Ex-Minn. governor sues over body scans, pat-downs

[J/T Gramdma]

Good for Jesse! Whatever his motivation.
Most of these procedures are for show to make it look like increased security.
Most of them are reactionary. as in now you cant bring a printer cartridge.
AFTER the shoe bomber, no more gel shoe inserts....
Whatever the next " event " is, it will be something new and TSA will implement another new rule, but it will be AFTER the fact....

I think common sense profiling could accomplish as much as the tactics they are using now on everybody..

I dont fly often so not much impact on me personally.


I agree with Jesse. I have had both knees replaced and I will refuse to fly because of the pat down. I have watched it on UTube and it is too invasive for me. I think it needs to be challenged in court and I am glad someone is willing to spend the money to reach a definitive court ruling.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Wow. I would love it if you could address my other post with as much passion. And that's the one no one who supports this seems willing to touch (no pun intended): Show me the evidence that enhanced security procedures are safe and effective.

I'm sorry, but the science just doesn't back up full-body scanners.

I didn't experience any full-body scanner. None was available at either gate out of which I flew, therefore I'm not qualified to address your prior post with any degree of passion - except to say I don't give a rat's patoot if the TSA wants to full-body scan me. As I stated earlier, I tried. I wanted to be scanned, I really did. It doesn't bother me. I don't care that/if/whether it prevents, deters, or finds anything. It is, or will be, a condition of boarding a commercial plane. Period. I agree to the condition - either that one or the pat-down (not grope, not fondle, not anything sexual - that's not what's being done).

I could be wrong, but I think the fact that there have been multiple reports of screeners not changing their gloves is a legit concern.

HAD been, several months ago. My single experience, plus time, would indicate to me that this has changed. YMMV - but you can always tell any TSO that you want them to use clean gloves.

 

[ironz]

Sorry...don't know how to do multiple quotes, so here:

As far as reinforcing and locking the cockpit doors as reactionary, as opposed to the various bans on items.... Sure, it was a reaction, but one that is a truly effective measure. No terrorists in the cockpit means no terrorists to fly the plane into the building or the ground.
But the banned items....how about instead of selectively banning printer cartridges, they actually screen all cargo? The printer cartridges in particular are not the problem. Same for liquids...if a way to reasonably test liquids were in place. Besides...the liquids you buy past the checkpoint may or may not have been prescreened anyway. One could certainly get around the limits by having many small bottles of whatever (perhaps distributed among several passengers) and combine them. Oh, and I do believe the practicality of a liquid bomb has been debunked. The shoes....most EU airports don't make you take off your shoes...

The "grope"....some may feel groped because they DO use the fronts of their hands now and to some that is more intimate. Some people have reported being bruised and fondled by more aggressive agents. Luck of the draw? Maybe. But part of that protest is really the idea of ....why are you patting down grandma going to Duluth rather than looking for behavioral clues, or checking the passenger lists, etc.? Time and money is being spent as every single passenger is considered a terrorist until proven otherwise. We don't allow that in court proceedings (innocent until proven guilty)....why at the airport?

as for the glove changing....they do test for explosive residue after the patdown...so yes, you want your person to be in new gloves to ensure they didn't pick up something off of another person. And yes, they touch skin---I have had it done...they check the waistband of your pants running their fingers in between you and your waistband, so again...you want fresh gloves.

What I really want to get across is the concept of RELATIVE RISK. True, maxiesmom, there are not people with bombs on the highways. But, seriously, look at your chances of being killed or mangled in a car wreck as opposed to the VERY VERY SMALL chance of a terrorist on a domestic flight. They are hugely greater. If someone is SO scared of a terrorist on a flight, given the millions of people who safely fly every day and every year, and the relatively low incidence of a terrorist-affected flight...then yes, the terrorists win. It's a matter of relative risk. Yes, it would be awful if another plane went down....but isn't it awful when there is a massive pileup on the highway with 3 kids killed because they weren't buckled in? Scenarios like that happen every day...add them up and it is way more than an airplane full of people.

