News Airport Searches: Too Far or Necessary?

[FlexGunship]

You misread my post.

The TSA would still be there, doing what they do now. However, instead of you being 'forced' by the government, the aircraft owners would insist you had them or don't fly. The owners wouldn't dictate what measures took place. Nothing would change, only who was demanding the security checks.

I understood. I was supporting your idea. The aircraft owners would then decide who goes through the random security checks instead of indiscriminately selecting random people.

 

[FlexGunship]

How about an anonymous voting system? Before getting on the plane, everyone gets to anonymously vote for the people that want to have searched.

I'm not seriously suggesting it... but I won't how many 3 year old girls would get selected.

 

[JaredJames]

I understood. I was supporting your idea.

You then have a private company demanding you are checked before entering a private vehicle.

So can you explain what the difference is? There's no change in choice. You either have the checks and fly or don't have them and remain where you are.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Surely, if it were up to the discretion of airlines to decide which security measures best serve their customers, then free market forces would take over. There would be a competitive push to create the MOST secure airline with the LEAST invasive security measures. There would be actual competition to serve the customer best.

That was an unexpected burst of reason in this otherwise emotionally-charged thread. Thanks for that.

 

[JaredJames]

How about an anonymous voting system? Before getting on the plane, everyone gets to anonymously vote for the people that want to have searched.

I'm not seriously suggesting it... but I won't how many 3 year old girls would get selected.

The problem with that is you may get a terrorist using a child to get devices through. I know it's far fetched, but you're leaving avenues open.

This is where this differs from my knife example.

 

[FlexGunship]

So can you explain what the difference is? There's no change in choice. You either have the checks and fly or don't have them and remain where you are.

YES! Aircraft owners that want more customers will STOP SEARCHING ELDERLY MEN AND YOUNG CHILDREN! People will choose that airline more often because it has a BETTER security policy.

 

[FlexGunship]

That was an unexpected burst of reason in this otherwise emotionally-charged thread. Thanks for that.

Happy to help!

 

[JaredJames]

That was an unexpected burst of reason in this otherwise emotionally-charged thread. Thanks for that.

But the TSA would still do the checks, there would be no change at all, except that the airlines demanded it not the government.

So really, please explain the difference.

 

[JaredJames]

YES! Aircraft owners that want more customers will STOP SEARCHING ELDERLY MEN AND YOUNG CHILDREN! People will choose that airline more often because it has a BETTER security policy.

Re-read my post. There would be no difference with the checks. It would be identical to how it is at the moment.

 

[FlexGunship]

But the TSA would still do the checks, there would be no change at all, except that the airlines demanded it not the government.

So really, please explain the difference.

Right now, the TSA is a government operation. Operating by federal rules. They are not allowed to profile (a federal guideline) or be selective in their searches.

A pilot, or an aircraft owner, who has a personal vested interest in the safety and security of the plane AND in the satisfaction of his or her customers is less likely to perform "random" searches and more likely to target individuals who could possibly pose a threat.

Even is the TSA carries out the pat-down or the search, the people being patted-down or searched has changed significantly. No airline would voluntarily adopt the TSA's selection policy unless it was forced.

 

[FlexGunship]

Re-read my post. There would be no difference with the checks. It would be identical to how it is at the moment.

Have you been to an airport? They don't perform this check on every single person flying. They do it randomly. On my last flight out I was backscattered, on the return flight I was not.

Not everyone goes through the enhanced interrogation... er... enhanced security.

EDIT: If a pilot were allowed to choose who to search as opposed to a federal employee, the selected gourp would be fundamentally different.

 

[JaredJames]

OK Flex, without you changing anything I write let's try this again.

What if the airlines demanded the security checks, a private company requesting it before boarding a private aircraft, under exactly the same terms as exist right now?

I don't want to know what they may/may not do. I want to know if you'd feel differently about a private company demanding the current checks as opposed to the government.

