New TSA Security Procedures

[Magic Newswire]

We found a handheld metal detector in our bag when we got home.. does that count?

[David Alexander]

For those of you who think the TSA should be more like El Als security, its a nice thought but its never going to happen as it requires highly trained employees, something the TSA could never find in sufficient quantity to emulate what El Al does.

Heres a description of El Als procedures which has worked well for decades:

Passengers are asked to report three hours before departure. All El Al terminals around the world are closely monitored for security. There are plain-clothes agents and fully armed police or military personnel who patrol the premises for explosives, suspicious behavior, and other threats. Inside the terminal, passengers and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats.

Passengers will be asked questions about where they are coming from, the reason for their trip, their job or occupation, and whether they have packed their bags themselves. The likelihood of potential terrorists remaining calm under such questioning is believed to be low. At the check-in counter the passengers passports and tickets are closely examined. A ticket without a sticker from the security checkers will not be accepted. At passport control passengers names are checked against information from the FBI, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Scotland Yard, Shin Bet, and Interpol databases. Luggage is screened and sometimes hand searched. In addition, bags are put through a decompression chamber simulating pressures during flight that could trigger explosives.

They probe, as one profiling supervisor told CBS, for anything out of the ordinary, anything that does not fit. Their questions can seem odd or intrusive. . . . Only when the profiler is satisfied that a passenger poses no risk is he or she allowed to proceed to the check-in counter. By that point, there is no need to make him remove his shoes, or to confiscate his bottle of water.

[Ted M]

Sometimes it takes courage to live free.

[Anthony Vinson]

I read an interesting and entertaining description of the TSA's new security screening procedures: Gate rape. Wish I thought of it...

But seriously, the TSA is no more effective and infinitely more expensive than the private security firms who were providing airport screening prior to 9/11. Today's security procedures are reactive, not proactive. What happens when some a$$hole decides to use an anally implanted explosive device? Or how about vaginally? I'm not trying to be funny; it could happen easily enough. Do we then elevate the security procedures to include random body cavity searches?

The TSA is one glaring example of the use of fear to manipulate the masses and facilitate larger, more far-reaching government programs. This is one small part of a larger and more insidious effort to create more of a police state here in the good old US of A. I agree with Robert Allen in an earlier post: The terrorists won on 9/11. We are a nation of fearful citizens and have decided to give away our freedoms and liberties in exchange for the illusion of security.

[David Scollnik]

Drudge is presently linking to a story about the TSA. This one:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polit ... 59869.html

Basically, airports are no longer required to have TSA screeners. For a number of years now, airports have been allowed to opt out and employ private screeners instead. Republican Rep. John Mica, one of the authors of the bill creating the TSA, is now reminding airports that they have this choice, given that the TSA is (critics allege) more about "security theater" and "public humiliation" than actual security.

[Richard Kaufman]

I want it noted that I was the first one to mention carrying plastic explosives in human orifices below the waist. So back off! :)

Just heard from a friend in Japan that a new postal law went into effect today: The US has declared that NO package weighing more than one pound can be shipped from Japan to the United States by anything other than seamail (boat--takes several months). I found this impossible to believe, so I Googled it, and it is in fact true. Insanity reigns.

[David Alexander]

So the people mailing bombs to the United State from Japan (this is a problem?) will have to design better, longer-lasting fuses. Think computer chips with delayed timers and high-quality batteries.

I wonder what Japan will do in response.

[DrDanny]

I'll admit it sounds ridiculous, but it's not quite as bad as it sounds at first. Business metered stuff is OK. The rule generally is meant to apply to stamped packages that can be dropped off anonymously. And in this country (USA) you already can't drop off stamped packages of more then eleven ounces -- rather they must be handed over the counter at a USPS office or contract substation. (But don't quote me.)

[David Scollnik]

Apparently this declaration applies to all countries shipping to the U.S., not JUST Japan:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 117a5.html

However, it also sounds as though these packages are not expressly prohibited. DHL, Fedex, and others are still accepting them. It is only Japan Post Services that has stopped accepting them for now.

