The TSA: Worse Than Useless

The TSA is the Transportation Security Administration.

In the wake of the 'underwear bomber' they insisted on body imaging scanners - Nude O Scopes - that let you see under a person's clothing. Heavy lobbying by former Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff for this occurred at the same time; Mr. Chertoff was paid by the company that made the scanners.

The scanners have not been fully tested for health effects. It is thought that they produce a small amount of radiation an could produce a long term use risk, but the TSA hasn't bothered finding out or paying attention to studies done.

The scanners have been slowly rolling out in the past year or so. It should be noted that the Government Accountability Office has determined these NoS may not even detect the type of bomb the underwear bomber had on. I.e., they could well be completely useless for their intended purpose. They likely are; the TSA doesn't know because it hasn't actually tested them for their effectiveness.

In fact, the former head of security at the Tel Aviv airport said he could smuggle enough explosives through a NoS to bring down a 747. The Israelis don't use these scanners at their airports.

In the past few weeks the TSA noticed no one wants to go through these NoS because they don't want federal perverts looking at pictures of them naked. The TSA says the scanners won't store pictures, but that's a lie - federal marshalls using a NoS at a courthouse stored 35,000 images.

In response TSA stepped up the pat down of people who refused the scanner, making it more invasive and uncomfortable in order to compel people to go through the scanner. Now agents feel around the genitals, the inner thigh, buttocks, etc.

Yet these patdowns, unconstitutional and invasive as they are, remain useless because a terrorist could hide something in his body.

So, we have two useless but very invasive methods of security everyone has to go through to board a plane in the USA (in addition to the stupid bans on large containers of liquid and things like nail clippers).

These should stop. They don't make people safer. They intrude on our rights. We should not have to give up our rights to travel in a modern manner.

We need to look rationally at the risks involved. There have been millions of flights since 9/11 and hundreds of millions of passengers. But not one successful attack by people flying in the US. In fact, the TSA has never stopped a terrorist attack. Ever. They have caught items like knives and guns and even some explosive materials, but none of the people planned to use them to try to hijack or bomb the plane.

The handful of attacks that have occurred - the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, and attacks in the planning stage - like the group that planned to make a liquid bomb - have all been stopped by passengers or by government investigators before the attackers got to the airport.

The only worthwhile changes in security since 9/11 have been the hardening of cockpit doors and passengers knowing they have to fight any hijackers. The best way to stop future attacks is not by overreacting to yesterday's attempt, but by investing more in human intelligence to find attackers before they strike.

If a group of terrorists reaches the airport, that means they have planned how to make a bomb or carry out an attack, and have eluded the FBI, CIA, NSA and DHS. There's no way some federal rent a cops will stop them; the terrorists can easily plan around whatever rules there are.

A reasonable look at the risks shows that the chances of a terrorist attack are astronomical. Deciding to undergo humiliations for a nonexistent safety benefit is not logical. There's more chance of injury from driving to the airport than from a terrorist attack.

The NoS itself may well kill as many people with radiation, even with a conservative estimate of radiation, as terrorists do, since terrorist attacks are so low.

And by discouraging travelers from flying and encouraging more risky methods like driving, these procedures increase the number of people who die from car accidents way above the number of people who die from terrorist attacks in planes.

We need to not give in to fear; we need to not let irrational fear of terrorists compel us to give up our rights. We have to think clearly about the risks and realize the chance that a terrorist attacks is extremely, extremely low. And since it's so low, we need to recognize that other activities in our lives, like driving, are much more risky than flying.

Therefore, these new security measures should be ended. They serve no purpose except the humiliation of passengers. The TSA's calls for ever more invasive screening must be opposed and stopped.

CR

Reminds me of the hand held "scanners" sold by a British company to countries around the world (including occupied Iraq) which were nothing more than a wand which went beep, essentially an electronic divining rod.

Humiliating? Sure, but that's not the main reason I'm opposed to these "security measures", for me it's all about the money.

How much time does these security measures take? 30 minutes? Time is money, business travelers are paid while they stand in line. How much is half an hour worth? Let's say 20 bucks. Now multiply that with the number of business travelers....

Silliness like this is exactly what the terrorists want, their attacks would mean next to nothing on the political scene if it wasn't for all the economic trouble/inconvenience to society caused by this rubbish.

Most of us would like to know that there is a method to the madness.
The right answer should be that TSA will have physical security measures, but they will be used to target passengers on the basis of risk. Hint to TSA: not everyone going through security is a risk. Differentiating between sweet Susie law-abiding citizen and would-be terrorist starts before either of them would ever enter the airport walls. In fact, previously foiled terrorist attacks have taught us that the best way to stop terrorism is to focus on improving the flow of intelligence between local, state, and federal law enforcement and empowering them to track down terror leads in communities. Additionally, working with our international partners and robust-interagency coordination on visa and intelligence matters is equally vital. There are watchlists that can assist in stopping a terrorist from even getting on the plane, and they don't involve any kind of pat down or body scan.

