TSA mess and the police

[Muushka]

Charles Krauthammer has a good and humorous article today about airports, the TSA, & the age of airport goers with junk.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna.../Too-Cowardly-To-Question-Profiling-Taboo.htm

That was great! I love Krauthammer.

I would love to add "Don't tread on me" and "Don't touch my junk" to my sigs, but I know I would get dinged.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Waste piled atop waste . . . isn't that by definition a compost pile?

Geeze, the least the TSA dude can do is look longingly into my eyes as he runs his hands up my hairy leg on his way to touching my junk.

You are a cheap date! Maybe that's because you're a guy... I want Meat Loaf belting out "Paradise by the Dashboard light", a promise and and a ring.

Georgia Satellites "Keep your hands to yourself" also comes to mind.... I found both on You Tube.

Then again maybe the TSA is thinking more along the lines of Barry White for mood music

 

[JLTraveling]

According to CNN, Amtrak just added new trains for the day before Thanksgiving...projecting their busiest travel day ever. Hmm, wonder if that could have anything to do with the airport security mess

 

[skater]

That's already been addressed. Just like thousands of other things in our society, ranging from teachers, to doctors, to police officers, to firefighters - if there are anecdotal problems, detect them and address them as they occur. Everything can be abused; that doesn't mean everyone must therefore sit at home and do nothing, never interacting together in society.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not entitled to expect their opinion to trump the fair and efficient administration of society driven by what's best for society overall, which is something that society determines collectively through its established means, rather than based on what any one specific person feels.

Who says its this new system is best for society overall? Some think it is and some think it isn't. Yes, it was established by our government, but that doesn't make it right or even best.

 

[skater]

According to CNN, Amtrak just added new trains for the day before Thanksgiving...projecting their busiest travel day ever. Hmm, wonder if that could have anything to do with the airport security mess

One can only hope.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Former Israeli Airline Security Chief: U.S. Needs to Profile Air Passengers
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
By Edwin Mora

(CNSNews.com) - As criticism mounts over the use of full-body scanners and physical pat-downs at U.S. airports, the former security director for Israel’s national airline told CNSNews.com that airline security in America is an “illusion,” and that the United States should adopt El Al’s passenger profiling approach to ensure safety.

According to Isaac Yeffet, the former security chief for El Al Israel Airlines, the United States should adopt El Al’s security approach of ensuring that every passenger is interviewed by a well-trained agent before check-in, a move that involves profiling passengers, which he said is not discriminatory.

El Al is considered by most security analysts as the most secure airline in the world because of its track-record in deterring hijackings and terror plots. The airline has been free of terrorist attacks for about 30 years and it has experienced only one hijacking in its history. Global Traveler magazine has named El Al as number one in its Best Airline for Security for the last three years in a row.

Nonetheless, critics of American airliners adopting El Al’s security approach say it would violate passengers’ civil rights by allowing some passengers to be more intensely scrutinized than others.

Yeffet said that U.S. airliners should implement “exactly the same [security] system” as El Al.

“Yes, profiling,” he said. “Profiling is not that I am choosing that I want to interview them. We don’t have discrimination [at El Al]. Every passenger--I don’t care who he or she is--has to be interviewed by security. We have to be polite. We know how to ask questions.”

“The TSA [Transportation Safety Administration in USA] wants to tell me we now have security in this country--this is an illusion,” he said. “It’s not security. It’s about time that we are proactive and reactive. In this country we fear reactive, we don’t do anything to be proactive.”

When asked if he thought the use of full-body scanners created an illusion of security, Yeffet said, "Yes, they are a small part of the entire system that you use to check a passenger if he is suspicious."

The TSA, a Department of Homeland Security agency, has put in place a procedure for a physical pat-down of airline passengers as part of an overall increase in security and has also ramped-up the use electronic (x-ray) body scanners at airports.

The TSA has decided that if a passenger opts out of going through the body scanner or if the scanner shows something suspicious, a security officer will do a pat-down.

Reacting to TSA’s move to step-up air security, Yeffet said, “Technology in general can never replace a qualified and well-trained human being.”

“We have to use body search and body scanners only against seriously suspicious passengers,” he said.

Yeffet indicated that it is unnecessary to search innocent people, which he said make up about 99.9 percent of air travelers.

Instead, security should be focused on determining whether an individual is suspicious by intensively interviewing the person before he or she boards the plane.

“We at El Al have used the hand/body search for so many years, but we did it only to suspicious passengers that were interviewed by us,” said Yeffet. “We asked the questions and we were able to determine that there was something wrong with a passenger.”

Yeffet pointed out that El Al’s security personnel are highly trained in reading people’s physical actions as indicators of behavior.

“If you are bona fide, you have no problems answering [questions]” he said. “If you want to hide from us, we see the physical changes in your face--suddenly you raise your voice, suddenly your Adam’s apple jumps up and down, you’re nervous. Then we ask, 'Why are you nervous? I'm doing it for your safety sir or Ma'am.’”

Using that approach, “You can see how fast and easy we survive, and we put the hand on the right people that are trying to blow up an aircraft or to commit suicide,” he said.

According to Yeffet, unless they are suspicious, “most passengers” cooperate with El Al’s security approach of interviewing every passenger.

The former El Al security chief criticized the TSA’s decision to allow passengers to opt out of being body scanned and endure a pat-down instead, saying that this option makes body scanners irrelevant.

