TSA mess and the police

[NotUrsula]

As far as the practices not making us any safer ... I find it food-for-thought that no one has tried the bomb-in-the-shoe trick since we now all have to run our shoes through the scanner and go through the metal detectors shoeless....

If the scanning techniques didn't work at all, I'm fairly certain some other terrorist would have used the shoe scheme....

Even if Reid's shoes had been run through the x-ray in the way that is now required, it wouldn't have been detected. The only thing in the shoe itself was the heel made of plastique, and plastique is NOT detectable by x-rays. He did not have a detonator wired into the shoe -- he just tried to light the plastique directly with a lighter. (And FTR, most forms of plastique don't explode when you light it that way; it just burns.)

The reason that no one has used Reid's "shoe technique" isn't that the x-rays prevent it -- the reason that no one has used it is because it isn't an effective bombing technique, unless you can gather up a larger quantity of the explosive AND carry on the components for a detonator, AND get enough privacy on the flight where other passengers can't see you putting the whole thing together. (There is a reason why Reid was laughably unsuccessful.)

Now, if TSA created a explosives-residue-sniffing floormat that each person had to walk across coming out of the WTMD, *that* might do some real good. It would really slow down the line, though, because any time it alarmed you would have to switch it out for a clean one.

Also, think about this: most travelers have multiple prs. of shoes with them going through the scanner if they have a carryon bag. What makes the ones that you are wearing at the moment that much more threatening than the ones that you have packed in the bag? There would be absolutely NOTHING to stop you from walking into an airside restroom or even sitting down on an airside bench and switching to a different pair, one that has not gone through the scanner in a separate bin, and which might even be a pair of fake shoes sculpted out of pure C4, but no one from TSA would ever know, because they are looking only at the ones on your feet at the time you walk through.

 

[skater]

I also liked minigirl's post and am wondering where people would draw the line. What would make it an "unreasonable search?"

 

[CathrynRose]

Even if Reid's shoes had been run through the x-ray in the way that is now required, it wouldn't have been detected. The only thing in the shoe itself was the heel made of plastique, and plastique is NOT detectable by x-rays. He did not have a detonator wired into the shoe -- he just tried to light the plastique directly with a lighter. (And FTR, most forms of plastique don't explode when you light it that way; it just burns.)

The reason that no one has used Reid's "shoe technique" isn't that the x-rays prevent it -- the reason that no one has used it is because it isn't an effective bombing technique, unless you can gather up a larger quantity of the explosive AND carry on the components for a detonator, AND get enough privacy on the flight where other passengers can't see you putting the whole thing together. (There is a reason why Reid was laughably unsuccessful.)

Now, if TSA created a explosives-residue-sniffing floormat that each person had to walk across coming out of the WTMD, *that* might do some real good. It would really slow down the line, though, because any time it alarmed you would have to switch it out for a clean one.

Also, think about this: most travelers have multiple prs. of shoes with them going through the scanner if they have a carryon bag. What makes the ones that you are wearing at the moment that much more threatening than the ones that you have packed in the bag? There would be absolutely NOTHING to stop you from walking into an airside restroom or even sitting down on an airside bench and switching to a different pair, one that has not gone through the scanner in a separate bin, and which might even be a pair of fake shoes sculpted out of pure C4, but no one from TSA would ever know, because they are looking only at the ones on your feet at the time you walk through.

Your whole post - excellent.

I get the heebies walking barefoot in an airport. So, on the most recent pedicure before a trip, I asked if I could take their little paper flip floppies. Sure! they said...

I took my bomb holding Birkenstock sandals off, and slipped on my paper ones! Yay! My feet were not gonna be walking where jungle rot tootsies have touched..... until:

"Remove your shoes...." I looked shocked - I took the paper thing off and kinda shook it in the air, like "look!" its paper!! Thinking I'd be okay'd.

"REMOVE your shoes" I had to take my now bomb holding paper flippy floppies off, put them in the bin, and then toss them in the garbage at the conveyor belt end.

Lame.

 

[Jennasis]

As far as bomb-making stuff, why not emply more "sniffer" dogs?

As for carrying a concealed weapon on board...why not make it mandatory to have an armed LEO on every flight? Warn passengers that any maneuver deemed an act of aggression gets tazed (or outright shot).

Prices of tix may increase, but hey at least nobody is going to "molest" or irradiate you with their "death ray". Right?

 

[CathrynRose]

Here's something i'm doing over at my blog:
http://shaneisevil.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/letter-of-complaint-to-the-tsa/

Join the FIGHT!

You know, I would.... if I didn't have to give them my name. I don't trust this agency, the way we should trust a group in place to 'protect' us.

Kudos to you, though.... (as they type your name into the super-duper pat down, watch list )

 

[NotUrsula]

Your whole post - excellent.