If intelligence leads TSA screeners to believe that a person requires additional review based on credible intelligence—Americans should expect, if not demand that the government pull them aside. Most of this physical screening has no place, however, in primary inspection lines. Pretending that everyone is a risk is a weak way to do intelligence—the onus is on TSA and DHS as a whole to improve this process.

How about Behavior Recognition Screening?

Preaching to the choir CR. The whole process is a joke. It's been proven to be ineffective time and time again. It doesn't address the roots of the issues. And the "no fly list" is an unconstitutional crime against most of the people who are on it. I happen to know several people that are on it, and how they made it on there is utterly beyond me.

Hosa has the right idea. Without getting into a debate about the Israelis from a larger perspective, I think they do a good job keeping their airports and flights safe. This includes levels of BRS, and more importantly they apply these measures before one ever gets into the actual airport itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

How about Behavior Recognition Screening?

---

BRS requires training and paying the screeners well. Why do that when you can just pay a pittance to people of dubious morals to sexually harass passengers?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...nia/sW5hqi.jpg

When I was in Israel, you wasn't even allowed liquid in your hand luggage. Some foolish (American) tourist put a 2 litre bottle of coke in theirs, and when it went through the machine, the bottle exploded, soaking the entire conveyer belt and destroying the majority of his contents. Then he was grabbed and dragged away by security forces, to a more intimate setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The only worthwhile changes in security since 9/11 have been the hardening of cockpit doors and passengers knowing they have to fight any hijackers. The best way to stop future attacks is not by overreacting to yesterday's attempt, but by investing more in human intelligence to find attackers before they strike.

---

Entirely correct.

As I've noted before, it's only because most terrorists are educationally subnormal that they would even consider trying to attack aircraft these days. If one is fond of air traffic congestion, it would be a lot easier to take one's rucksack to the Arrivals area of a major airport and blow up the hundreds of people waiting for their loved ones. The intelligence services should be catching people at the plotting stage - and largely, are doing so.

The kind of over-reaction we see in the West - typified by the airport security charade - hands undeserved victories to the terrorist and has the bonus of providing a golden opportunity for government to intrude into citizens' privacy.

On the whole I agree with Hosa. Edit:Although this guy says that we couldn't use Israels method: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/11/...ecurity-system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Entirely correct.

As I've noted before, it's only because most terrorists are educationally subnormal that they would even consider trying to attack aircraft these days. If one is fond of air traffic congestion, it would be a lot easier to take one's rucksack to the Arrivals area of a major airport and blow up the hundreds of people waiting for their loved ones. The intelligence services should be catching people at the plotting stage - and largely, are doing so.

---

Aren't there different profiles for local terrorists and the 9/11 type terrorists?

Quote:

---

Author Lawrence Wright describes the characteristic of "displacement" of members of the most famous Islamic terrorist group, Al-Qaeda.

What the recruits tended to have in common – besides their urbanity, their cosmopolitan backgrounds, their education, their facility with languages, and their computer skills – was displacement. Most who joined the jihad did so in a country other than the one in which they were reared. They were Algerians living in expatriate enclaves in France, Moroccans in Spain, or Yemenis in Saudi Arabia. Despite their accomplishments, they had little standing in the host societies where they lived. ...."[24]

---

Quote:

---

This profile differs from that found among recent local Islamist suicide bombers in Afghanistan, according to a 2007 study of 110 suicide bombers by Afghan pathologist Dr. Yusef Yadgari. Yadgari found that "80%" of the attackers studied had some kind of physical or mental disability.

---

I don't know if the motivations of the first group would be satisfied by a gesture like blowing up in the line.

Quote:

---

The kind of over-reaction we see in the West - typified by the airport security charade - hands undeserved victories to the terrorist

---

Well but again, how is this something they care about? Are they really celebrating about muslim women in the US getting patted down or walking through scanners? Isn't that exactly what they are against? I'm suspicious of "this is what osama/the terrorists want" arguments.

Quote:

---

and has the bonus of providing a golden opportunity for government to intrude into citizens' privacy.

---

"Golden opportunity" implies that they are motivated by the desire to intrude into people's privacy.

What makes you think they care at all about the west over-reacting in this way?

If the USA undertakes activities to alienate American Muslims this is advantageous in the long term for Osama et al as it creates problems.

Of course, if the Muslims took the reasonable attitude of secular laws above religious laws then there would be far less of a problem in the first place.

~:smoking:

Sorry CR, I rather come home safe then die from a bomb because you guys are to worry about them seeing your ''worms''. :laugh4: :yes:


You can't even see the person's privates in detail can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

Sorry CR, I rather come home safe then die from a bomb because you guys are to worry about them seeing your ''worms''. :laugh4: :yes:


You can't even see the person's privates in detail can you?

