How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[Kaylee]

Well, it does make us somewhat safer.

Does it? There's been quite a few posts theorizing as to how easily the machines can be defeated. And now, from the real world, I just read this:

Savage [ed. Adam Savage of Mythbusters] was put through the full-body scanner, and while he joked that it made his penis feel small, no one seemed to notice the items he was carrying on his person. The video tells the rest of the story.

I'm guessing that the body scanner didn't pick the 12-inch razor blades up because while it will pick up liquids and metals, it will only do so if it's close to the skin. At least that's my understanding so far.

However, I don't understand why the metal detector didn't pick the blades up. Perhaps when the TSA agents were randomly picking people for the back scatter machines, they were not also requiring them to go through the metal detector? If so, that is definitely a bad idea!

One cannot easily carry as much explosive in a body cavity as one can conceal under a baggy sweatshirt. Even if someone's entire alimentary canal is packed with explosive, unless it's removed before detonation the body it's packed in will mute the destructive power of the explosion.

1) You and mhaze seem to disagree on this point (posts #255, and 258)

I honestly don't know enough about the topic to evaluate what you're both saying -- perhaps after the holiday weekend, mhaze will be back into the everyday grind, and stop having so much fun and will relent and discuss it a little more with you for the benefit of people like me. (post #261)

2) Then there's these two articles which disagree with your point. Basically they say enough explosive materials can be packed in body cavities to bring a plane down.

LONDON, Sept. 28, 2009
Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers
New Technique of Storing Bomb Materials Inside Body Cavity Nearly Kills a Saudi Prince

Al Qaeda has developed a new tactic that allows suicide bombers to breach even the tightest security, as CBS News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reports.

Inside a Saudi palace, the scene was the bloody aftermath of an al Qaeda attack in August aimed at killing

Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, head of Saudi Arabia's counter terrorism operations.

To get his bomb into this room, Abdullah Asieri, one of Saudi Arabia's most wanted men, avoided detection by two sets of airport security including metal detectors and palace security. He spent 30 hours in the close company of the prince's own secret service agents - all without anyone suspecting a thing.

How did he do it?

Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.

<snip>

The blast left the prince lightly wounded - a failure as an assassination, but as an exercise in defeating security, it was perfect.

<snip>

[bold ed.]On a plane at altitude, the effects of such a bomb could be catastrophic. And there is no current security system that could stop it.

"Absolutely nothing other than to require people to strip naked at the airport," said Yates.

Terrorism threat of explosives smuggled in body cavities
Borderpol (published 06/10/2009)


Most members of the general public are aware that drug traffickers regularly use couriers or 'mules' to smuggle drugs, either swallowed or inserted, across borders. But what was not so obvious until now is that the same method can be employed to smuggle explosives, detonators, liquids and any of the component parts necessary either for a ready-made 'Improvised Explosive Device' (IED) or for assembly of one on an aircraft.

Drug 'mules' regularly carry 0.8 to 1.25 kg of drugs; a determined individual or group could conceivably carry a lot more explosive material, certainly sufficient for an IED.

Sidney Alford, one of the UK's leading explosives engineers, confirms: 'Half a kilo of explosives is more than enough to bring down an aircraft; any more would usually be a waste of effort.'

Conventional search measures such as 'pat-downs' and metal detectors can be used to determine whether someone is carrying illegal objects or substances on their person, but those objects hidden internally are extremely difficult to detect.

Explosives trace detectors that pick up vapours and particles are of little use in this scenario. Only if there is some seepage into the carrier's body systems will this equipment have any chance of success at all.

[bold ed.]Sniffer dogs offer the best hope of detection but are currently not widely used to screen people.

One useful technology that is available and that does work is the full body scan – the use of X-rays to determine whether a person is carrying any substances on or in the body, either by insertion or ingestion.

However, body scanning only comes into play when the officer or security official has already become suspicious that an individual represents a security threat. Suspicious individuals are currently identified using the existing profiling and risk analysis techniques employed by border officials for screening travellers at borders; these include direct questioning, suspicious behaviour, body language, anomalies in travel documentation, unusual travel patterns and so on.

Jan Steven van Wingerden, managing Director of one of the leading scanner manufacturers OD Security, says: 'Our scanner will pick up any ingested or inserted object within the human body, the scan is performed in less than 10 seconds and is completely safe.'