This next article further notes that the policy does not apply to companies or individuals that hold a business contract with the Japan Post:

http://tomopop.com/tomopop-business-rep ... 5732.phtml

[Terry]

A great alternative to body scanners at airports

The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports.

It's a booth you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you. They see this as a win-win for everyone, with none of the whining about racial profiling. It also would eliminate the costs of long and expensive trials. Justice would be swift. Case closed!

You're in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system: "Attention standby passengers we now have a seat available on flight number ____. Shalom."

[Tim Ellis]

Security Theatre is the perfect definition.

One trip we took to the USA had Sue-Anne "randomly" singled out for searching on EVERY flight we took (about 9 or 10) because she was the exact opposite of the racial profile they were looking for. By searching her, it made it appear they were not racially profiling...

This was explained by the ONE security officer who searched our stuff, and actually knew what he was doing. He asked us a few questions, asked us to demonstrate a trick, then said he was happy we were not a risk - but confided he had to at least pretend to search our bag or his supervisor would think he was not doing his job.

Tommy Wonder refused to travel when the USA brought in the fingerprinting system. Who knows what he'd think now!

[Tim Ellis]

http://flyingpasties.com/

[Brad Henderson]

I once flew to a gig with the Engima and Katzen. He is tattooed head to toe with blue jigsaw puzzle pieces and has horns. She is tattooed as a cat complete with whisker implants.

These poor people were stopped at every check point and thoroughly scrutinized.

I think if someone were going to, oh, commit any sort of crime the notion of "inconspicuous" may be something they would have contemplated.

I know, I know - if you want to hide it, paint it red.

But somehow I think those two would be just a little too easy to be able to pick out of a lineup.

[erdnasephile]

Terry wrote: "...The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners at the airports. It's a booth you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you..."

Although the above is presumably a joke, it is interesting to note that El Al is currently the only airline that puts each piece of checked luggage into a decompression chamber that is designed to set off any explosive with a barometric detonation switch.

[Richard Kaufman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBL3ux1o ... r_embedded

Ignore the stupid commercial you have to watch first, but the video is funny as hell, from Taiwan.

[Roger M.]

Brilliant video.

When a video like this comes out, and 100% of the people relate to most every scene in the video, the battle has already been won.

All that's left is for the losers (the TSA and the Federal Government) to realize that they've lost, and to put up the white flag and take the terms of surrender.

"Don't touch my junk" has already become an iconic statement, with clothing marketers having a field day.....it will likely be remembered as the opening salvo in the battle that would let an ordinary citizen once again get on an airplane without having to having to submit to a legal rape.

[Dustin Stinett]

"TSA: 'Thousands Standing Around.'" --John Stossel

[Magic Newswire]

I assume that people have seen these so haven't posted it, but just in case : http://www.FlyingPasties.com

Very funny vid Richard. Thanks!

[David Oliver]

The new security measures have certainly put the "T&A" back in "TSA."

[Tim Ellis]

I posted the pasties up a few posts ago Dodd... but I'm told they don't actually work anyway... :(

[Tim Ellis]

This is a good piece about the controversy and the reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bWzLemnkCU

My question is, if I get a pat down from a guy and Sue-Anne gets a pat down from a girl, I assume that is because they feel that it would be too overtly sexual for the opposite sex to go the grope.

But what about gay people?

It stands to reason that if a girl was feeling a hetrosexual guy up, it might be a turn on for him... maybe her too... so if a gay guy gets felt up by another guy... just something to consider...

[Richard Kaufman]

That's already "come up," so to speak, on some comments beneath the YouTube video I linked to.

[Brad Henderson]

Colbert had someone on the other night to talk about this.

His take was even more - interesting.

Apparently, if a gay man is allowed to request a female for comfort reasons; what if a man claims to be gay so that he may then be felt up by a woman?

Given the PC workplace/harassment issues involved, I would think that if enough men requested female patters, and enough TSA screeners felt uncomfortable by it, then the threat of a lawsuit from with the TSA might be cause to change the policy.