---

The point is, Warmancake, that 1. you won't die in a bomb and 2. in the highly unlikely event that a terrorist attack occurs, these security measures will not prevent it or have any effect whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

Sorry CR, I rather come home safe then die from a bomb because you guys are to worry about them seeing your ''worms''. :laugh4: :yes:


You can't even see the person's privates in detail can you?

---

If you're going to be on the plane when it blows, suffice to say you're committed and don't expect to survive.

I don't think that there are many morons who come with three sticks of dynamite down their trousers. You are more likely to get persons who've had the explosives inserted into their abdomen via surgery. Knocking down a plane is a large investment in terms of time and resources, so determined parties are going to do it properly and neither a scanner nor a pat down would by themselves add much to security.

~:smoking:

Why do all of you hate freedom?

These times call for these measures. A llitle bit of freedom for a little security

If my junk has to be handeld by a 62 year old semi retired former meth head from Cuero Texas to prevent brown people from blowing things up then so be it.

President Bush needs our help!

Oh wait its a democrat?...and hes BLACK!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

INVASION OF PRIVACY THEY WILL GROPE YOUR WIFE, IMPREGNATE HER, AND SHE WILL BIRTH A MINORITY.

SOUND THE ALARMS, AMERICA IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET, WHY HAS GOD FORSAKEN US? OH YEA BECAUSE OUR PRESIDENT IS BLACK!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with Stike like most things, I have seen things go downhill since 2008 pretty fast.

On a more serious note, I agree that the TSA should be abolished. Switch to what the Isreali's have, hire some professions to ask me some questions and let me be on my way.

And a note for the inevetabile "BUT THESE REGULATIONS WERE NOT AROUND WHEN BUSH WAS DUMBASS, WHY ARE YOU SO DUMB? YOU ATE PAINT CHIPS AS A CHILD DIDN'T YOU"

I was merley drawing a parrlel between these screenings and the various assulats on privacy Bush had. At least these regulations don't spy on you when you sleep or when you are talking with your sweetie on the phone.

Both are reprehensible and foolish but the discourse has been rather different.

Idoits have short memories.

I believe my stance on the assault on our civil liberties has not changed. I called out W's use of fearmongering to bypass the Constitution, and I'm calling out Obama's.

Chertoff is a shill. These "security" measures serve the following purposes:

• Security theater.
• CYA for the administration.
• Getting Rapiscan Systems paid.
• Bypassing 4th Amendment restrictions on search and seizure, mainly for the drug war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

And a note for the inevetabile "BUT THESE REGULATIONS WERE NOT AROUND WHEN BUSH WAS DUMBASS, WHY ARE YOU SO DUMB? YOU ATE PAINT CHIPS AS A CHILD DIDN'T YOU"

I was merley drawing a parrlel between these screenings and the various assulats on privacy Bush had. At least these regulations don't spy on you when you sleep or when you are talking with your sweetie on the phone.

Both are reprehensible and foolish but the discourse has been rather different.

Idoits have short memories.

---

You speak the gospel. While I don't like the new processes, people have short memories and forget who started this snowball. I honestly believe Bush would not be doing anything different than O right now, and anyone complaining about Bush being a fascist would be accused of being non-patriotic, having something to hide etc etc. It really is a non-scandal, a fabricated fit of outrage, much like the mosque at ground zero.

I got screened 14 times in uniform coming from the stan through romania through ireland through baltimore through indiana -- even screened coming off of planes and moving straight to the next one at 2 in the morning, to include taking off my jacket and boots despite us flying on the exact same plane the entire way and leaving our weapons on board each time we disembarked. In baltimore, they told us on the plane we all needed to take off our empty hip holsters for security reasons, and most of us refused. We went inside for our potty break while the plane was refueled, and sure enough the TSA people made a stink about the empty holsters with brilliant questions like "why do you have this on?" and "where are you coming from?"

FYI this went on under GWB as well

Welcome home! :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

We went inside for our potty break while the plane was refueled, and sure enough the TSA people made a stink about the empty holsters with brilliant questions like "why do you have this on?" and "where are you coming from?"

---

Cut them a little slack. They are incompetent, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Idoits have short memories.

---

Don't worry, we still love you just the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

Sorry CR, I rather come home safe then die from a bomb because you guys are to worry about them seeing your ''worms''.

---

No. No. No.

It's clear you didn't read what I posted, so I won't bother repeating that THESE SCANNERS DON'T MAKE YOU SAFER.

How about, instead of the scared sheep minded mob dominating how we travel, we get rid of these useless security procedures and then say "Hey, if you are too overcome by irrational fears, cut off from the false reassurance the security theater provides, to fly, then YOU stay at home, locked in your room clutching your blanket, shivering at all the fantastic terrors in the world, and the sane, rational people will fly without having to deal with all this BS and we'll be just as safe."

