the 20th we?ll have figured out a way to check pre-schoolers for bombs without patting down their crotches.

Watch the video in the linked article if you dare. I couldn't.