How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Panic and it being big news. Really losing a plane or two a year would make little difference, and flying would still be safer than driving. But people are not rational with risk assessment.

I read recently that this is a myth. Flying is as dangerous as driving. Or, conversely, driving is as safe as flying. It's just that we spend SO much more time in cars than planes that we are far far likelier to die in a car crash than a plane crash. But if you were to fly and drive the same amount of time, your risk of death would be much roughly the same.

 

[mhaze]

I read recently that this is a myth. Flying is as dangerous as driving. Or, conversely, driving is as safe as flying. It's just that we spend SO much more time in cars than planes that we are far far likelier to die in a car crash than a plane crash. But if you were to fly and drive the same amount of time, your risk of death would be much roughly the same.

In 2009 for scheduled airlines, there were 50 deaths for over 17,000,000 hours of flight time. The right question is not a comparison to car accident statistics, but something like the following:

a) how have basic security procedures improve airline accident rates?
b) how have post 911 security procedures, including searching all baggage, improved airline accident rates?
c) and how would the new "enhanced security procedure theater" improve airline accident rates?

Are there alternatives to (c) which would do a better job of increasing safety, which do not have 4th amendment issues and which do not have the intrusiveness of porno scanners and grope rape?

And then don't forget to ask:

d) how have post 911 changes in airline passenger attitudes and behavior changed airline accident rates?

(d) has eliminated the bad guy's game of hijacking airliners whether by weapons or bomb threats.

​

The final question:

What level of "safety" are we satisfied with? Who determines the answer to such a question? How much do we give up of our civil liberties to get that level? Again, who determines that?

 

[Nichiro]

One way to beat them at their own game is to opt for and form Naked Travelers Club.
I am game for it.

 

[Kaylee]

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.

The shoe bomber would probably be stopped by an examination of his shoes at the security check point, but that isn't one of the TSA protocols under debate in this thread.

The underwear bomber was stopped because his father warned the US Embassy in his country. But as per two quotes I provided upthread, the GAO (US Government Accountability Office) has determined that the backscatter machines will not always detect an underwear bomb or similar technology based on classified materials and tests.

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.

I agree.

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).

1) Well we have an expert standoff, because at least one other expert has been quoted as saying that you can stuff enough explosives into a body cavity. Then, of course, there's always the scenario where if you have a group of terrorists on a plane, they could each be packing explosives internally.

2) Explosives could be detonated remotely by a cell phone or, I'm sure, by an FM (radio) switch. Also, there's no reason why explosives can't be removed in the privacy of an airplane's restroom and then detonated with a hardwire switch without the impedance of being buried in a body cavity.

FWIW, since Lewis Page doesn't take these obvious points* into account, I'm not inclined to rely upon his opinion on other matters either.

* ( I don't have an engineering background, and even I could figure these work arounds out! )

3) I agree. Another example is that this is what happened in Saudi Arabia when the terrorist detonated the explosive inside his own body.

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

I agree that an external bomb is more convenient for terrorists than a bomb in a body cavity. I think we both agree that this can be successfully scanned for with sniffer dogs. There's no need to use unhealthy and dangerous backscatter machines which also are extremely intrusive and violate 4th amendment rights, and no need to give grandma and grandpa the enhanced "freedom" pat either.

Where we disagree is does the use of sniffer dogs violate 4th amendment rights? I don't think so, but I'll go into that in another post later today.

 

[Kaylee]

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.

That's it !? That's all you got?

Come on, I'm sure you can do better than that. Do you think we should privatize our military also? If yes, how could we ensure control by the government? Do you think the risk of a coup would be increased? If no, why do you support privatizing security controls of our borders?

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 agree. Of course I don't guarantee success if it's left entirely up to me. I blew out my knees a long time ago. But I can throw my dinner tray as well as anyone else I suppose.

(Shortly after 9/11, a pilot was quoted saying that passengers don't need to be Rambos. If all the passengers started throwing whatever they had at hand, it would be hard, or at least harder, for terrorists to be successful, esp. if they couldn't come on board with guns or explosive materials. And we can keep guns and explosive materials off the planes with metal detectors and sniffer dogs.)

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.

I agree.

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.

Thanks for the info -- I've not had the opportunity to see sniffer dogs in use.

 

[bokonon]

The underwear bomber was stopped because his father warned the US Embassy in his country.

No. His father did express concern, but he was stopped when his fellow passengers noticed smoke coming out from under the blanket he'd wrapped around himself. The concealment method he'd chosen to sneak his payload past the security measures he expected to face rendered his bomb ineffective. That's one way such measures make us "somewhat safer" even though they obviously can't catch everything.

ETA: It also demonstrates that "background checks" aren't any more foolproof, though they certainly have the potential to be more intrusive. He wasn't even flying under an assumed name...

