Airport Backscatter X-rays: It’s time to take on the TSA
November 18th, 2010
|
| Share |
The TSA has been a prime example of government at its worst. A security theater that is so clearly ineffective it is laughable and a general step BACKWARDS from the privately run airport screenings that existed before 9/11. All Americans should be appalled by the agency and the general trend toward airport security in the US, but sadly they have not.
Finally, it seems that this agency has crossed a line that is actually making Americans stand up and tell the agency it is going too far: the “Virtual strip search” backscatter X-ray system, which is now being deployed at airports nationwide and is proposed to be a standard for passenger examination during routine aircraft boarding.
I should point out that I don’t actually buy into the claims that these scanners pose a significant radiation danger – which has been claimed. They are, however, expensive, easily abused, prone to slowing passengers and of questionable effectiveness. so are most of he TSA’s tactics and it’s really about time that the flying public takes a stand against the incompetence and indignity of they are subjected to.
The Privacy Issue:
I am many things, but one thing I’m not is a prude. If anything, I find our culture’s shyness about ones own body to be a bit unhealthy, especially when it comes to circumstances where people avoid medical examinations because of own apprehension about their body.
That said, the airport back-scatter systems do take things to an unsettling level. The average person would generally prefer not to have their naked body inspected by strangers, especially strangers who are not necessarily the most professional of individuals. This is all the more true in circumstances where a person may have personal conditions that they may not want to have to reveal to the rest of the world. Having random TSA workers observe intimate is an especially violating proposition to anyone who has had a colonostomy, suffers from bladder control problems or lost a testicle to cancer or trauma. Having an intimate piercing, or being born with an extra nipple or an asymmetric labia is also something many would choose to keep to themselves.
It is also important to consider the background of those who will be viewing these intimate images. These are not doctors, they’re not nurses and they’re not even professional and disciplined security officers. Anyone who has gone through a US airport knows that the TSA is hardly an elite force of highly trained individuals. Rather, they are salaried, unionized government workers generally of similar makeup to those who work at any local DMV office.
Is it so unreasonable to think that such workers might not be above oogling an attractive woman or even checking out underage passengers bodies for kicks? Is it really that unlikely that TSA workers would snicker at the private matters of the traveling public, or for that matter, even release some of the images. The TSA oversees security at hundreds of US airports, employing many thousands of security checkpoint workers. In a day and age where most cell phones have high resolution cameras and content can easily be posted to the internet, it’s not a question of IF a TSA worker will post a screen-shot they find humorous or sexy, but only how often it will happen.
In fact, it has already happened.
John Laker, a 25-year-old Heathrow security guard, took te photo when pretty 29-year-old co-worker Jo Margetson entered the machine by mistake, The Sun reported.
It’s the first time an airport worker has been caught misusing the controversial scanners, which give a clear nude image of passengers with clear outlines of passengers’ genitals.
On a related topic: up to a few years ago, most photography was done using film, which had to be taken in to be developed and printed. Despite this, many people still took highly intimate photos and took the film to be developed. I have learned from a number of reliable sources (who were there) that when workers at a friendly local “One hour photo” saw something explicit coming out of the developing machine, they’d make duplicate prints for their own entertainment. Shocking, right?
Perhaps this could all be considered the price of flying safer skies, if the x-ray back-scatter scanners actually did provide dramatically enhanced security. The problem is they really don’t. These expensive, invasive machines are just another part of the security theater that has made many a passenger miss a flight and never enhances flight security at all.
Things an xray back scatter system cannot do:
- Detect any items hidden in a body cavity
- Tell the difference between a dangerous item (such as a bag of explosives) and a legitimate item on the body (such as a colostomy bag, a surgical dressing, a splint, a sanitary napkin, a bladder control product or any number of other medical or hygiene products or even a padded bra or padded shoulder pads). These scanners absolutely cannot detect the composition of material, only the general shape. A bra padded with nylon looks just like one padded with plastic explosives.
- Effectively see through and resolve objects under all types of clothing (some materials provide greater back-scatter than others)
- Detect items in cary-ons or personal items such as wallets and keys. Although cary-ons are x-rayed separately, this method is far from foolproof in detecting threatening items, especially if they are cleverly disguised to look like legitimate personal effects.
What actually CAN improve security and safety at airports:
Observation – If you ever go to a casino in Las Vegas or Atlantic city (or anywhere else), you are being watched. It happens from the moment you come in to the moment you leave. You wouldn’t know it, because it’s highly unobtrusive and very discrete. It’s also very thorough and effective.