I'm not saying NO security....metal detectors, wands (to clear metal without having to touch the other person), and explosive detection (the TSA couldn't figure out how to keep the puffers operational) should be sufficient, particularly if combined with thoughtful use of intelligence and review of passenger lists by the govt and airlines. Also....let's see some studies that prove or disprove the efficacy of the scanners. We already know that the xray viewers miss a great number of items...and they are looking at direct images of the carryon bags.

OK...I just want people to think. Think about relative risk. Actually look into some of the articles and such that indicate that some of these more invasive options the TSA has chosen are not necessarily more effective, while at the same time, making travel less convenient, more stressful, more time-consuming, and heaven knows, the govt is spending so much of our hard-earned tax dollars on this agency. Think outside your particular world...and thank you Goofy4Tink, for allowing that there are people who HAVE to fly. (not to mention, TSA is starting to set up at train and bus stations)

Also think about this....the airport employees and TSA themselves....people who have access to the "sterile" side along with the passengers....they are NOT necessarily screened. I have witnessed and even confirmed with TSA at my home airport that they are not screened and they bring in their backpacks with their lunch or heaven forbid anything else (even weapons) without so much as the bag going through the xray, much less their person. If we want that "sterile" area full of only screened people, why not them, too? Why are we travelers all considered guilty until proven innocent, when they are exempt from that? Do you really think the person serving breakfast tacos has had a complete background check?

 

[kaytieeldr]

AFTER the shoe bomber, no more gel shoe inserts....

Actually, the 'no gel inserts' goes back to the liquids ban - because the gel is a liquid.

Besides...the liquids you buy past the checkpoint may or may not have been prescreened anyway.

I'm relatively certain everything that gets airside IS screened.

One could certainly get around the limits by having many small bottles of whatever (perhaps distributed among several passengers) and combine them.

But then you have suspicious activity - and many, if not most, passengers - and of course the flight crew - are on alert

 

[nytimez]

Period. I agree to the condition - either that one or the pat-down (not grope, not fondle, not anything sexual - that's not what's being done).

That's an opinion, not a statement of fact unless you can get into the mind and intentions of every TSA agent.

I am gravely concerned by incidents like the one at Logan Airport -- a TSA worker who conducted pat downs was arrested and charged with statutory rape, enticement of a child and indecent assault and battery on a 14-year-old girl. The girl's father also found sexually explicit text messages from him on his daughter's phone.

Is this an isolated incident? Probably. Are most TSA workers just men and women doing their job in a completely non-sexual way? I'd believe that. Do many of them hate it as much as the public? Sure.

But that wouldn't be any consolation to me if I found out this man had "screened" my daughter at the airport.

 

[kaytieeldr]

That man WON'T have screened - touched - your daughter at the airport. If you mean seen her UNIDENTIFIABLE person from the observation room, well, that's possible, although it's hard to tell most fourteen year olds from twenty one year olds, especially in the ambiguity of the screened image.

But a male TSO wouldn't be touching a female passenger.

 

[sam_gordon]

ironz-

First, if you want to do 'multiple quotes'... on every post you want to quote, click the icon with the quotation marks and plus sign at the bottom right of the post. When you get to the last post you want to quote, click the 'quote' icon. Now everyone is quoted.

As far as the topic at hand, I think you bring up some very good points. I agree with you about the printer cartridge issue... my question is also why wasn't that scanned before? Is there something about a printer cartridge that makes scanners oblivous to explosives inside? I'm not saying that's the case, but that could be an answer.

You also point out having passengers go through WTMD would be sufficient. But weren't WTMD and hand held wands in place BEFORE 9/11? I thought the WTMD were implemented to prevent hijackings back in the 70s(?). So obviously WTMD AREN'T the solution.

As far as the reinforced cockpit doors... I'd hate to be a pilot talking on the intercom with a terrorist who threatens to shoot a FA unless I let him in. It's easy to say a pilot would just say 'no', but in a real situation...?

I've said it before, I don't know that the new scanners/patdowns prevent anything. They don't make me feel any safer when I fly, but then neither do WTMD... again, the 9/11 hijackers got through WTMD, so I can point to those and say they're not effective.

 

[nytimez]

That man WON'T have screened - touched - your daughter at the airport. If you mean seen her UNIDENTIFIABLE person from the observation room, well, that's possible, although it's hard to tell most fourteen year olds from twenty one year olds, especially in the ambiguity of the screened image.