1) Well we have an expert standoff, because at least one other expert has been quoted as saying that you can stuff enough explosives into a body cavity. Then, of course, there's always the scenario where if you have a group of terrorists on a plane, they could each be packing explosives internally.

2) Explosives could be detonated remotely by a cell phone or, I'm sure, by an FM (radio) switch. Also, there's no reason why explosives can't be removed in the privacy of an airplane's restroom and then detonated with a hardwire switch without the impedance of being buried in a body cavity.

FWIW, since Lewis Page doesn't take these obvious points* into account, I'm not inclined to rely upon his opinion on other matters either.

* ( I don't have an engineering background, and even I could figure these work arounds out! )

Perhaps lacking an engineering background makes you oblivious to the flaws in your work arounds, while someone who's actually worked with the stuff knows that playing the flute is more difficult than simply "blow in one end and move your fingers up and down."

 

[Kaylee]

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.

Everytime we leave our homes we are getting smelled by dogs. (Most dogs can smell very well, they don't need to be right on top of you to be able to smell you.)

I don't know about you, but the fact that a dog can easily identify what type of soap I used, what type of clothing I'm wearing, whether I'm carrying a leather or nylon bag, ETA whether or not I have a liver treat , and yes whether or not I have drugs or explosives on me does not make me feel violated. That's just a natural ability dogs have.

Most people park their cars at the mall and expect that their cars won't be searched. Yet if someone walks by (humans have an extraordinary good sense of vision compared to many other breeds of mammals) and notices that there is a baby or dog locked inside a car with rolled up windows on a sweltering hot day -- they will most likely report it. The owner of the car would not have much luck saying that their 4th amendment rights had been violated.

I believe that the use of sniffer dogs at airports is closer to that scenario than the use of backscatter machines.

I don't think the use of dogs qualifies as an unreasonable search and it certainly doesn't qualify as a seizure. It's a good way to determine who should be selected for an intrusive search based on probable cause.

Additional pluses are that it doesn't put anyone's health at risk and it won't bankrupt the budget either.

 

[I Ratant]

I read recently that this is a myth. Flying is as dangerous as driving. Or, conversely, driving is as safe as flying. It's just that we spend SO much more time in cars than planes that we are far far likelier to die in a car crash than a plane crash. But if you were to fly and drive the same amount of time, your risk of death would be much roughly the same.

.
The thing that obscures the safety issue is the number of deaths per incident.
One big plane crash can out-newsworthy 100 car accidents.

 

[I Ratant]

The shoe bomber would probably be stopped by an examination of his shoes at the security check point, but that isn't one of the TSA protocols under debate in this thread.

The underwear bomber was stopped....

.
Hold it right there!
The undie guy ignited the bomb, and THEN got swarmed!
Same with the shoe guy.

 

[I Ratant]

...
Most people park their cars at the mall and expect that their cars won't be searched. Yet if someone walks by (humans have an extraordinary good sense of vision compared to many other breeds of mammals) and notices that there is a baby or dog locked inside a car with rolled up windows on a sweltering hot day -- they will most likely report it. The owner of the car would not have much luck saying that their 4th amendment rights had been violated.

...

.
Mall security in this area is cruising the parking lots, and informing Mallees about unsecure practices such as packages in plain sight, and purses..etc.
Sometimes by notes on the window, and sometimes personally.

 

[Kaylee]

The underwear bomber was stopped because his father warned the US Embassy in his country.

No. His father did express concern, but he was stopped when his fellow passengers noticed smoke coming out from under the blanket he'd wrapped around himself.

& @ I Ratant: I stand corrected.

The concealment method he'd chosen to sneak his payload past the security measures he expected to face rendered his bomb ineffective. That's one way such measures make us "somewhat safer" even though they obviously can't catch everything.

ETA: It also demonstrates that "background checks" aren't any more foolproof, though they certainly have the potential to be more intrusive. He wasn't even flying under an assumed name...

I think we all agree that:

* We can't be 100% safe
* The cure shouldn't be worse than the ailment.

Where we disagree:

We reached the point where the cure is worse than the ailment.

Perhaps lacking an engineering background makes you oblivious to the flaws in your work arounds, while someone who's actually worked with the stuff knows that playing the flute is more difficult than simply "blow in one end and move your fingers up and down."

Not a convincing argument.

Bombs can easily be detonated remotely. I had already provided references upthread that stated the body cavity bomb in Saudi Arabi was detonated by a cell phone.

I just inputted "remote fm switches" into the google search engine and got over 3 million responses.

 

[Kaylee]

.
Mall security in this area is cruising the parking lots, and informing Mallees about unsecure practices such as packages in plain sight, and purses..etc.
Sometimes by notes on the window, and sometimes personally.