Oh, and the useless scanners may be coming to trains, boats, and other forms of mass transit:

Quote:

---

The next step in tightened security could be on U.S. public transportation, trains and boats.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists will continue to look for U.S. vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary.

“[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,” Napolitano said in an interview that aired Monday night on "Charlie Rose."

“I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?”

---

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

No. No. No.

It's clear you didn't read what I posted, so I won't bother repeating that THESE SCANNERS DON'T MAKE YOU SAFER.

How about, instead of the scared sheep minded mob dominating how we travel, we get rid of these useless security procedures and then say "Hey, if you are too overcome by irrational fears, cut off from the false reassurance the security theater provides, to fly, then YOU stay at home, locked in your room clutching your blanket, shivering at all the fantastic terrors in the world, and the sane, rational people will fly without having to deal with all this BS and we'll be just as safe."

Oh, and the useless scanners may be coming to trains, boats, and other forms of mass transit:



CR

---

He read what you said CR, but he rejects it based on fear and confirmation bias. There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack since the TSA came about, so it must be working. That's how most people think about the TSA and justify why it should still be around. You can't reason with a fearful man CR.

Shoot, there was a woman on CNN a couple days ago who they interviewed because she was a cancer survivor living with a prosthesis breast which the TSA told her to remove. In her interview, she kept backtracking talking about how she still thinks we need to be secure and maybe the TSA shouldn't maybe go that far because it was embarrassing but we still need to be secure blah blah blah. **** woman, they told you to remove their breast and you are softening your rhetoric towards them because you are scared that without the TSA removing your breast you will be attacked? This is the kind of obedience fear of terrorists in our kitchen cupboard creates.

I heard the best term for this on the radio... "Freedom Fondles"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

You speak the gospel. While I don't like the new processes, people have short memories and forget who started this snowball. I honestly believe Bush would not be doing anything different than O right now, and anyone complaining about Bush being a fascist would be accused of being non-patriotic, having something to hide etc etc. It really is a non-scandal, a fabricated fit of outrage, much like the mosque at ground zero.

I got screened 14 times in uniform coming from the stan through romania through ireland through baltimore through indiana -- even screened coming off of planes and moving straight to the next one at 2 in the morning, to include taking off my jacket and boots despite us flying on the exact same plane the entire way and leaving our weapons on board each time we disembarked. In baltimore, they told us on the plane we all needed to take off our empty hip holsters for security reasons, and most of us refused. We went inside for our potty break while the plane was refueled, and sure enough the TSA people made a stink about the empty holsters with brilliant questions like "why do you have this on?" and "where are you coming from?"

FYI this went on under GWB as well

---

I remember once when I was travelling home on leave... I sent my bag through the scanner, it beeped and the security guy gave me a look and took me to a small room. No glove, but he asked me to open my bag. This was right after an excercise where I had used this bag, so I immediatly went for the compartment where I kept my "extra pocket knife #546"(never know how many you might need), took it out and said "I guess this is what you're after?" The guy said "No!", got a real angry expression and told me to keep searching. At the bottom, I found an empty cola bottle. That was my crime, for which I had to endure an angry rant before he let me go. With my hand. Which was now carried in my hand, not in my bag.

This was in 2006, in uniform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I heard the best term for this on the radio... "Freedom Fondles"

---

The Urban Dictionary has "Gate Rape". :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Oh, and the useless scanners may be coming to trains, boats, and other forms of mass transit:

---

Baaaah. Baaaaaaaaah.

The plans for scanner use on ground transportation makes my points 1, 3, and especially 4 much more clear. You don't even have to get on these forms of transportation to hijack/blow them up. Complete end-around of the 4th Amendment, we'll win that drug war yet!

Woman is not allowed to have her breast milk be passed through security unless it is x-rayed even though the guidelines say there is an alternative scanning procedure possible. She gets detained for an hour and misses her flight when she protests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1h5Mvc3MM

EDIT: A second video with more, updated info on the situation was released.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XhnZlmLGK8

Even worse, people are pushing to allow the TSA to unionize, something made possible by Obama.

This would be terrible for two reasons - well, for at least one reason, and annoying for the other. The annoying one would be that it'd be hard to change security procedures as needed to respond to a threat, since officials would have to fight with the union to change anything. That's just annoying because the TSA is worse than useless as security.

It'd be terrible because it would be like a march through hell to fire anyone. One of them starts fondling people for pleasure or taking pictures of the nude scans to take home?

Just like NYC teachers or abusive policemen, we couldn't get rid of the TSA dolts who needed to be fired.

Oh, and one more thing: The TSA is advertising for jobs with pizza boxes.

CR