But a male TSO wouldn't be touching a female passenger.

That was a hypothetical. Allow me to rephrase: But that wouldn't be any consolation to me if I found out this man had "screened" my son.

And he wasn't trained on the machines -- he was a hands-on pat-down screener. The fact that he was accused of molesting a teen girl outside of work wouldn't make me feel better about him touching a young boy as part of his job.

 

[kamik86]

I also hate adding more and more invasive "rules" that do no good. I can think of several ways to get items onto a plane given the current rules. If I can I'm sure someone who actually wants to do something will find some as well.

I would MUCH MUCH rather take the risk and have no more then the medal detectors and bag checks then go through these pat downs. At some point you have to determine if the extra security a measure gets is worth the cost, invasiveness to passengers, inconvienence etc. This one I don't think is.

 

[sam_gordon]

I would MUCH MUCH rather take the risk and have no more then the medal detectors and bag checks then go through these pat downs. At some point you have to determine if the extra security a measure gets is worth the cost, invasiveness to passengers, inconvienence etc. This one I don't think is.

But the metal detectors don't work either. If they did, they would have caught the 9/11 hijackers. Since they don't work, let's eliminate them too.

 

[goofy4tink]

Sorry...don't know how to do multiple quotes, so here:

As far as reinforcing and locking the cockpit doors as reactionary, as opposed to the various bans on items.... Sure, it was a reaction, but one that is a truly effective measure. No terrorists in the cockpit means no terrorists to fly the plane into the building or the ground.
But the banned items....how about instead of selectively banning printer cartridges, they actually screen all cargo? The printer cartridges in particular are not the problem. Same for liquids...if a way to reasonably test liquids were in place. Besides...the liquids you buy past the checkpoint may or may not have been prescreened anyway. One could certainly get around the limits by having many small bottles of whatever (perhaps distributed among several passengers) and combine them. Oh, and I do believe the practicality of a liquid bomb has been debunked. The shoes....most EU airports don't make you take off your shoes...

The "grope"....some may feel groped because they DO use the fronts of their hands now and to some that is more intimate. Some people have reported being bruised and fondled by more aggressive agents. Luck of the draw? Maybe. But part of that protest is really the idea of ....why are you patting down grandma going to Duluth rather than looking for behavioral clues, or checking the passenger lists, etc.? Time and money is being spent as every single passenger is considered a terrorist until proven otherwise. We don't allow that in court proceedings (innocent until proven guilty)....why at the airport?

as for the glove changing....they do test for explosive residue after the patdown...so yes, you want your person to be in new gloves to ensure they didn't pick up something off of another person. And yes, they touch skin---I have had it done...they check the waistband of your pants running their fingers in between you and your waistband, so again...you want fresh gloves.

What I really want to get across is the concept of RELATIVE RISK. True, maxiesmom, there are not people with bombs on the highways. But, seriously, look at your chances of being killed or mangled in a car wreck as opposed to the VERY VERY SMALL chance of a terrorist on a domestic flight. They are hugely greater. If someone is SO scared of a terrorist on a flight, given the millions of people who safely fly every day and every year, and the relatively low incidence of a terrorist-affected flight...then yes, the terrorists win. It's a matter of relative risk. Yes, it would be awful if another plane went down....but isn't it awful when there is a massive pileup on the highway with 3 kids killed because they weren't buckled in? Scenarios like that happen every day...add them up and it is way more than an airplane full of people.

I'm not saying NO security....metal detectors, wands (to clear metal without having to touch the other person), and explosive detection (the TSA couldn't figure out how to keep the puffers operational) should be sufficient, particularly if combined with thoughtful use of intelligence and review of passenger lists by the govt and airlines. Also....let's see some studies that prove or disprove the efficacy of the scanners. We already know that the xray viewers miss a great number of items...and they are looking at direct images of the carryon bags.