<snip>

In planning this attack, Al Qaeda have clearly understood what security officials have always known: that [bold ed.]there is no equipment currently widely available that will detect explosives carried internally. What the terrorists will also have noted is that, although this attack failed, the method of delivery and detonation worked. A similar attack on an aircraft would be devastating.

What can be done?

Use dogs for people screening. Hannes Siabert, a [bold ed.]dog training expert with South African company Mechem assured us that 'no matter where or how explosives are carried in the body, a trained sniffer dog would definitely be able to pick it up.' Whilst there are cultural issues associated with the use of dogs, these can be dealt with sympathetically.

Re the article's assertion that the body scanners at US airports will detect objects within the human body. We know that currently that isn't the case. Based on my other readings, I suspect that is because how the scanners are currently configured. But, aside from that apparent inaccuracy, the 2009 article may be mostly accurate.


3) From the Straight Dope web site -- weird things people pack into their bodies; probably not safe for work See 2nd paragraph of SD's reply.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/478/is-it-true-what-they-say-about-gerbils

I suspect that sniffing dogs would have the same difficulty detecting explosives in a body cavity that backscatter machines have. Do you know of any facts to the contrary?

See article referenced above. Plus there have been many reports that dogs have been trained to detect an oncoming epileptic attack and that some dogs have been trained to detect cancer. If some breeds' noses are sensitive enough to detect these things -- I don't see why it would be a problem for them to detect contraband or explosives packed inside a body cavity.

And this -- dogs have been trained to find cell phones. They have found them inside walls and, while one of the referenced articles didn't say so as clearly as I would have liked, it implied that they have found cell phones in body cavities also:

It turns out that cell phones smell. And their distinct odor can lead a well-trained canine to a device hidden under a mattress, stashed into a wall or tucked into a fan or radio.

[ed. Cell] Phones have been found in light fixtures, Bibles and body cavities. Some inmates have tried unsuccessfully to conceal them in peanut butter jars to fool the dogs.

"They pick up the scent quickly," said Sgt. William Crampton.

bomb-sniffing dogs won't detect knives, Sarin gas, or other weapons.

Dogs do detect sarin gas per this article:

US Customs to use chemicals sniffer dogs at US entry points.
Publication: Airline Industry Information
Date: Monday, June 9 2003

AIRLINE INDUSTRY INFORMATION-(C)1997-2003 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD

The US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has begun placing dogs trained to sniff out deadly chemicals at entry points.

The bureau, which oversees approximately 300 points of entry, is introducing the dogs at airports, seaports and other US entry points. The dogs have been trained to detect various "signature odours" associated with a range of deadly chemicals, including sarin gas, nerve gas and cyanide, that might be hidden in containers or other objects that terrorists try to smuggle past customs.

Dogs trained to detect the substances include Labrador retrievers, German shepherds and Belgian Malinois. Training began about a year ago, prompted by the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.

The attack on 4th amendment rights is precisely the same whether it is dogs or machines doing the sniffing.

I have to think about this some more. It honestly doesn't strike me that way for two reasons. It seems to be a more passive approach. I think the dogs don't approach the passenger unless they smell contraband or explosives on him or her, but I may be mistaken. Also, I really like dogs , but that bias towards canines is irrelevant. So ... you may have a point. I have to think about it some more, and I'm also curious to read what other posters think. In the meantime... at least sniffer dogs don't leave you with an increased chance of cancer or future babies with birth defects, and now I've just read -- perhaps sterility for men.

See this blog post

Finally, I would like to comment on the safety of the TSA officers (TSO) who will be operating these machines, and will be constant 'bystanders' with respect to the radiation exposure. The range of exposure estimates is a function of where an officer stands during their duty, what percentage of that duty is spent in the same location and how often the machine is running. A TSO could be exposed to as much as 86-1408 mrem per year (assuming 8 hours per day, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks per year and between 30-100% duty and 25-100% occupancy, as defined by the Johns Hopkins report), which is between 86%-141% of the safe exposure of 100 mrem. At the high end, if for example a TSO is standing at the entrance of the scanner when it is running at maximum capacity, then that officer could hit their radiation exposure limit in as few as 20 working days (assuming an 8 hour shift). While we may not be very happy with our TSOs at the moment as the face of these policies, we need to keep in mind that they really should be wearing radiation badges in order to know their specific exposure (especially for those officers who may also have to receive radiation exposure for medical reasons).

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Probably have to be some kinda boneologist to get excited by an image reversal...

That is one hot skeleton.

 

[I Ratant]

I likes 'em more fleshy.