In the ceilings of the casinos are hundreds of cameras, many of which have the capability to pan, tilt and zoom. They are constantly scanning the floor, observing table games and watching who is coming and going. Staff in a remote room are watching the feeds constantly. They scan over the floor and zoom in for a closer look at anyone who catches their eye. On the floor, guards, both plain-clothed and in uniform also watch, being directed to investigate by the security monitoring staff through earpieces.
What they are looking for is anything and everything unusual, out of place or even slightly suspicious. Experienced casino security staff know how patrons behave and can spot when someone is not fitting the pattern. It could be someone who repeatedly lingers back into the same area for no reason, or someone who is making strange hand movements at a table game. It could just be someone who looks nervous or appears to be trying to hide something.
When something is seen, it is investigated quickly. Cameras zoom in for a closer look, staff make a note to keep an eye on the person in question and guards may be asked to move in to observe the individual. Most of the time, it turns out to be nothing and the individual who sparked the curiosity of the casino security staff never even knows that anyone took notice. However, casinos have too much to loose from cheaters, pick pockets or card counters. So they take no chances.
This is how we should run airports. Most potential threats will throw up many red flags before even making it onto the plane.
Maintain the highest standards for security workers – The TSA and its workers should follow the kind of discipline and rigor seen in elite law enforcement and military units. Applicants should be screened thoroughly and, most importantly, those who don’t make the cut need to be fired – no cushy worker protection contracts. Professionalism, constant inspections and grading are vital to maintaining both moral and security capabilities, and it must be carried to all aspects of the job, even those which do not directly impact security.
It may seem unnecessary to expect employees to maintain high standards in areas that are not actually related to security capabilities. Requiring that TSA workers have well pressed pants, spit-shined boots and keep their sideburns straight may even seem like a waste. However, these values carry over into the more pressing aspects of work and help maintain an enviornment of professionally high standards. It’s hard to compartmentalize these kind of things and the psychological impact of requiring all things be done well should not be underestimated.
The military has always understood this. It’s why cadets are expected to be able to bounce a dime on their tightly-made beds and why boot camp still involves marching drills, despite the fact that soldiers don’t actually “march” into battle anymore and haven’t for more than a century.
Get TSA guards to march to their posts in step, while wearing immaculate uniforms and referring to their superiors as “sir” and you might get them to stop missing bombs in luggage too!
Test the system constantly – Airport security is only occasionally subject to formal tests of effectiveness, with undercover agents carrying weapons or simulated explosives into security checkpoints. When they are put to the test, however, they do abysmally badly. At Los Angles International Airport, undercover investigators attempted to smuggle simulated explosives onto aircraft and succeeded a staggering 75% of the time. In Chicago, TSA security officials missed 60% of simulated bombs. A private security contractor at San Fransisco International Airport only missed 20% of the simulated carry-on bombs – a much lower, but still unacceptably high proportion.
Just as unacceptable as these tests is the fact that they were only conducted in one study at there airports. Airport inspectors and security guards have far too important a job to allow it to go continuously untested and unverified. These kind of checks and audits should be done frequently, at random times and using a variety of tactics to assess the capabilities of security. When they fail, people need to be fired, or at the very least, subject to sanctions like unpaid suspension and demotion.
If security fails repeatedly at an airport, heads need to roll. Supervisors need to be fired – no union hearings, no mediation boards, no “remedial training” just fired. In the worst cases, supervisors should be made to testify before investigation boards, contractors involved should face very steep fines and entire airport security department staff should be fired and new workers brought in.
Use technology that actually has a good chance of catching dangerous items smuggled – Sensors, scanners, x-rays and computers are no substitute for highly trained and attentive staff, but there are a few devices that actually do have the ability to detect dangerous contraband and, if used properly, can help improve security enormously. X-ray machines should be utilized to the maximum extent to inspect baggage, with machines maintained and kept in good calibration to provide the sharpest images . These inspections should involve a combination of human eyes and machine vision, programmed to flag suspicious patterns for further review.
Metal detectors can help prevent most firearms from getting onto an aircraft, but are of only limited use against things like knives, which can be made entirely of plastic and ceramic.
Thermal and infrared imagine also may have a place. It has a limited ability to detect objects hidden under clothes, but also has the ability to detect passengers who may have a fever, an important factor at international airports, where defense against diseases imports is most important.
Bomb “sniffing” machines (the real kind that sample air or swabs, not the fake kind that are just dowsing rods) also have some potential to reduce dangerous items from reaching a plane. They’re expensive and can generate false positives, but they can still be a useful tool. The best bomb detectors remain the low-tech kind: detection dogs. Unfortunately, detection dogs also have limits, as they can only work so long before becoming tired and require an expert handler, often one who the dog is familiar with. These limits may preclude dogs from being used to inspect every passenger and bag, but they can still be used to sweep terminals and provide another level of security.