That's it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Right now, the TSA is a government operation. Operating by federal rules. They are not allowed to profile (a federal guideline) or be selective in their searches.

A pilot, or an aircraft owner, who has a personal vested interest in the safety and security of the plane AND in the satisfaction of his or her customers is less likely to perform "random" searches and more likely to target individuals who could possibly pose a threat.

Even is the TSA carries out the pat-down or the search, the people being patted-down or searched has changed significantly. No airline would voluntarily adopt the TSA's selection policy unless it was forced.

It's not clear what the best way is. There is at least some evidence [1] that profiling isn't helpful, or not very helpful. But that's the beauty of a market-based mechanism. We don't need to know, offhand, what the best approach is -- we let individual companies decide.

[1] Press, William H. "Strong profiling is not mathematically optimal for discovering rare malfeasors".

(Please read the first page of the paper before drawing conclusions about it based on the title; many news agencies reported on this news without apparently having read beyond the title.)

 

[FlexGunship]

OK Flex, without you changing anything I write let's try this again.

What if the airlines demanded the security checks, a private company requesting it before boarding a private aircraft, under exactly the same terms as exist right now?

I don't want to know what they may/may not do. I want to know if you'd feel differently about a private company demanding the current checks as opposed to the government.

That's it.

Well, then clarify. Is the private company selecting the individuals being screened in your example. Or is it the government?

 

[JaredJames]

Well, then clarify. Is the private company selecting the individuals being screened in your example. Or is it the government?

Wow, really?

The checks would be exactly the same as they are now. The TSA conducts them, the terms would be identical to what they are now, including all procedures.

However, the airline would be demanding them, not the government. The TSA simply becomes the external authority put in place to run the job.

For all it matters, replace the TSA with a private company employed by the airline. But they must follow identical procedures to the TSA.

 

[FlexGunship]

Wow, really?

The checks would be exactly the same as they are now. The TSA conducts them, the terms would be identical to what they are now, including all procedures.

However, the airline would be demanding them, not the government. The TSA simply becomes the external authority put in place to run the job.

You're using weasel words to avoid the question. You've posed two scenarios and intentionally left out all of the important details. Then, when I ask for clarification you act like I'm the one who doesn't "get it."

You have repeatedly covered the nature of "the checks." We are passed that. I understand that "the check" will be absolutely identical in every way shape and form to the one currently performed by the TSA. Let's put that issue aside. We are both totally clear on that.

• Who selects the individuals that are subjected to "the check"?
• Do I have the option of flying a different airline with a different selection policy?

You are very carefully setting up a straw man, and every time I try to dismantle it be getting clarification you act astonished.

 

[FlexGunship]

For all it matters, replace the TSA with a private company employed by the airline. But they must follow identical procedures to the TSA.

You edited this in after I responded, so I will address it separately.

There would be no difference then. I would choose an alternate airline.

EDIT: Also, you should change the phrase "must follow identical" to "choose to follow identical."

 

[Al68]

You then have a private company demanding you are checked before entering a private vehicle.

So can you explain what the difference is? There's no change in choice. You either have the checks and fly or don't have them and remain where you are.

Nonsense. That's like saying that my disallowing someone else to drive my car is equivalent to government preventing them from driving my, or anyone elses, car.

Can you seriously not understand the difference between parties to an agreement mutually determining its terms, and a third party dictating them by using force? Come on now.

 

[Al68]

The checks would be exactly the same as they are now. The TSA conducts them, the terms would be identical to what they are now, including all procedures.

However, the airline would be demanding them, not the government.

Why would every airline coincidentally and independently choose the exact same checks as government would demand, in the absence of government force? Pure baloney.

Even if they did, it's obviously very different. Equating them is like equating a woman's choice to have a baby with making abortion illegal, because the choice made is identical regardless of who made it.

 

[JaredJames]

Who selects the individuals that are subjected to "the check"?

That's irrelevant. The selection criterion would be the same. So the same people would be selected.