 

[bokonon]

Does it? There's been quite a few posts theorizing as to how easily the machines can be defeated.

Yes, the security measures in place today can be defeated, and seat belts don't save everyone's life. But I say they still make us somewhat safer -- if the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber had had the option of being briefcase bombers, the outcomes might have been entirely different.

Then there's these two articles which disagree with your point. Basically they say enough explosive materials can be packed in body cavities to bring a plane down.

Again, is it possible? Sure. But it's more difficult to get a pound of explosives packed in someone's gut with a detonator that can be triggered at the appropriate time than it is to get a pound of explosives wrapped around someone's waist with a detonator that can be triggered at will. And the failure of the assassination attempt seems to support my claim that the body will diminish the effectiveness of the explosion -- if the blast didn't even kill the fragile human it was intended to kill, there's a chance that a similar terrorist attack wouldn't cause a catastrophic failure in the aircraft it's intended to crash.

there have been many reports that dogs have been trained to detect an oncoming epileptic attack and that some dogs have been trained to detect cancer. If some breeds' noses are sensitive enough to detect these things -- I don't see why it would be a problem for them to detect contraband or explosives packed inside a body cavity.

I suspect that they are detecting biochemical changes which affect the victim's sweat or breath, though I could be wrong. I wouldn't be opposed to the use of terrorist-gear-detecting dogs, and I agree with those who argue that they are probably more cost-effective and less of a potential health risk.

Dogs do detect sarin gas per this article:

I stand corrected.

 

[mhaze]

Yes they can... and hopefully they'll set up rules that will have anyone who uses their cell phone to take a picture to be fired right on the spot.

Surrreeeee. We're talking about the TSA, right? A government agency? Whose employees were okayed for being represented exclusively by one labor union (eg Unionizing) about 2 days before this porno-scanning issue erupted?

They'll never get fired, now, will they?

....Have you ever actually seem someone 'recreate' a relatively accurate nude picture of a person from one of the body scan images? I tried to track one down, but I couldn't.

Keep in mind that there was an image circulating around earlier in the year supposedly showing such a reversed picture.....

Yes, there is some fake stuff around. One of which is the "xray" shown on this thread.

Backscatter reads the reflection not the transmission through of the object being irradiated, the simplest example is weather radar. A body scanner similarly will show accurately the surface of the body.

A reverse image in skin color would be it lacked hair. Let's not be fooled that some image is not a picture of the person naked because of arguments such as (a) it's reverse image (b) it doesn't show hair.

It's a picture of a person naked. Granted some software manipulations could be done to make it look otherwise, but the TSA wants full and realistic imaging of the breasts and genitals area. They consider it important to see what might be hiding there.

 

[mhaze]

Does it? There's been quite a few posts theorizing as to how easily the machines can be defeated. ......
<< re dogs being offensive as scanners >>
It honestly doesn't strike me that way for two reasons. It seems to be a more passive approach. I think the dogs don't approach the passenger unless they smell contraband or explosives on him or her, but I may be mistaken. Also, I really like dogs , but that bias towards canines is irrelevant. So ... you may have a point. I have to think about it some more, and I'm also curious to read what other posters think. In the meantime... at least sniffer dogs don't leave you with an increased chance of cancer or future babies with birth defects, and now I've just read -- perhaps sterility for men.

See this blog post

One thing that I find amusing which is relevant is that Muslims find dogs dirty and basically offensive, and never have them as pets. Only cats, which they think are clean. Go figure.

Rest assured that CAIR and the other Muslim groups would be throwing a fit at dogs sniffing their women's privates.

The reason I like dogs is that they can rapidly scan hundreds of passengers, like when they are in a line. They'll be rapidly moved up and down the line, and the handler notes who and where they make a signal.

I've seen them used more in airports at other countries than in the US. Not sure why. Maybe because we want to employ morons with porno-scanners?

 

[Ducky]

http://www.schneier.com/

Spelling of name wrong, my error.

OK.

Can you point me to which post Bruce said this in?

One of the links I posted, believe it was the security expert Schneider, referenced studies that indicated that with the prior xray scanners and pat down techniques, using trial runs, the TSA caught 20% of people with bomb parts, while private security firms using the same protocols caught 70%.

That tells you something.

Is someone in the government dumb enough to think that you can buy your way out of moron level employees with a rule set and fancy equipment?

Well that won't work.