All these devices, however, are just tools. When used properly, by well-trained staff they can improve security, but without properly qualified operators they’re useless. Good airport security focuses on the qualifications and attentiveness of the security personnel, and seeks to assure that by the time any passenger reaches their flight, they have gone through multiple layers of inspection to provide redundant checks for signs of a threat. Their belongings, person and behavior should all receive inspections in a manner that is quick, unobtrusive and effective.
Who can do something about this?
These days, taking on a political sacred cow like the TSA is not easy. The voting public can ultimately make a difference, but getting traction can be difficult, especially if no major candidate is willing to make it an issue. I’d suggest the airlines need to consider the implications. The airlines may be able to put up enough lobbying power to make a difference. They certainly have plenty to lose. If the experience of flying is made unpleasant enough, eventually their customers will simply fly less. Furthermore, the ineffectiveness of the TSA means another attack or close call could easily happen, potentially causing even greater losses for the airlines.
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 18th, 2010 at 8:03 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
November 18th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
I agree fully that airport security is mostly show that seems to operate on the theory that the more inconvenience being caused, the more secure the system. I also do not know why in the US and Canada, our respective Coast Guards were not tasked with air transport security functions, as they are maritime.
You are so right that the airport security should to the casinos, rather than the Israelis for a model.
Quote Comment
November 18th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
I would have to say that I travel less by air because of airport security the past few years. I had a couple of very bad experiences. Once I was going with a carry-on that was packed in such a way that I fit a lot of stuff in it, but they decided to tear it apart, very unprofessionally and hand it back to me as wads of clothing and an empty bag. No way I could fold everything back up and get it in the bag in the middle of the airport, so I stuffed it as best I could and ended up with things stuffed in my pockets.
Another time I was held up while they discussed whether the gel deoderant of the guy in front of me could be considered a liquid.
I also hate the fact that they now won’t let you bring any food into the terminal. Drives me crazy, because I used to prefer to bring water or something with me so to avoid the ridiculous prices in the shops at the airport. They say it could be a liquid bomb, but it’s a far fetched idea especially when the bottles are sealed and I’m willing to drink it right there if they want. The whole liquid thing is more obtrusive than helpful.
I will still fly if I have to go any long distance, but if it’s somewhere I can drive in under 5-8 hours, I’ll take a car. It’s just not worth it, imho. I don’t mind driving.
Quote Comment
November 18th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Totally true about photo labs. I worked for one in college in a rich celebrity area, and we have pictures of celebrities that they took of themselves, and naked pictures of one of their moms.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2010 at 12:26 am
The body scanner is supposedly a response to the “underwear bomber” despite the fact that they admit it would not catch that kind of a smuggling attempt.
Also, I don’t see the point of scanning the body of someone who gets on the airplane when the most obvious place to hide any kind of weapon is the bag and based on what we’ve seen, they still are doing a very poor job with the handbags. Body scanner might get guns and stuff, but metal detector gets those anyway. What might it get that metal detector would miss? Not a bomb. Maybe a ceramic bladed knife? I’m still not sure. It could be hidden other ways. In a body cavity for example. These machines are just not going to do anything to help.
Also, regarding the dress and quality of the tsa workers. If you held them to Marine standards they would mostly be gone. Most of them are rather sloppy looking overweight and older. It would make them a lot more respectable. You might have to pay them more, but it would be worth it. I think so much money is currently wasted in the system that it would be a small expense to fix it and use better guards.
I don’t think the invasive searches help at all. They already do a lot of them. They do patdowns and stuff, depending on where you go, I’ve never had to have one but I’ve seen people pulled for them. It’s really something that makes it seem much less respectable. It is done with about as much discression and courtesy as the dmv, and maybe worse.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2010 at 12:38 am
Russ: about water bottles.
Dumb as the rule is, I manage OK by bringing an empty water bottle past the security check & filling it at a drinking fountain.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2010 at 6:19 am
The 9/11 terrorists brought nothing illegal onto the airplanes; you were allowed to bring box cutters and the TSA wouldn’t have prevented anything. On 9/11 everyone assumed that the hijackers wanted to divert the plane to some airport, hold the passengers hostage and demand a ransom of one sort or another.
As soon as the passengers of UA 93 heard about the world trade center and pentagon, their operating assumptions changed and they mounted an attack on the hijackers.
If there were to be a new aircraft hijacking tomorrow there’s a goodly chance the passengers will fight back.
Too much “safety” will also kill people. The added delays and humiliation causes some people at the margin, where driving is a possible substitute, to take their car. Your odds of dying per passenger-mile is much higher in a car than in an airplane; therefor the added security will kill people.