OK...I just want people to think. Think about relative risk. Actually look into some of the articles and such that indicate that some of these more invasive options the TSA has chosen are not necessarily more effective, while at the same time, making travel less convenient, more stressful, more time-consuming, and heaven knows, the govt is spending so much of our hard-earned tax dollars on this agency. Think outside your particular world...and thank you Goofy4Tink, for allowing that there are people who HAVE to fly. (not to mention, TSA is starting to set up at train and bus stations)

Also think about this....the airport employees and TSA themselves....people who have access to the "sterile" side along with the passengers....they are NOT necessarily screened. I have witnessed and even confirmed with TSA at my home airport that they are not screened and they bring in their backpacks with their lunch or heaven forbid anything else (even weapons) without so much as the bag going through the xray, much less their person. If we want that "sterile" area full of only screened people, why not them, too? Why are we travelers all considered guilty until proven innocent, when they are exempt from that? Do you really think the person serving breakfast tacos has had a complete background check?

Thanks for a nice, thoughtful, non-inflamatory post. You do make a lot of very good points.....I'm sure there are going to be people that give some thought to how they have previously felt.

That's an opinion, not a statement of fact unless you can get into the mind and intentions of every TSA agent.

I am gravely concerned by incidents like the one at Logan Airport -- a TSA worker who conducted pat downs was arrested and charged with statutory rape, enticement of a child and indecent assault and battery on a 14-year-old girl. The girl's father also found sexually explicit text messages from him on his daughter's phone.

Is this an isolated incident? Probably. Are most TSA workers just men and women doing their job in a completely non-sexual way? I'd believe that. Do many of them hate it as much as the public? Sure.

But that wouldn't be any consolation to me if I found out this man had "screened" my daughter at the airport.

Has absolutely nothing to do with his being a TSA employee. Not anymore than those teachers that have committed the same crime, or priests or doctors or coaches. Do you now object to your child going to school? Or playing on a sports team or other activity??? There are child molesters and rapists in all walks of life. Because one was a TSA employee has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

I fly out of Logan a lot, as does my dd. I have no issues with her going through security. Nor would I have an issue if my son were going through. Of course, he is now 37 and 6', 260 lbs...don't think anyone wants to get too up close and personal with him!!

 

[nytimez]

But the metal detectors don't work either. If they did, they would have caught the 9/11 hijackers. Since they don't work, let's eliminate them too.

That's true, but the failures of 9/11 go far beyond airport screening. In fact, I would contend that if they had today's security (but not today's knowledge of methods and intentions) in place on 9/11, the plot could have still unfolded -- especially since boxcutters still routinely make it past security. I'm sure an imaginative and determined terrorist could have used something other than a box cutter in any case.

 

[ironz]

ironz-

First, if you want to do 'multiple quotes'... on every post you want to quote, click the icon with the quotation marks and plus sign at the bottom right of the post. When you get to the last post you want to quote, click the 'quote' icon. Now everyone is quoted.

As far as the topic at hand, I think you bring up some very good points. I agree with you about the printer cartridge issue... my question is also why wasn't that scanned before? Is there something about a printer cartridge that makes scanners oblivous to explosives inside? I'm not saying that's the case, but that could be an answer.

You also point out having passengers go through WTMD would be sufficient. But weren't WTMD and hand held wands in place BEFORE 9/11? I thought the WTMD were implemented to prevent hijackings back in the 70s(?). So obviously WTMD AREN'T the solution.

As far as the reinforced cockpit doors... I'd hate to be a pilot talking on the intercom with a terrorist who threatens to shoot a FA unless I let him in. It's easy to say a pilot would just say 'no', but in a real situation...?

I've said it before, I don't know that the new scanners/patdowns prevent anything. They don't make me feel any safer when I fly, but then neither do WTMD... again, the 9/11 hijackers got through WTMD, so I can point to those and say they're not effective.

Please reread my post. I didn't say ONLY WTMD. I said that some combination of WTMD, explosive detection, and passenger/behavioral/intelligence analysis to know who is on our flights.

9/11 happened because they got in the cockpits. The only real weapon they had were boxcutters, and that terrible scheme. Bringing small blades onto the plane may or may not have been allowed at that time, but the thing is...they had the plan and the access to the cockpit and the INTENT. 99.999% of travelers do not have ill intentions, but we are all being treated as if we are the criminals.