As previously suggested this could all just be about the money to be made from selling the equipment.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/10/25/tsa-screeners-fail-most-bomb-tests/

I'm for local people getting their airports to opt out of the federal TSA screening and going with private contractors, even if they must use the same procedures.

Customer service would improve.

And even though TSA is ridiculed as having McDonald's level moronic staffing...

who'd want to go to a Government Ran McDonalds?

And if we are going to have "security theater" instead of real security, couldn't private companies do better theater? I mean, what government opera you gonna go to?

The biggest problem is that airline security is more of a political than security issue. The U.S. is willing to cut intelligence agencies in order to provide more "security theater" for passenger screening. For a politician, it's better for their careers, even if it puts the passengers at more risk.

 

[TjW]

If we lived in an adult country, where people realized there's a certain amount of risk that can never be eliminated, then Obama could institute rational policies that balanced security with personal liberty and when a terrorist attacked we would bring them to justice, modify our system as best we can, and move on with our lives realizing bad things often happen and cannot be fully avoided.

Of course, if we had politicians that would do the right thing instead of the most expedient thing to get them through the next election cycle, things might be better, too.

It comes down to whether Obama believes more in personal liberties, or more in re-election.

This is not intended particularly as a slam against Obama. It seems to be true of most incumbents.

 

[Kaylee]

Yes, the security measures in place today can be defeated, and seat belts don't save everyone's life. But I say they still make us somewhat safer -- if the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber had had the option of being briefcase bombers, the outcomes might have been entirely different.

Well, even a stopped watch is right twice a day. But clearly the new TSA procedures are not the way to go.

I don't know why you brought up the shoe and underwear bombers. The original shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was stopped by two air flight attendants and nearby passengers. AFAIK, the backscatter machines would not have picked up the plastic explosives in his shoe because it only picks up metal and liquids that are close to the skin.

The underwear bomber was stopped because his father warned a US embassy.

And per a GAO report dated March 17, 2010

Testimony
Before the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives

<snip>

it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident [ed, the underwear bomber] based on the preliminary information GAO has received.

and

Stephen Lord, director of the homeland security & justice division of the GAO, confirmed to CNSNews.com on Friday [ed. April 2, 2010] that the advanced scanners have not proved to be consistently able to detect objects “comparable” to Abdulmutallab’s bomb -- and that the assessment was based on classified information.

"We reviewed the testing results, which are classified, and it was just based upon our review of the testing results,” he said.

Again, is it possible? Sure. But it's more difficult to get a pound of explosives packed in someone's gut with a detonator that can be triggered at the appropriate time than it is to get a pound of explosives wrapped around someone's waist with a detonator that can be triggered at will.

Drug 'mules' regularly carry 0.8 to 1.25 kg of drugs; a determined individual or group could conceivably carry a lot more explosive material, certainly sufficient for an IED.

Sidney Alford, one of the UK's leading explosives engineers, confirms: 'Half a kilo of explosives is more than enough to bring down an aircraft; any more would usually be a waste of effort.'

Half a kilo is about a pound, small enough to be packed into a body cavity. In an example cited in my earlier post, the bomb packed into a body cavity was triggered by a cell phone -- which seems easy enough to do at will. Another alternative is that the bomb could be removed from the body cavity while the plane is in flight, every plane has a restroom. The latter would have the advantage of not having its explosion absorbed by the bomber's own body and could do more damage.

And the failure of the assassination attempt seems to support my claim that the body will diminish the effectiveness of the explosion -- if the blast didn't even kill the fragile human it was intended to kill, there's a chance that a similar terrorist attack wouldn't cause a catastrophic failure in the aircraft it's intended to crash.

I don't know what it takes to bring a plane down. The article referenced above quoted an expert as saying that half a kilo would do it.

 

[Kaylee]

One thing that I find amusing which is relevant is that Muslims find dogs dirty and basically offensive, and never have them as pets. Only cats, which they think are clean. Go figure.

Rest assured that CAIR and the other Muslim groups would be throwing a fit at dogs sniffing their women's privates.

The reason I like dogs is that they can rapidly scan hundreds of passengers, like when they are in a line. They'll be rapidly moved up and down the line, and the handler notes who and where they make a signal.

I've seen them used more in airports at other countries than in the US. Not sure why. Maybe because we want to employ morons with porno-scanners?

Just curious, when you saw the dogs in use, as far as you could tell, did they touch all the passengers ,snout to skin, -- or only the ones where they smelled what they were trained to detect?