Assume terrorism to be a 300 deaths/year problem(9/11 averaged over the last decade, being generous and assuming TSA would prevent a new 9/11 scale attack). The money, public attention, labour and other resources spent on the TSA could have been spent on other things(opportunity cost). Since so few terrorist deaths occur and preventing them is so expensive there are many places were the resources could likely save many more lives. Heart disease is a ~830 000 deaths/year problem; a 0.04% reduction saves 300 lives per year. Smoking is a ~440 000 deaths/year problem; a 0.07% reduction is needed to save 300 lives/year. Trafic accidents is a ~45 000 deaths/year problem; a 0.7% reduction saves 300 lives/year.
Its hard to find less effective ways to save lives than the TSA. Next to the TSA, it looks like a good idea for the government to take out an advertisement during the super bowl, describing how to do a crude check to feel for abnormalities in breasts and testicles. Next to the TSA, it looks like a good idea for government to rent place at major airports and place free-to-use DDR machines, so that people get a tiny little bit of exercise while waiting for their delayed flight. Next to the TSA, it looks like a good idea for the government to bribe the most polluting, grandfathered-in coal plants to install better pollution controls(coal particulates kill ~30 000/year in the US, and it’s quite heavily skewed towards the worst plants).
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2010 at 6:29 am
Great post on this topic, one of the better ones that actually covers the issue and explains how to do it right. Hope lots of folks share the link in any and every way they can.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2010 at 7:51 am
I agree completely on the topic of backscatter X-rays, but there is another aspect to this story that is making it worse. The new and “enhanced” patdown techniques are designed to make passengers as uncomfortable as possible so that they agree to go through said backscatter machines. http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html was a horrifying account of what the unprofessional TSA agents are doing. I sincerely hope this was an isolated case.
Is anyone else thinking that it’s about time to boycott airlines?
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2010 at 10:15 am
KovaaK said:
I have the pleasure of living in France, which despite it’s over-whelming stench of sweat, frog’s legs and snails* is happily equipped with a very efficient system of high speed trains – with the bare minimum of security, though clearly the capacity to commit a terrorist attack by train is pretty limited.
I’d argue Soylent’s point on the “killcount” is somewhat missing the intention of 9/11 – in terms of death-toll it’s fair to say that slamming a plane into a sports stadium would presumably be more devastating. The impact was both symbolic and economic – we can hit the heart of modern western industry (finance) in what is possibly the most influential city in the modern western world.
Whenever this debate comes up I find myself coming back to the world of shaggy haired Irish comic Ed Byrne: “I defy the A-Team to hijack a plane with some of the **** they take off you at airport security these days – like tweezers. Don’t get me wrong but, if you can hijack a plane with tweezers you deserve the ******* plane.”
And by contrast there’s some serious potential death-toll in attacks using improvised weapons from what can be taken through.
* none of these stereotypes are even remotely true.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I’mnotreallyhere said:
High speed trains work nicely – if you have a small land area with a high population density. Unfortunately, context matters; what works in France would not in, say, Quebec or British Columbia (to name two places I’ve lived), or in much of the US. The distances and populations involved make it a losing proposition.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Nice post! You’ve basically summed up my thoughts on the issue. I wish we could consider risks rationally, instead of this “you can’t be too safe” attitude that caries specific aspects to the extreme.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
soylent said:
I suppose, although I’m not going to say that air travel does not need some security – reasonable security that is effective and not overtly obtrusive to travel. Remember that 9/11 was not the first time terrorists or some other criminal used the airlines to their advantage.
There was PanAm 103 and hijackings of various types. Back in the 1970’s we had the infamous DB Cooper incident.
It’s about more than just the lives lost directly. Taking down an airliner is a big political statement and undermines confidence in travel and in the government’s ability to maintain security in general. If someone with a hand-grenade sized explosive managed to blow out the side of an aircraft and depressurize the cabin, killing a few people it would still be a big thing – airlines would lose huge amounts of money, if noithing else.
Airlines are a big target – always have been. We can at least make it a hard target, as opposed to a soft target, and doing so does not require breasts being groped. That will indeed make some things hard, but it won’t be the target that airlines present.
Quote Comment
November 19th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
This is true, but I also wonder if the airlines are simply trying to remain hands-off for as long as they can tolerate it. If the gov’t is handling security, then the gov’t assumes liability for security failures and takes the PR flak for their buffoonery.
Quote Comment
November 20th, 2010 at 9:43 am
“Is it so unreasonable to think that such workers might not be above oogling an attractive woman or even checking out underage passengers bodies for kicks?”