Do I have the option of flying a different airline with a different selection policy?

No, all airlines simply demand the checks. The TSA (or equivelant private company) would be performing all checks under the same criterion/procedures in the same manner they are conducted now.

Think of it like this. Everything would be identical to what it is now whilst flying, except instead of the government saying "you must go through security", the airline does. You as a customer would see absolutely no difference. But you would have the knowledge that a private company is demanding the checks to get on their aircraft as opposed to the government.

You are very carefully setting up a straw man, and every time I try to dismantle it be getting clarification you act astonished.

I'm not trying to set anything up. I'm trying to work out if you see a difference between the government doing something and a private company doing exactly the same thing.

 

[JaredJames]

Why would every airline coincidentally and independently choose the exact same checks as government would demand, in the absence of government force? Pure baloney.

Even if they did, it very different. Equating them is like equating a woman's choice to have a baby with making abortion illegal.

I know it would never happen, but I'm trying to establish a level here.

That level would be: do you see a difference between the government requiring security checks (as they are now) or a private company requiring the exact same checks.

 

[Al68]

I'm trying to work out if you see a difference between the government doing something and a private company doing exactly the same thing.

The difference is obvious to everyone, including you, I'm certain. Can you explain the difference between the government making abortion illegal, and every woman coincidentally choosing to have her baby?

 

[JaredJames]

Can you seriously not understand the difference between parties to an agreement mutually determining its terms, and a third party dictating them by using force? Come on now.

The outcome is the same though. If you don't accept the checks, whether privately or through the government you don't fly.

You see the condtions, you either agree to them or you don't. Who puts them there doesn't come into it. If you don't like them, you don't agree to them and you don't fly.

Even if it was private, you can't negotiate with the airline as to what checks you go through.

 

[JaredJames]

The difference is obvious to everyone, including you, I'm certain. Can you explain the difference between the government making abortion illegal, and every woman coincidentally choosing to have her baby?

You don't have a say once something is made illegal. It's not the same thing.

When you choose to fly, you choose to accept the security checks.

 

[BobG]

I'd also add here that it's no different to a number of other situations, such as the nightclub example people keep mentioning. With the nightclubs it is a case of be searched or bugger off. Now given every club I can go to involves this pat down pre-entry procedure, there is no reasonable alternative and yet no one complains about it.

As I've said in other threads, it seems like Americans have double standards. You are happy to accept searches for clubs and not make noise about them but the moment it's something regarding the government it's the worst thing ever and must be stopped.

OK, I don't go to many night clubs, but I've never been searched to enter the very few bars or clubs I've been to since 9/11 (more than 0, but less than 10, I'm pretty sure). We may be living in drastically different environments. Maybe someone that actually frequents American night clubs could give a better assessment.

 

[Al68]

The outcome is the same though. If you don't accept the checks, whether privately or through the government you don't fly.

You see the condtions, you either agree to them or you don't. Who puts them there doesn't come into it. If you don't like them, you don't agree to them and you don't fly.

Even if it was private, you can't negotiate with the airline as to what checks you go through.

I can only assume you are merely pretending not to understand such an obvious and relevant difference.

Plus you are claiming that the outcome would be the same, when the odds against that are astronomical.

 

[Al68]

You don't have a say once something is made illegal. It's not the same thing.

When you choose to fly, you choose to accept the security checks.

Weren't we talking about government making it illegal to fly without the checks?

If you can't understand the difference by now, I would suggest a little research on basic principles of liberty and government.

 

[BobG]

I know it would never happen, but I'm trying to establish a level here.

That level would be: do you see a difference between the government requiring security checks (as they are now) or a private company requiring the exact same checks.

You mean something similar to cell phone companies all using the same practices regarding cell phone contracts, early cancellation, any disputes resolved through an arbiter chosen by the cell phone company, etc.

It could happen.

But I think there's a court case pending on cell phone companies requiring customers to waive their right to class action lawsuits in order to get a cell phone.