In your opinion, does the use of sniffer dogs violate 4th amendment rights?

As to why other countries use sniffer dogs instead of multi-million dollar machines, maybe they figured out how to make their procurement process less susceptible to corruption? Don't know, wish I did.

 

[qayak]

Of course, if we had politicians that would do the right thing instead of the most expedient thing to get them through the next election cycle, things might be better, too.

It comes down to whether Obama believes more in personal liberties, or more in re-election.

This is not intended particularly as a slam against Obama. It seems to be true of most incumbents.

I think we have to quit blaming the politician and look at the people who elect them. Perception of safety seems to be very important to people regardless of whether they are actually safe or not.

People seem to relate technology and inconvenience with safety. Being stuck in a crowded airport, in long line-ups makes them feel safe. Being ordered around by people who have no limit to their authority, makes them feel safe. Talking heads on television telling them about the latest and greatest "terror bustin'" technology, makes them feel safe. To top it off, the more money they pay for new technology, the safer they think they are. All the new fangled crap hasn't caught anyone but, if you ask people, a lot of them think it catches terrorists everyday.

Who gets caught? Usually some citizen who has been inconvenienced to the point that they make a minor disturbance. They are the ones treated like a terrorist and then held up as an example of how well the system works.

The fear mongering that Bush used so successfully was used because it works on the people who elected him. The same people who elected Obama. I doubt Obama is above using something that works to get re-elected.

 

[Kaylee]

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/10/25/tsa-screeners-fail-most-bomb-tests/

I'm for local people getting their airports to opt out of the federal TSA screening and going with private contractors, even if they must use the same procedures.

Customer service would improve.

And even though TSA is ridiculed as having McDonald's level moronic staffing...

who'd want to go to a Government Ran McDonalds?

And if we are going to have "security theater" instead of real security, couldn't private companies do better theater? I mean, what government opera you gonna go to?

The biggest problem is that airline security is more of a political than security issue. The U.S. is willing to cut intelligence agencies in order to provide more "security theater" for passenger screening. For a politician, it's better for their careers, even if it puts the passengers at more risk.

I would still like to try to put a stop to backscatter machines and random enhanced pat-downs and use dogs.

I still don't want the new procedures used, whether by govt employees or private companies' employees.

I can see additional advantages to going with private companies. In general, I think the US govt makes it difficult for employees and citizens to sue them. So for example, if in the future a security agent wanted to sue for radiation damage, they might be more likely able to do so if their employer was a private contractor and not the US govt.

Also, I worked part-time for the Census earlier this year and I've volunteered locally on voting integrity issues. I could not believe how much money has been wasted and the quality of some of the computer programming was unbelievably poor (US Census).

Some examples, the US Census purchased handheld computers for the enumerators to use in the last census. They didn't work and all of them were simply stored in warehouses and unused.

The US Census office I worked out of had their VOIP phones installed by a private contractor. They did an unbelievably poor and shoddy job.

Many of the voting equipment purchased by NY State didn't work.

AFAIK, the vendors were not held accountable. Most private companies require their vendors to live up to the terms of their contract, and would go to court if necc.

I worked for many companies in the private sector and I've never seen or heard of anything comparable.

It's likely that our tax money would be better spent if the work was outsourced to private companies.

On the other hand -- is it a good idea to outsource what is essentially part of our defense to private companies?

We would not replace our armies or police force with private companies. Perhaps for the same reason, as bad as it is sometimes, we shouldn't outsource the airport screening work either.

 

[Meed]

In the United States in 2009 there were around 15,000 murders, 89,000 rapes and 30,000 car crash fatalities. There were zero deaths resulting from people blowing up or hijacking airplanes. So, you see? It makes perfect sense to legally mandate tighter airline security. As long as no one is killed on an airplane, we can feel safe and secure, by god.

 

[TjW]

I think we have to quit blaming the politician and look at the people who elect them. Perception of safety seems to be very important to people regardless of whether they are actually safe or not.

People seem to relate technology and inconvenience with safety. Being stuck in a crowded airport, in long line-ups makes them feel safe. Being ordered around by people who have no limit to their authority, makes them feel safe. Talking heads on television telling them about the latest and greatest "terror bustin'" technology, makes them feel safe. To top it off, the more money they pay for new technology, the safer they think they are. All the new fangled crap hasn't caught anyone but, if you ask people, a lot of them think it catches terrorists everyday.