Did you read what happened to the woman whose shirt was accidentally pulled down exposing her breasts to everyone at the gate? The TSA employees laughed. She went to a private area to calm down and when she came back another TSA employee told her he heard what happened and that he wished he was there. His fellow employees cracked jokes about it.
“These are not doctors, they’re not nurses and they’re not even professional and disciplined security officers.”
“The TSA and its workers should follow the kind of discipline and rigor seen in elite law enforcement and military units.”
If they can conduct themselves with discipline and professionalism without indulging in their dehumanizing power trips, perhaps. Our police forces have been unnecessarily militarized.
@DV82XL
“You are so right that the airport security should to the casinos, rather than the Israelis for a model.”
I might have reflexively agreed with you here, but the case is different than we might expect:
“I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,” Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.
“”That’s why we haven’t put them in our airport,” Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.”
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Full+body+scanners+waste+money+Israeli+expert+says/2941610/story.html
Sela designed the security at Ben Gurion. Instead of consulting the designer of a system that works in what is probably one of the biggest targets, we listen to Michael Chertoff who has a major financial interest in the sale of these scanners.
Meanwhile, “Cancer surviving flight attendant forced to remove prosthetic breast during pat-down”
http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628
Okay, we have airline employees that have to go through the same security that the rest of us do. That’s fine and proper. But what about all of the other employees that have access to these planes? What about all of the bag movers, mechanics, fuelers, and people who clean the aircraft? There are dozens of people who have access to the planes simply by swiping an ID badge and all the hours in a day to do whatever they wish. Then you have the checked luggage that goes through without such screening. The only areas that have intensive security screening are the areas the public sees.
And what about the dumb fluids rules? You need more than 3 or 4 ounces (or whatever the limit is) to make a bomb? Just bring multiple containers with 3 or 4 ounces.
@drbuzz0
“ . . . and doing so does not require breasts being groped. That will indeed make some things hard . . . “
Ahem. Indeed!
Quote Comment
November 20th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
brainfan said:
My experience with military personnel is that there are many who are in circumstances that are extremely tough on insubordination and instill very strong values of professionalism and professional ethics. If you’ve ever talked to someone who is in one of the more elite units of the military, my experience is that despite being tough as nails, they’re also about as polite as anyone you’ll ever meet.
It might depend on the hiring standards you use and to what extent the importance of professional conduct is made central to the job. Working with the public like the TSA should have zero tolerance for the kind of antics you described above.
Quote Comment
November 20th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
The roblem with police forces being “militarized” is that:
A. The military mindset of “close with, engage, and destroy the enemy” is exactly wrong for a peacekeeping/investigative force. If the populace is the enemy, then the police have failed utterly as an organization.
B. Often, only the style of the military, such as a willingness to use force, not its actual strengths, such as discipline and coordination, are taken. This makes a “militarized” police force more of a “thuggified” force than anything else (with due apologies to the Thugee devotees of Kali).
Quote Comment
November 20th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Though I was just standard issue, I did have my exposures to some of the elite forces and yeah, they tended to have a different attitude. I don’t know if there has been a drift from this recently due to the extensive easing of standards, but Matthew makes good points. I also think there is a difference in the types of experiences the guys have. Coming from repeated tours in a war zone where it’s life or death can have pretty harsh effects on a person’s psych, and if it doesn’t, they were probably already out there.
Many police departments have militarized their training and we’ve seen undesirable results.
Quote Comment
November 20th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I like your point about using the same techniques as Las Vegas casinos, but I do think there are some extra challenges to use those techniques at an airport. First, the casinos are private businesses and use whatever profiling they see fit. The TSA is not supposed to use profiling. I can understand why from a civil rights perspective, but I can’t understand why not from a security perspective. If some civil rights (search and seizure) are placed on hold by a person’s choice to fly on an airplane anyway, then what’s the point of not profiling people?
Granted the casinos do not catch everyone who steals from them, but they know what to look for after years of practice. I don’t believe that it’s just a matter of “trust your gut” because that is often wrong. The 9-11 hijackers made a concerted effort to not stick out but Mohamed Atta was selected by the CAPPS system and the check-in clerk did not give him his boarding pass for his next flight in Boston because he had a “gut feeling”. Atta argued with the man but he didn’t give in and Atta mumbled something in Arabic and went on his way. In my view that should have been a red flag but the clerk did not act on it any further by calling security. In this case profiling would have been for the behavior, not Atta’s ethnicity.
Perhaps the TSA and airports have some techniques I’m not aware of nor do they wish to reveal but given the horror stories reported by some who obviously were not terrorists, it doesn’t seem they’re that clever.