 

[FlexGunship]

You don't have a say once something is made illegal. It's not the same thing.

I think we can all agree that your scenario is silly. If it were a privately controlled operation, the requirements would not be the same everywhere. I would choose the best option and, over time, the market would decide which security measures were most successful.

However, even if you put this aside, the difference stands: a search agreed to between the airline and the customer is fundamentally different than one imposed from the outside by a federal agency.

EDIT: Here's an alternative to federally mandated searches: a law that says a hijacked airplane or bomb on an airplane is grounds for your company to be disbanded permanently.

You don't think Delta would find a way to prevent that while also keeping their customer's happier than their competitors?

 

[FlexGunship]

You mean something similar to cell phone companies all using the same practices regarding cell phone contracts, early cancellation, any disputes resolved through an arbiter chosen by the cell phone company, etc.

Tracphone.

The free market always gives you an option because it is profitable to offer the option.

Sorry to nitpick details, Bob. I know that wasn't the point you were trying to convey.

 

[Monique]

The problem with that is you may get a terrorist using a child to get devices through. I know it's far fetched, but you're leaving avenues open.

This is where this differs from my knife example.

Considering this document: http://www.childsoldiersglobalreport.org/files/country_pdfs/FINAL_2008_Global_Report.pdf" , I wouldn't call it far fetched.

 

[turbo]

Considering this document: http://www.childsoldiersglobalreport.org/files/country_pdfs/FINAL_2008_Global_Report.pdf" , I wouldn't call it far fetched.

It's not far-fetched. When I was consulting and flying at least weekly, I once found myself in line in front of a young couple with an infant in a carrier. They did a complex dance pretending to have to juggle the infant, their belongings, etc and ultimately tried to pass the infant and carrier around the metal-detector. I stopped and watched as I collected my stuff from the X-ray tray, because something was up. The security detail got them to take the baby out of the carrier, fold down the handle, and pass the carrier through the X-ray machine. That's when things got tense and the people got escorted away. A few minutes later, they boarded the plane normally. They were either air-marshals or worked for an outfit that was testing airport security. There was a real gun or a good mock-up in that baby carrier. That happened outbound out of Bangor, Maine, on Delta. Pretty good test of a rural airport.

 

[JaredJames]

I know what I'm saying sounds ridiculous, but I'm trying to gauge what people will and won't accept. Hence all the ridiculous scenarios.

I know full well what the differences are between public and private.

But unless I can get a clear understanding of what "the opposition" wants then I don't think there's much point in a debate. Or at least nothing useful can come from it.

Flex, thank you for your answer. I know what I'm working to now and will base it from there.

 

[FlexGunship]

Flex, thank you for your answer. I know what I'm working to now and will base it from there.

You're welcome Jared. I apologize if I got short with you. I get frustrated when I have a difficult time making my point understood. It's not personal; all in the name of open and free discourse.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7009/tsaj.jpg

 

[WhoWee]

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7009/tsaj.jpg

It's good to see the Government running a bare bones program?

 

[Galteeth]

Article: No Proof TSA scanners are safe

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe/

Any radiation or health experts care to weigh in?

 

[NobodySpecial]

Article: No Proof TSA scanners are safe

There's no proof that anything is safe

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe/

It's full of asides, like the FDA having no rights to check non-medical x-rays, so what?
The FDA don't check the exposure levels from cosmic rays on your flight either - and that's a lot higher dose.

 

[Galteeth]

There's no proof that anything is safe


It's full of asides, like the FDA having no rights to check non-medical x-rays, so what?
The FDA don't check the exposure levels from cosmic rays on your flight either - and that's a lot higher dose.

Yes, I was aware that you can't "prove" something is safe in the strict sense of the word. I was interested to hear from experts on the criticisms in the article. I don't have any expertise, and thus can't really judge the claims. It was interesting, however, that there is apparently some confusion or miscommunication about who is responsible for ensuring the machines are working properly.