Who gets caught? Usually some citizen who has been inconvenienced to the point that they make a minor disturbance. They are the ones treated like a terrorist and then held up as an example of how well the system works.

The fear mongering that Bush used so successfully was used because it works on the people who elected him. The same people who elected Obama. I doubt Obama is above using something that works to get re-elected.

No doubt we get the government we deserve. We persist in electing politicians who place their own short term goals -- being re-elected -- over the long-term good of the people they are supposed to represent.

I'm not sure which idea is goofiest -- yours, thinking the mob can and should become rational, or mine, thinking that politicians can and should become selfless.

 

[bokonon]

I don't know why you brought up the shoe and underwear bombers.

The reason I brought them up is right there in the bit you quoted. The security measures they anticipated caused them to adopt methods for concealing their explosives which resulted in failure to achieve their objectives. If they could simply walk onto the plane with a valise wired to explode, they might have succeeded.

I don't know what it takes to bring a plane down. The article referenced above quoted an expert as saying that half a kilo would do it.

Half a kilo is also obviously enough to kill a person, and yet the assassination attempt failed. No security measures are ever 100% effective, especially when you're dealing with people who are willing to die to achieve their goals -- which was the case for the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the would-be assassin.

Bruce Schneier quoted another expert, who had this to say:

Lewis Page, an "improvised-device disposal operator tasked in support of the UK mainland police from 2001-2004," pointed out that this isn't much of a threat for three reasons: 1) you can't stuff a lot of explosives into a body cavity, 2) detonation is, um, problematic, and 3) the human body can stifle an explosion pretty effectively (think of someone throwing himself on a grenade to save his friends).

On the other hand, a terrorist wearing an explosive vest managed to kill half a dozen CIA agents in Afghanistan.

 

[qayak]

I'm not sure which idea is goofiest -- yours, thinking the mob can and should become rational, or mine, thinking that politicians can and should become selfless.

I think they are both pipe dreams.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Waste of time?
Images from the TSA scanners... (so I'm told!)

I'll be in my bunk...

 

[mhaze]

....On the other hand -- is it a good idea to outsource what is essentially part of our defense to private companies?

We would not replace our armies or police force with private companies. Perhaps for the same reason, as bad as it is sometimes, we shouldn't outsource the airport screening work either.

Absolutely it is a good idea.

Plus we need to move past the idea that big brother will protect us. We get on the plane, if there is a bad guy on that plane we - the passengers - take care of him. That's the lesson from 911.

I don't expect perfection in pre board screening and I don't think anyone does. A reasonable level, quality, and the right attitude I do want.

Just curious, when you saw the dogs in use, as far as you could tell, did they touch all the passengers ,snout to skin, -- or only the ones where they smelled what they were trained to detect?

In your opinion, does the use of sniffer dogs violate 4th amendment rights?

As to why other countries use sniffer dogs instead of multi-million dollar machines, maybe they figured out how to make their procurement process less susceptible to corruption? Don't know, wish I did.

The dogs are trotted by their handler down the line of passengers more than once, say three times. They stop and sniff various people and signal.

Snout to skin, no because dogs' smell is roughly equal to our vision. They can smell single molecules. For example I play with one dog I have that animal doesn't care if it's day or night, because it's going for that ball by smell. That means figuring out every place the thing bounced and tracking to it's final resting place.

No way using dogs generates 4th amendment. Plus it's totally cool and the dogs always look like they are smiling and having a great time. I guess if someone had a phobia about dogs it might bother them. Tough.

 

[bokonon]

the implemented policies appear to be contrary to Bill of Rights

the 4th amendment applies - generally - to the actions of the federal government against the individual.

The old procedures were not in my opinion unreasonable. The scanners were not porno scanners and the pat downs were not checking genitals, breasts, etc. The new scanners are porno scanners

No way using dogs generates 4th amendment. Plus it's totally cool and the dogs always look like they are smiling and having a great time. I guess if someone had a phobia about dogs it might bother them. Tough.

It seems that you are only concerned about people getting a peek at breasts and genitals. I doubt your concerns would be diminished if TSA agents always looked like they were smiling and having a great time, so why is it that you don't say "tough" to people who have a phobia about being seen nude?

In my opinion, the 4th amendment concerns are the same, whether it is a machine detecting photons bouncing off your booty or dogs detecting molecules seeping out of your socks. In each case, everyone in the line is being scanned, though there is no reason to presume that any individual in the line is guilty of anything.