Quote Comment
November 20th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Jason Ribeiro said:
I suppose it would depend on the type of profiling. I’d consider it a valid concern that profiling would single out certain races or something like that. I don’t see such concern about behavioral profiling. IE: Someone who repeatedly walks up to security, looks around and then leaves then is seen fumbling with their bag for a long time.
Not that this means that they are a terrorist, of course. They could be just a very nervous traveler. Hence, you would not use that kind of profiling to stop them from boarding, but you might use it to relay a message to the x-ray operators to take an extra close look at their bags and to the airline to double-check their booking documents for anything suspicious.
I don’t see a problem with “there’s something about that guy that doesn’t seem right – lets keep a closer eye on him while he’s here”
Ideally, the passenger is never even aware that somewhere, behind the scenes, they’re getting an extra look and maybe even having an extra measure of security placed on their bags.
Quote Comment
November 20th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
I read a comment from a frequent traveler who said that to avoid getting extra unwanted attention, he tries to get immediately behind hot women. There’s some profiling for ya!
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:45 am
Jason Ribeiro said:
Can I ask you to explain this please?
Only, the indications of his behaviour given in this post roughly go “frustrated traveller gets annoyed with being barred from travelling on the whim of one individual, argues his case, then accepts defeat with mutter of complaint in his local tongue and then wanders off”. To me it just doesn’t seem like particularly suspicious behaviour.
It could be argued that he should have been prepared to fight his case, get the clerk’s manager over, etc but (and I don’t know Atta’s level of English) doing that sort of thing in a foreign tongue is very difficult. Being assertive in a language you struggle to speak (and in a culture you don’t necessarily understand) is not at all easy. Only after a year out in France have I reached a level where I’d be prepared to do that, if I’d have been blocked by a flight clerk’s refusal to give me a boarding pass for my return flight last Christmas I’d have had no idea what to do – and would probably have sworn (in English) under my breath and walked away.
I’ve not taken any strong interest in what happened with Atta that day, although evidently he did board a plane in the end and the rest is history.
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 7:49 am
Matthew said:
“Military standards of discipline” does not necessarily mean that you’re training in close order, CQB and bayonet drills. It can mean that you’re trained to work within a chain of command, and to perform a task professionally.
I’ve worked with scores of ex-military people from several armed forces, and have found them to be *far* above average as managers, in logistics, as teachers (some outstanding cases), in personnel management and so on. They have a sense that a job should be done “right”. They have minimal BS quotients. They work with the organisation.
Of course, I might be biased…
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:02 am
Chimp said:
That’s why I said “militarized” (Hey, look at us! We have big guns and cool vests!) as opposed to militarized (We are disciplined, do our planning, and make sure our info is correct before using force, and then use force as a precise tool to accomplish the objective).
(note the quote marks)
“Militarization” is often, as far as I can tell, simply the “mall ninja” writ large and given a badge.
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:52 pm
The Coast Guard is an example of what one might call a militarized police force, and generally speaking not only are they more disciplined, but more professional in their demeanor, than many civilian police forces. Military standards, as Chip pointed out, does not necessarily mean organized bullies.
That’s why I suggested up thread that it is a shame that the Coast Guards of Canada and the US are not dealing with air transport security. It looks like a natural extension to what they already do, and both are used to working in coordination with each other.
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:12 pm
DV82XL said:
As I understand it, Coast Guards are actually considered military, even though much of their work is enforcement related. That would make them as less of a “militarized police force” and more of a military force tasked with interdiction and surveillance duties within their area of operations (coastal waters). I understand that they also handle the security testing, as well (I was on a scuba trip with some Coasties last winter, and they mentioned having just finished doing a round of it – they didn’t give specific details, but I got the impression that TSA did not come off well).
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Matthew said:
That’s chopping it rather fine there Matthew.
At any rate the difference seem to be that unlike most military forces, Coast Guards are not used to project might as a tool of international influence as regular armed forces do, but are upholding national law, as police forces do. The difference being that like other armed forces, (but unlike police) they are subject to military law.
It is this last aspect, and the discipline and responsibility that it entails, is the reason I believe they should be handling air transport security, as they do maritime transport security.
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Matthew said:
Chimp said:
Using the type of professional style and discipline of the military does not mean that one needs to use the same tactics or have the same focus as the military. that would be my point.
In the Army, Navy, Air Force, military style professionalism and discipline is directed toward the primary task of killing the enemy. Yes, these organizations do other things, but their main focus is killing. They are supposed to be tough hard fithers.