I get the heebies walking barefoot in an airport. So, on the most recent pedicure before a trip, I asked if I could take their little paper flip floppies. Sure! they said...

I took my bomb holding Birkenstock sandals off, and slipped on my paper ones! Yay! My feet were not gonna be walking where jungle rot tootsies have touched..... until:

"Remove your shoes...." I looked shocked - I took the paper thing off and kinda shook it in the air, like "look!" its paper!! Thinking I'd be okay'd.

"REMOVE your shoes" I had to take my now bomb holding paper flippy floppies off, put them in the bin, and then toss them in the garbage at the conveyor belt end.

Lame.

I'll go you one better. I'm NOT squicked out by walking barefoot through an airport, so I've made it a practice while traveling with children to take all our shoes off BEFORE entering the security line and take them through in a carryon; saves the hassle of keeping up with shoes along with strollers and laptops and squirmy toddlers.

However, the last time I traveled with the kids I got stopped by a TSO who wanted to know where our shoes were. "Packed. In the luggage," I said. "You can't do that!", she said. "Go get them and put them in a separate bin." (Never mind that there were multiple prs for each of us in the carryon.) My reply: "Ma'am, I'd be happy to, but I can't do that because my bag has already cleared through the x-ray -- it's on your side." Naturally, I got the classic, "Well, I'll let it pass this time, but don't do that again!"

 

[ccgirl]

I also liked minigirl's post and am wondering where people would draw the line. What would make it an "unreasonable search?"

And there is the crux of the argument. We all seem to draw the line at different places and we see different things as an "unreasonable search." Of all the polls I have seen, they all have the majority of people favoring the new techniques.

 

[punkin]

I'll go you one better. I'm NOT squicked out by walking barefoot through an airport, so I've made it a practice while traveling with children to take all our shoes off BEFORE entering the security line and take them through in a carryon; saves the hassle of keeping up with shoes along with strollers and laptops and squirmy toddlers.

However, the last time I traveled with the kids I got stopped by a TSO who wanted to know where our shoes were. "Packed. In the luggage," I said. "You can't do that!", she said. "Go get them and put them in a separate bin." (Never mind that there were multiple prs for each of us in the carryon.) My reply: "Ma'am, I'd be happy to, but I can't do that because my bag has already cleared through the x-ray -- it's on your side." Naturally, I got the classic, "Well, I'll let it pass this time, but don't do that again!"

I was once asked to take off my sweater because I had a tank top under it. Therefore they considered it a "jacket" that had to go through on the conveyor. It was a rather see-through tank top, but hey, it's all n the name of national security, right? My DH walking next to me was wearing a collared shirt and a sweater. No one asked him to take it off.

 

[CathrynRose]

I'll go you one better. I'm NOT squicked out by walking barefoot through an airport, so I've made it a practice while traveling with children to take all our shoes off BEFORE entering the security line and take them through in a carryon; saves the hassle of keeping up with shoes along with strollers and laptops and squirmy toddlers.

However, the last time I traveled with the kids I got stopped by a TSO who wanted to know where our shoes were. "Packed. In the luggage," I said. "You can't do that!", she said. "Go get them and put them in a separate bin." (Never mind that there were multiple prs for each of us in the carryon.) My reply: "Ma'am, I'd be happy to, but I can't do that because my bag has already cleared through the x-ray -- it's on your side." Naturally, I got the classic, "Well, I'll let it pass this time, but don't do that again!"

You're kidding?

"You unpack those shoes, put them on, and take them right back off and put them in a bin!"

I'm not super skeeved... but I looked down at my freshly painted toes, and saw those flimsy things, and thought "Perfect! - these things are perfect!" How could they have any issue with paper flip flops!? I even had dreams of becoming rich, selling these things to potential travelers! Why hadn't anyone thought of this??

 

[CathrynRose]

I was once asked to take off my sweater because I had a tank top under it. Therefore they considered it a "jacket" that had to go through on the conveyor. It was a rather see-through tank top, but hey, it's all n the name of national security, right? My DH walking next to me was wearing a collared shirt and a sweater. No one asked him to take it off.

And that one I don't get at all??? If you go in an XRay machine, a naked scanner or a (now enhanced!) pat down.... why can't you have a jacket on? Is the jacket/hoodie/sweater going to somehow bounce those rays off it, not setting off the detector if you have a machete, underneath??

What's the scoop with that? Anyone know???

 

[punkin]

And that one I don't get at all??? If you go in an XRay machine, a naked scanner or a (now enhanced!) pat down.... why can't you have a jacket on? Is the jacket/hoodie/sweater going to somehow bounce those rays off it, not setting off the detector if you have a machete, underneath??

What's the scoop with that? Anyone know???

Who knows, maybe the new scanners will allow for sweaters.

The whole thing is just so arbitrary.