 

[NobodySpecial]

Think it's already in this thread but a good analysis by U Arizona physics prof
http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html

Paper at http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/RPD-Final-Form.pdf

 

[Galteeth]

Think it's already in this thread but a good analysis by U Arizona physics prof
http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html

Paper at http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/RPD-Final-Form.pdf

Very interesting, thanks!

From the paper:

"The
NS 43.17 standard requires the exposure terminate before an effective dose of 0.25 mSv
is reached if the scanning mechanism were to fail. This means the fail0safe mechanism
must detect the fault and shut off the beam within a period of about 15 msecs. If this
system also malfunctions (and failure of fail0safe mechanisms are not unknown), there
may be a significant delay (of the order of tens of seconds) before the operators noticed
something was wrong, especially given the fact that the screener viewing the image is in
a remote location. Under these conditions the passenger could receive a high localized
dose of a few sievert. High doses are associated with deterministic effects including skin
erythema "

Any more info on the implications of this?

 

[Proton Soup]

Think it's already in this thread but a good analysis by U Arizona physics prof
http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html

Paper at http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/RPD-Final-Form.pdf

so what's with the vehicle scanners? i didn't think these things were penetrating dense materials like metals. different frequency or higher dose?

the stats are interesting, too. makes this all seem very poorly thought out.

 

[Galteeth]

so what's with the vehicle scanners? i didn't think these things were penetrating dense materials like metals. different frequency or higher dose?

the stats are interesting, too. makes this all seem very poorly thought out.

Sadly, I think the thought process might have gone something like "I'm Michael Chertoff, and I would like to use my influence to make money for my security company."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html

 

[mugaliens]

Sadly, I think the thought process might have gone something like "I'm Michael Chertoff, and I would like to use my influence to make money for my security company."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html

Fear-mongering has become a substantially profitable marketing tool, sadly, at taxpayer expense.

 

[vish_al210]

Why would I ever want to come too the US... Well if the policy is to brush off scum of the Earth like me from entering the Gates of Heaven...(whatever) .. They won! I aint coming to US for a long time.. Happy? There are more beautiful places to see in my own country... And yes I don't fancy a job in US either coz I don't like the way the foreign work population is treated..(a very generalised comment, please do not take that personally) So yeah! They Won! ;)

If they finally decide to deport me, who is paying my bills and losses...?

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/tsa-pays-breast-exposure-suit

JANUARY 13--The woman who sued the Transportation Security Administration after her breasts were exposed during a frisking at a Texas airport will receive a “nominal” payment from the government as part of a legal settlement, The Smoking Gun has learned.

nominal? what'd they do, look up how much a photomodel gets for a gig? guess there won't be much incentive gained from this.

 

[mugaliens]

nominal? what'd they do, look up how much a photomodel gets for a gig? guess there won't be much incentive gained from this.

Oh, gosh! One wonders if the going rate might soon be based on one's cup size.

We guys are at a serious advantage, here!

Well, perhaps. Perhaps not. There are, of course, other considerations...

Still, how much did she win? I'm going to have to go through the scanners more often!

Why would I ever want to come too the US...

Hi, Vish. Having visited 33 countries, and having lived in 7, I call the US home. Yes, we have some issues, but we seem to have a few less issues most. Not all, mind you, as there are some countries out there which I really admire! However, I have relatives, here, so for what it's worth, this is my home.

Besides, Colorado is a really cool place to live!

 

[Proton Soup]

Oh, gosh! One wonders if the going rate might soon be based on one's cup size.

We guys are at a serious advantage, here!

Well, perhaps. Perhaps not. There are, of course, other considerations...

Still, how much did she win? I'm going to have to go through the scanners more often!

that's just it, we don't know. and I'm guessing FOIA won't help. about all that we can surmise is that the amount is not punitive, despite the http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/tsa-exposure-suit?page=3"