It does not need to be this way, of course. The Coast Guard would be a good example of a force that uses military-like discipline but is not really a fighting force. The Coast Guard does occasionally have to use force to defend boarders, but much of what they do is in no way related to that. The Coast Guard has a huge focus on search and rescue and they also do things like safety inspection and enforcement, investigating marine accidents, servicing buoys and running ports.
By comparison, the regular military does not generally do much search and rescue and would not have to deal with the public in the same way. I doubt most Navy commanders are much good at dealing with a bunch of drunken yuppies on a pleasure yacht that is blocking an important navigational channel because one of them forgot to check the fuel level. The Coast Guard deals with that kind of thing all the time.
Another example would be something like the VIP protection wing of the Secret Service. They don’t generally fight. They do carry weapons, but most of what they do is crowd control and keeping a ring of security around the US president and visiting world leaders. They are held to high standards – always sharply dressed in civilian attire, always extremely observant and highly disciplined. Secret Service agents don’t slack off on the job. They don’t miss things very often and don’t tolerate security threats being missed.
there are other examples out there: the Diplomatic Security Agency, the Swiss Guard (yeah, I know – I’m saying something good about the Vatican) and maybe even the Samari of old Japan.
It’s not about military operations – that’s not the point.
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Reminds me of something I read a while ago, about the culture of NASA during the Apollo days. It was observed that “It was the kind of place where everyone ironed their underwear and was never late for an oil change”
Yeah, that’s the kind of culture I’d like at any security agency, professional perfectionism and taking one’s job seriously. We probably wouldn’t have been able to make it to the moon without that kind of worker.
Quote Comment
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:40 pm
No one has made a joke about the use of the word “incontinence” yet? Really?
Being subjected to incontinence seems like it would be worse than a full-body scan, and I certainly wouldn’t want to stand against it or anywhere near it!
The best rebuttal to this post is probably http://www.satirewire.com/content/?p=2021
Quote Comment
November 23rd, 2010 at 6:04 pm
This is funnier if I say nothing and let Mr. Adam Savage tell his story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4
Quote Comment
November 24th, 2010 at 9:20 am
If bombs are the concern, why not just have bomb-sniffing dogs at every airport?
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 12:10 am
The problem with observations like you propose, like Israel does, is that it is profiling. Progressively minded people oppose any sort of profiling, racial or otherwise. Security checks should be equal and blind not based some TSA employee thinks.
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 12:18 am
Bruce said:
But Bruce, it is a proven fact that people with darker skin that dress and smell funny, are a much higher security risk than tall, blond, blue-eyed, beautiful people, dressed in the latest fashions.
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 12:56 am
Bruce said:
“progressively minded”? I’m not so sure that you really speak for everyone in that demographic.
But you do have a point. I mean someone should not be singled out for additional screening because of their race or ethnicity.
I’m thinking more in terms of activity. This is already something that any law enforcement agency takes notice of, if they happen to see it. More monitoring would be more likely to spot it.
I’m thinking more of someone who is doing things that look like they’re casing security, perhaps comes back multiple days when they have no flight and no apparent other reason to be at the airport and then goes into a secluded area and seems to be fiddling with wires in his bag, or a couple of guys repeatedly whispering things to eachother and being evasive, stuffing suspicious looking objects into their pockets. Then, when they are checked out further, it turns out both of them bought their tickets last minute, one-way and paid with cash.
There are some activities that “fit the profile” of someone who might pose a greater threat than others. Paying for a ticket in cash at the gate is one. Flying one-way is another. Also, using a non-official form of ID or something.
Believe me, I’ve actually been watched or casually questioned by law enforcement on a couple occasions when I was doing something one might consider suspicious. One time I went to a friend’s house and she was running late and not home, so I decided to take a walk into an old Jewish cemetery near her home and just kill some time looking at the historic graves and old encryption. As it turns out, this cemetery had been the scene of some racist graffiti and vandalism in the recent past. So there I was, single young guy moping around the cemetery alone with no apparent reason to be there and I had a big laptop bag over my shoulder.
Before long a cop car was at the entrance to the cemetery (no doubt they had been watching the place from time to time) As I walked out I had the following exchange:
Cop: Hey, you look a bit lost. Looking for something?
Me: Nope. Just went for a walk to kill some time.
Cop: Okay. Just killing time? You from around here?
Me: No, I am visiting a friend over there. She wasn’t home because she’s running a bit late, so I just walked around and this place looked interesting.
Cop: Alright. No problem.
if nothing else, he probably wanted to make sure I knew my visit to the cemetary had not gone unnoticed. I can’t blame them either. Like I said – young guy with a bag in a place where vandalism had happened before… probably justified taking a closer look.