Some may think this unfair to put those women through the potential discomfort - but it seems like a fair turn around.

[Brad Henderson]

TURN around - TURN - TURN

[Dustin Stinett]

The new TSA Seal

[Robert Allen]

Now cough.

[David Alexander]

A woman on the news tonight out of Chicago had recently flown in from St. Louis. She's had knee replacement surgery as evidenced by the scars on her legs. The replacements set off the metal detectors so she requrested a full-body scan.

Sorry, "not available" she was told. She requested a wand. Also "not available." So they traumatized her by groping her. She described it in detail. Had a non-TSA person done it they would have been arrested for sexual assault. She looked to be someone's grandmother and was upset enough to go on television and tell her story.

I wonder how long this is going to last before the politicians weigh in.

So much for "choice."

[Geno Munari]

Interesting comments. El Al has a most interesting concept to screen passengers, but many believe that the concept will not work for U.S. airlines, probably due to the amount of passengers that travel.

Yet the concept of interviewing passengers is so effective. Maybe there may be a method derived from El AL, that has an almost a perfect record of no problemos.

A derivitive of their intense screening sans personal intrusions may be a glide path for TSA.

[David Alexander]

I described the El Al procedure back on page 5. It requires highly trained interviewers. It wouldn't work in the US because there are thousands of flights a day. The TSA would never be able to hire and train the needed people.

El Al is a government airline so they don't have to worry about turning a profit for their stockholders. They have about 40 planes. By contrast United Airlines has around 360. There are thousands of flights every day with millions of people flying each year. The El Al systems works great for a small airline owned by a small country. It won't work here.

[Dustin Stinett]

"Please have your genitalia out and ready to be fondled when you approach the security checkpoint." --Ann Coulter

[Richard Kaufman]

I'm sure that's the only way Ann Coulter could get fondled.

But seriously, or not, here's a song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RTYIsqY ... r_embedded

[Jonathan Townsend]

"Had a non-TSA person done it they would have been arrested for sexual assault. ... I wonder how long this is going to last before the politicians weigh in."

What, you get to pick the party line of choice for "inspection". Not sure that's the best way to campaign for votes - but maybe just kissing babies and eating local foods is no longer working?

Let's take the bit about "sitting on santa's lap" for the children's inspection line as done as keep moving.

[David Alexander]

Here's John Tyner's entire account, what really went down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UqM56e- ... re=related

Read his post underneath the screen.

His father is a retired cop and asked for "courtesy" so he could go through the metal detector but the TSA had its "procedures."

He was escorted out of the security area by TSA employees and then threatened with a civil suit and a fine for leaving the area.

Oh yeah, one other thing, Michael Chertoff, former director of Homeland Security, is one of the people representing the company that makes the full-body scan machines.

[Kevin Connolly]

Anyone come up with better solution yet besides just stopping the searches?

[Pete Biro]

Listen to the folks from El Al.

[Tim Ellis]

I think stopping the searches is a better solution...

I do disagree with the idea the passengers be encouraged to arm themselves...

[Richard Kaufman]

No one wants to be the person who reduces security because if a terrorist event occurs afterward, you're a dead duck.

[David Alexander]

The fear is explosives now that the pilots have been safely protected behind reinforced doors.

There are the explosive sniffing machines and trained dogs but they don't have the former head of Homeland Security pimping for them.

[erdnasephile]

I think Richard has hit upon it. Much of the American public wants something for nothing (i.e. they want to be 100% protected, but they are unwilling to surrender any of their personal liberties).

The fundamental question is: What level of security are we willing to sacrifice for?

Put another way: how many attacks are we willing to miss? If the answer is "zero", then we need to take inventory of just what we are willing to give up to make that happen.

Until we as a society begin to honestly address these questions with more realistic attitudes, we will continue to have a flawed, reactionary system ruled by hysteria, dogma, financial interests, and politics.

There is no free lunch when it comes to security.

[Richard Kaufman]

There's no free lunch, period.