As for what the pilot's job is in a crisis...that is their job. Chances are, even with the TSA's failure rate, that there won't be someone with a gun or large knife on the plane (other than a FAM). And even if some terrorist starts attacking a FA, what is going to happen? The passengers will take. him. out. That is the other change since 9/11 and that is the shift in responsibility. In the older days...people conceded to hijackers....landed the plane somewhere else and negotiated. Since the 9/11 flight that crashed in PA, the passengers have learned that they will take matters into their hands to do what they can. Who took out the underwear bomber? passengers (and a failed ignition device on the bomb). Notice that the intelligence systems were the real failure there, because that man should never have been let on a plane.

The issue is....the TSA needs to be smarter and more effective. If they were smarter and didn't feel the need to treat everyone like a terrorist, they probably could be better utilizing their time to find TRUE threats, instead of patting down grandma and bothering with sealed bottles of water.

I feel safe flying. Always have. Was sort of po'd I had to cancel a trip right after 9/11 because I was NOT scared to get in an airline, but they were grounded. I will not let the terrorists win. There are so many other dangers in this world, we could actually focus some time and money on those that may save more lives. Those people who think there is a potential terrorist on every single flight in the US every day are the ones who are allowing the terrorists the upper hand. The bad guys are probably happy they have created this fear-based society, because that's really what terrorism is all about, not necessarily the loss of life.

 

[nytimez]

Has absolutely nothing to do with his being a TSA employee. Not anymore than those teachers that have committed the same crime, or priests or doctors or coaches. Do you now object to your child going to school? Or playing on a sports team or other activity??? There are child molesters and rapists in all walks of life. Because one was a TSA employee has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

I fly out of Logan a lot, as does my dd. I have no issues with her going through security. Nor would I have an issue if my son were going through. Of course, he is now 37 and 6', 260 lbs...don't think anyone wants to get too up close and personal with him!!

Actually, it has everything to do with it -- and I am just as gravely concerned by teachers, priests, coaches, doctors and anyone else who has the potential to abuse trust and authority with a child. You can't just bury your head in the sand and say their position had nothing to do with it, because child molesters do gravitate to positions in which they will have contact with and authority over children -- that's a known fact.

Now, recognizing that is not the same as putting a child in a box or locking a kid at home and never letting them out into the world, as you seem to imply. That would be irrational. But it would be pure ignorance to not recognize the potential for danger in all of these situations.

 

[sam_gordon]

That's true, but the failures of 9/11 go far beyond airport screening. In fact, I would contend that if they had today's security (but not today's knowledge of methods and intentions) in place on 9/11, the plot could have still unfolded -- especially since boxcutters still routinely make it past security. I'm sure an imaginative and determined terrorist could have used something other than a box cutter in any case.

Please reread my post. I didn't say ONLY WTMD. I said that some combination of WTMD, explosive detection, and passenger/behavioral/intelligence analysis to know who is on our flights.

I get what you're both saying. My point is NO preventative measures will be 100% effective. A skilled terrorist will be able to get by whatever screening you have, whether it's scanners or profiling. So do we say no to all screening since they're not effective? Some people point out (correctly) the current scanners aren't always effective, so we shouldn't do them. That's fine, but you can use the same argument for WTMD and any other screening device/procedure.

And just to clear up any misunderstanding... I've never felt "unsafe" when flying. I love to fly. I simply try not to worry about stuff (hijackings) that are beyond my control. Otherwise, I'd have to look at every passenger and wonder if they've got some ulterior motive. What good is that?

 

[nytimez]

I get what you're both saying. My point is NO preventative measures will be 100% effective. A skilled terrorist will be able to get by whatever screening you have, whether it's scanners or profiling. So do we say no to all screening since they're not effective? Some people point out (correctly) the current scanners aren't always effective, so we shouldn't do them. That's fine, but you can use the same argument for WTMD and any other screening device/procedure.

And just to clear up any misunderstanding... I've never felt "unsafe" when flying. I love to fly. I simply try not to worry about stuff (hijackings) that are beyond my control. Otherwise, I'd have to look at every passenger and wonder if they've got some ulterior motive. What good is that?

I agree with everything here. But I reach a different conclusion -- the fact that a bad security system is better than nothing at all is no reason to simply accept whatever they throw our way.

We CAN do better than what we have now. I really believe that. And we can do that with less intrusiveness and fewer radiation risks.