I was also confronted a couple times near the Saratoga Preforming Arts Center in New York because they saw me sneaking around in the woods and figured that I was planning on jumping the fence – which I was. The security there is pretty well aware that people who try to sneak into the woods are planning on jumping the fence. Hence, i had to leave and go to the entire other side of the complex to jump the fence…. which I admit I shouldn’t have done, but I was a lot younger and didn’t really want to pay to see Matchbox 20
Quote Comment
November 26th, 2010 at 4:47 am
Not at all, in fact, I’m surprised they haven’t been targeted more.
Heck, I could probably dress up in work outfit, don a tool belt and go out during night to a rail bridge and weld some derailing ramp to the rail, so that the commuter-filled morning high speed train will derail spectacularly on the bridge. It would be carnage. The risk would be negligible, as there is no security and anyone who saw me would simply assume that I was legitimately fixing something, especially as work on rails is often done by night.
Quote Comment
November 26th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Troberg said:
Never mind that, a bit of plastique in the right place on a selected tanker train, and half a city could be taken out. Consider that when you see a train pass full of graffiti, which serves as evidence of how poor security is in the yards
Quote Comment
November 26th, 2010 at 11:21 am
DV82XL said:
If there is any place that could use more security it’s the rail yards and hazardous shipments by train. Granted, none have actually been subject to a terrorist attack, but if 9/11 taught us anything it should be that simply because something has not happened before does not mean it should not be guarded against.
Of course, there was the passenger train attack in Spain.
It is also not terribly difficult to derail a train. In 1995 a train was derailed in California in a crime that remains unsolved. The purpotrarots wired the rails together before pushing them out of alignment. This avoided the break being detected by systems that check the continuity of the track for breaks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_derailment
Surveillance technology has also come a long way. I’d suggest that it would not be a huge difficulty to fit hazardous materials cars and critical rail sections (such as bridges) with simple security systems – things like infrared body heat detectors that would sound a loud siren and strobe when the car is sitting in a train yard and an unauthorized person attempts to climb on it or otherwise get too close. Of course, these days cameras are so cheap it could even have a small video camera to capture an image of anything being done to the car.
Not long ago I read about New York City installing some basic security systems in Subway tunnel access points – the city has long had a problem with vandals, homeless and other unwanted individuals entering the subway system. Not only do they spray paint graffiti ad such, but every once in a while one of them gets killed. Pretty simple system – body-heat based motion detectors which sound a loud siren, to scare off someone trying to enter, and send a signal to one of the dispatch centers or transit police through the existing signaling system. The alarm is temporarily disabled when a train passes and can be shut off by transit workers when an area is being inspected or serviced.
I don’t remember what ever happened with that. They had put them in a few places when the Republican convention was held in the city. Not sure if they expanded it to all the major points of entry. They should.
Quote Comment
November 27th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
drbuzz0 said:
That should be the whole point: security should be integrated INTO travel terminals, but not interfere with a traveler’s stay at the airport. The hassle of getting your tickets, getting to your flight, getting your baggage in order, and all of that stuff is time-wasting enough, and while people are being scanned, patted down and scrutinized to within an inch of their lives, airplanes are sitting on the ground, chewing through fuel and not doing anything: wasting precious resources. These methods of security that are only marginally more thorough without any real increase in efficiency don’t solve anything: they simply make air travel more inconvenient, less attractive, and harder to maintain as businesses.
Normally I’m one of those full-on privacy, free, libertarian freaks but when it comes to security, you want to be as sure as you can be. But you also have to remember that your methods must be appropriate to where you employ them. In airports? We need all the security we can afford—but only if it’s done right!
Quote Comment
November 29th, 2010 at 4:53 am
Good point. A trainful of propane derailed right in the center of my home town (Borlänge, Sweden) a decade or so ago due to a drunk train driver. Luckily, it was going slow, so it didn’t blow, and they managed to make a controlled burn on the leaking carriages. If it had blown, it would have taken out most of the town (search for it on Google Earth, coordinates 60°29′4.90″N 15°25′39.04″E. The tall, plus-shaped building just a short bit away to the southwest is the national rail administration…
These trains still pass through frequently, feeding the local steel mill with propane.
Quote Comment
November 29th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I would worry alot more about train cars full of chlorine than those propane tankers. And there’s stuff even worse than chlorine (think bugspray).
Quote Comment
November 30th, 2010 at 3:57 am
Well, I would prefer the bug spray. Do you realize what a huge fuel-air bomb a full train set of propane will make? You can protect yourself from bug spray, but not against the most destructive bombs short of nuclear weapons.
Korea had an accident not very different from what we had, except that their train blew up. A town was more or less leveled, and if I remember the numbers right, thousands were killed in the blast and there were over 3000 severe burn victims.
Quote Comment