 

[Motherofboys]

I was once asked to take off my sweater because I had a tank top under it. Therefore they considered it a "jacket" that had to go through on the conveyor. It was a rather see-through tank top, but hey, it's all n the name of national security, right? My DH walking next to me was wearing a collared shirt and a sweater. No one asked him to take it off.

This happened to me on flight back from Orlando this spring, I was travelling with DD2 and was wearing a sleeveless tank with a cardigan overtop. It was told the cardigan was a jacket and I had to remove it or I could get a patdown.

I have a very large chest and was not thrilled to whip off my cardigan in front of everyone with just a thin tank underneath, but whatever I did for national security.

However if it is true that Muslim women don't have to take off head scarfs and aren't subject to patdowns over their long gowns - I would be pissed.

 

[anna_chronistic]

Of all the polls I have seen, they all have the majority of people favoring the new techniques.

Huh, I decided to look up some polls (b/c I was surprised to hear that), and I found one poll mentioned 5 times (the same poll -- by CBS) saying 4 out of 5 were in favor of the machines.

Then I found a NBC New York poll that said 70% of people polled were "furious" about the new scanners, and an informal poll by Vanity Fair found about 48 percent were opposed, while the others were split between "Eh, don't care" and "Invasive, but better than being blown up."

So I'd say it's quite split, and now that the issue has become so infamous in the past week or so, I think we'll be seeing more polling. Although I have no doubt that of the polls you have seen, (which from what I found online is likely the same poll results, merely cited in several different articles), the majority were in favor, there are other polls out there that indicate different results, and there will certainly be more polls to come!

 

[skater]

And there is the crux of the argument. We all seem to draw the line at different places and we see different things as an "unreasonable search." Of all the polls I have seen, they all have the majority of people favoring the new techniques.

Its very discouraging to me.

 

[skater]

This happened to me on flight back from Orlando this spring, I was travelling with DD2 and was wearing a sleeveless tank with a cardigan overtop. It was told the cardigan was a jacket and I had to remove it or I could get a patdown.

I have a very large chest and was not thrilled to whip off my cardigan in front of everyone with just a thin tank underneath, but whatever I did for national security.

However if it is true that Muslim women don't have to take off head scarfs and aren't subject to patdowns over their long gowns - I would be pissed.

That would more than infuriate me too!

 

[Anna114]

I guess if I were one of the passengers on the planes that crashed on 9/11 I would have wanted a thorough search. I don't think anyone wants to be "patted down" or go through those scanners but if that is the cost I have to pay to be safer, I'm all for it.

 

[CathrynRose]

There was an article... I'd have to look for it again... with a woman who had on an oversized sweat shirt, or a hoodie - something like that, and was told she had to take it off. She said - I don't have anything on under it...only my bra. They said if she didn't take it off, she'd have to have a pat down.

Off it came. And she walked through, in her bra.

 

[CathrynRose]

I guess if I were one of the passengers on the planes that crashed on 9/11 I would have wanted a thorough search. I don't think anyone wants to be "patted down" or go through those scanners but if that is the cost I have to pay to be safer, I'm all for it.

The *only* thing the 9/11 Hijackers had, were box cutters - which have since been added to the "can't bring it on" list, and would be seen in the baggage XRay OR set off the metal detector.

They used the actual planes, as weapons. Nothing else.

 

[NotUrsula]

Huh, I decided to look up some polls (b/c I was surprised to hear that), and I found one poll mentioned 5 times (the same poll -- by CBS) saying 4 out of 5 were in favor of the machines.

Then I found a NBC New York poll that said 70% of people polled were "furious" about the new scanners, and an informal poll by Vanity Fair found about 48 percent were opposed, while the others were split between "Eh, don't care" and "Invasive, but better than being blown up."

So I'd say it's quite split, and now that the issue has become so infamous in the past week or so, I think we'll be seeing more polling. Although I have no doubt that of the polls you have seen, (which from what I found online is likely the same poll results, merely cited in several different articles), the majority were in favor, there are other polls out there that indicate different results, and there will certainly be more polls to come!

And I think that the best question to be asked in this context is "How often do the respondents fly?"

I'm willing to bet that the more affluent the poll sample, the higher the rate of dissatisfaction will be, because the affluent are more likely to fly on a regular basis. People who never fly and don't have to worry about this ever affecting them personally are much more likely to be looking at it just on a "Do I think it might scare terrorists?" level and not thinking about whether or not it is an unreasonable (or even effective) search protocol.

 

[Anna114]

The *only* thing the 9/11 Hijackers had, were box cutters - which have since been added to the "can't bring it on" list, and would be seen in the baggage XRay OR set off the metal detector.

They used the actual planes, as weapons. Nothing else.

Those box cutters helped them gain control of the plane. If they did not have them and ONLY had themselves perhaps others might have felt in a position to stop the hijackers. Those box cutters gave them the advantage.