Personally, I've always felt that the best way is simplest. Turn airplanes into toga parties. Anything you want to bring -- cargo and carry-ons -- has to be sent to the airport 24-48 hours in advance for the real screenings these things (especially the cargo) never get. Heck, maybe stop allowing carryons.

Then, you either show up in the airport in a toga and cotton slippers and go through a metal detector and puff test for explosives, or you don't get on the plane.

Perfect? Of course not. As effective as what we have now, maybe even more so? I would say that it is, with no radiation or uncomfortable touching for most people.

PS: Yes, I know there are practical problems with this. Medications. Metal body parts. Keys. I'm sure a nation as clever as ours could find ways to figure it out.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I should have never started this thread!

snip

It's OK, one of us freedom loving folks would have started it.

I'm not a moderator and I don't see any humor in "freedom fondle", plus I wasn't fondled. I know the difference between a fondle and a pat-down, and I underwent the latter before one of my recent flights because I repeatedly set off the metal detector. I was informed before every move what the TSO would be doing.

And, again, your information is outdated. I'll even qualify this by stating in complete seriousness that Massachusetts may be more advanced than the rest of the country - the TSO who patted me down put on a fresh pair of gloves before she touched me.

I have to agree, "fondle" implies tender and loving. Grope is a more accurate description - "to feel about with the hands;"

snip
I fly out of Logan a lot, as does my dd. I have no issues with her going through security. Nor would I have an issue if my son were going through. Of course, he is now 37 and 6', 260 lbs...don't think anyone wants to get too up close and personal with him!!

Size ain't helping Jesse. Your "big boy" is as likely as the rest of us to get the "Government Grope."

Here's hoping that Governor Ventura is successful . . . whatever his motivation.

ETA: The filing in this case. http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs/files/Ventura Lawsuit.pdf

 

[sam_gordon]

I agree with everything here. But I reach a different conclusion -- the fact that a bad security system is better than nothing at all is no reason to simply accept whatever they throw our way.

We CAN do better than what we have now. I really believe that. And we can do that with less intrusiveness and fewer radiation risks.

Personally, I've always felt that the best way is simplest. Turn airplanes into toga parties. Anything you want to bring -- cargo and carry-ons -- has to be sent to the airport 24-48 hours in advance for the real screenings these things (especially the cargo) never get. Heck, maybe stop allowing carryons.

Then, you either show up in the airport in a toga and cotton slippers and go through a metal detector and puff test for explosives, or you don't get on the plane.

Perfect? Of course not. As effective as what we have now, maybe even more so? I would say that it is, with no radiation or uncomfortable touching for most people.

PS: Yes, I know there are practical problems with this. Medications. Metal body parts. Keys. I'm sure a nation as clever as ours could find ways to figure it out.

I don't know... there's some people I'd rather NOT see in a toga. Although others...

The problem with no carryons is now you are 100% DEPENDENT on the airlines delivering your luggage. Now THAT'S crazy talk.

 

[maxiesmom]

I agree with everything here. But I reach a different conclusion -- the fact that a bad security system is better than nothing at all is no reason to simply accept whatever they throw our way.

We CAN do better than what we have now. I really believe that. And we can do that with less intrusiveness and fewer radiation risks.

Personally, I've always felt that the best way is simplest. Turn airplanes into toga parties. Anything you want to bring -- cargo and carry-ons -- has to be sent to the airport 24-48 hours in advance for the real screenings these things (especially the cargo) never get. Heck, maybe stop allowing carryons.

Then, you either show up in the airport in a toga and cotton slippers and go through a metal detector and puff test for explosives, or you don't get on the plane.

Perfect? Of course not. As effective as what we have now, maybe even more so? I would say that it is, with no radiation or uncomfortable touching for most people.

PS: Yes, I know there are practical problems with this. Medications. Metal body parts. Keys. I'm sure a nation as clever as ours could find ways to figure it out.

But the real question is......would there be beer involved? And the addition of a bunch of restrooms to accomodate all of the beer drinking going on?

 

[nytimez]

But the real question is......would there be beer involved? And the addition of a bunch of restrooms to accomodate all of the beer drinking going on?

There would be lots of beer involved. Also, why confine liquor to those tiny bottles? And finally, the first-class bathrooms would no longer be off limits to the rest of us.