Thanks for the example. And if this were to be done by the police vs. mail security (govt. employees vs. private corporation employees) -- I don't think that this would violate 4th Amendment rights either.

 

[bokonon]

Where we disagree:

We reached the point where the cure is worse than the ailment.

I think we reached that point when the patriot act permitted warrantless wiretaps and email eavesdropping. The idea that someone may see what my doctors see seems trifling in comparison.

Bombs can easily be detonated remotely. I had already provided references upthread that stated the body cavity bomb in Saudi Arabi was detonated by a cell phone.

I just inputted "remote fm switches" into the google search engine and got over 3 million responses.

A "remote fm switch" does nothing more than complete a circuit, something which can be accomplished just by putting two wires together. You still need a power supply and a detonator which can be concealed along with the explosives (and the radio receiver, if that's how you're going). Maybe it will work. Maybe it won't.

So far, you have a body cavity bomb triggered by a cell phone which succeeded in killing only the body it was carried in.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Deleted

 

[mhaze]

Slightly different subject. Are criminals including rapists allowed to become TSA screeners?

YES.

A criminal background check is required for the job, and numerous felonies do not disqualify if the charge and/or conviction more than ten years in the past.

SO....

A serial rapist with a conviction history could get hired as a TSA screener, and then be able all day long to feast on nude pics of the women walking through. And he'd be able to check those purses, those boarding documents, that drivers license, that ID with their home addresses....

Our Government Protecting Us?

http://www.airsafenews.com/2010/11/is-tsa-allowing-convicted-rapists-to.html

 

[funk de fino]

Slightly different subject. Are criminals including rapists allowed to become TSA screeners?

YES.

A criminal background check is required for the job, and numerous felonies do not disqualify if the charge and/or conviction more than ten years in the past.

SO....

A serial rapist with a conviction history could get hired as a TSA screener, and then be able all day long to feast on nude pics of the women walking through. And he'd be able to check those purses, those boarding documents, that drivers license, that ID with their home addresses....

Our Government Protecting Us?

http://www.airsafenews.com/2010/11/is-tsa-allowing-convicted-rapists-to.html

You never read the whole link did you?

 

[mhaze]

You never read the whole link did you?

Yes, I did, and it fully supports what I said. Also, I have some knowledge of these procedures and laws. The link was for people to read, not what I would get my information from. That would of course be the actual administrative and regulatory code.

I note someone mentioned you were from Scotland. You likely wouldn't really have any knowledge of US TSA technical procedures, FAA administrative law.

Respectfully, then, here are the criminal TSA background check procedures are laid out here:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/49cfr1542.209.htm

A "registered sex offender" is not excluded. Here in the US that is a state level designation which applies for a person's life, and what matters for the TSA check is ten years since conviction.

So it's legal for the TSA to hire a rapist, put them as a screener in front of the porno-scanner, and said screener gets access to all those women and childrens' personal identification data.

 

[bokonon]

So it's legal for the TSA to hire a rapist, put them as a screener in front of the porno-scanner, and said screener gets access to all those women and childrens' personal identification data.

If by "personal identification data" you mean the name tag on their underwear.

You're starting to sound like INRMhaze...

 

[Checkmite]

I think the idea of "punishing" the individual TSA workers at the gates is puerile and stupid; and I think comparing their doing their jobs to the "obeying orders" excuses of Nazi concentration camp workers who participated in mass murder demonstrates shocking insensitivity and a disturbing lack of sense of scope on the part of those who argue it. These are people who joined the TSA under the assumption that they would be doing little more than babysitting metal detectors; they're people whose families now depend on them for income, and they're people on whom the rules of the game were changed suddenly one day without their input or consent. To tell from the ones who've spoken out, they hate what they have to do now; and as much as I think the new airport screening policy is ridiculous and abusive, it seems painfully obvious to me that the way to fix it is from the top (where the decision was made) down, not to judge a bunch of $9/hour security guards for choosing feeding their families over putting on gloves and begrudgingly humoring you with a patdown because you can't stand the thought of somebody seeing a badly-rendered 3D computer graphical interpretation of your naked body.

 

[mhaze]

If by "personal identification data" you mean the name tag on their underwear.

You're starting to sound like INRMhaze...

Huh?

It would seem to be stinking obvious I'm talking about their ID which they have in their hand at that point in the pass through procedure, and everything in their purse or handbag.

I think the idea of "punishing" the individual TSA workers at the gates is puerile and stupid; ....... I think the new airport screening policy is ridiculous and abusive, it seems painfully obvious to me that the way to fix it is from the top (where the decision was made) down, not to judge a bunch of $9/hour security guards for choosing feeding their families......

You mean those $14 - $18/hour workers, right? The bunch that are right now moving toward union representation?

Now how do we punish those TSA Gate Rapers?