Yeffet also said that technology, such as X-ray machines, already failed to deter the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing, the Sept. 11 attacks, and the attempted Christmas Day underwear bomber, among other terrorists, by allowing them to go through security check points with illicit materials.

"I don’t need a scanner,” said Yeffet. “I don’t mean to insult anyone. There is what is called hand search. We take you to a special room where you are interviewed by security experts. If we notice any suspicion, we search you from the head to the toe. We won’t leave one piece on your body that we do not do a hand search on. Why do we have to spend millions of dollars on these body scanners?”

At El Al, Yeffet formulated the airline's total security system, developing passenger- profiling and passenger-screening programs and training security personnel.

Yeffet is also a retired senior intelligence director for the Israeli Secret Service, where he was responsible for the security of all Israeli embassies, consulates and delegations around the world.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/full-body-scanners-are-illusion-security

----------------------

Interesting article.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Anyone else notice how often the idea of "advanced training" happens to be mentioned?

 

[OceanAnnie]

Isn't the bolded part what the biggest point of contention is. This sounds even more FULL pat down than what we're doing right now and what most want to get away from.

I think the difference is their perspective is 99.9% of people are innocent, and don't require the pat downs, that and their track record.

 

[JLTraveling]

I think the difference is their perspective is 99.9% of people are innocent, and don't require the pat downs, that and their track record.

Exactly. I don't think any of us would mind being extensively patted down if a highly educated and trained professional determined, based on evidence, that we were a threat. No one's arguing about the procedures that LEOs use when they have probable cause. But simply choosing to fly does not, or at least should not, constitute probable cause.

I think that the issue boils down to utter simplicity. The basis of the entire American judicial process and way of life is "innocent until proven guilty." The basis of the entire TSA process is "guilty until proven innocent." Those two missions are fundamentally opposed.

 

[OceanAnnie]

The article shows an interesting contrast in fundamental beliefs.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I think that the issue boils down to utter simplicity. The basis of the entire American judicial process and way of life is "innocent until proven guilty." The basis of the entire TSA process is "guilty until proven innocent." Those two missions are fundamentally opposed.

Actually, that's the Isreali basis as well. They simply use a different procedure to determine the innocence of all passengers - live, trained personnel. Passengers need to arrive several hours prior to departure. Cars are subject to search. Every passenger is (may be - I don't feel like searching for the information again, but I've found and read it several times) interviewed intensively, and then may be questioned again by a different officer.

Then, if they're satisfied that your vehicle was safe and your responses and demeanor indicate you don't intend to do any harm on the flight or in the airport, you get to board the plane. I'm not sure how many Americans - impatient and self-important as we are - would tolerate that treatment, either.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Another painless security check through. Long lines (shorter than last month) was the worst.

Airport?
Type scanner?
Any patdown?

 

[bicker]

Lots of people are passionate about the issue. I don't think anyone would lie about it, that's just me.

Perhaps you mean that you wouldn't lie about it, but other people assuredly will; many people will say whatever they think will nudge the final outcome in the direction they want it to go, rather than revealing what they actually would do, if that would tend to drive the outcome in the opposite direction.

Heck, people even lie to themselves in situations like this.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Perhaps you mean that you wouldn't lie about it, but other people assuredly will; many people will say whatever they think will nudge the final outcome in the direction they want it to go, rather than revealing what they actually would do, if that would tend to drive the outcome in the opposite direction.

Heck, people even lie to themselves in situations like this.

I wouldn't lie.

I also believe people are basically good and wouldn't lie in a poll.

Difference of opinion.

 

[bicker]

Who says its this new system is best for society overall?

It's a great question, but luckily our society has a long-standing and well-established means of determining such things. That's my point: You're trying to assert your personal preference over that means of establishing collective preference.

Some think it is and some think it isn't.

It is more than that. The principles of our society expressed through its institutions also came down on the side opposite your personal preference. Again, you're just trying to excuse putting your own personal preference -- not only over that of others -- but over what is the reflection of our society's overall determination through its duly authorized means for determining such things.

Yes, it was established by our government, but that doesn't make it right or even best.

It makes it better than imposing your personal preference over someone else's, based solely on it being your personal preference. There will always be disagreement. No one has the foundation to assert royal fiat, and reject what society does, whenever it suits them. If your preference was so venerated, as you claim, then it would have been reflected in society's determination. It wasn't.

According to this tactic you're supporting, you basically extol government when it agrees with you and say it has no authority when it disagrees with you.

 

[CPT Tripss]

That was great! I love Krauthammer.

I would love to add "Don't tread on me" and "Don't touch my junk" to my sigs, but I know I would get dinged.

Use a picture of Fred and Lamont and you might be OK with Don't touch my junk.

 

[bicker]

Exactly. I don't think any of us would mind being extensively patted down if a highly educated and trained professional determined, based on evidence, that we were a threat.

Yet the majority of Americans whine like babies when people suggest investing more of their hard-earned money in upgrading the quality of services provided by the government. This goes back to my point, earlier, about people essentially lying to themselves. In one breath they'll say, "We'll respect TSA agents more if they were better trained," and in the next breath they'll say, "No way will I pay more to have TSA agents better trained."

 

[Muushka]

Exactly. I don't think any of us would mind being extensively patted down if a highly educated and trained professional determined, based on evidence, that we were a threat. No one's arguing about the procedures that LEOs use when they have probable cause. But simply choosing to fly does not, or at least should not, constitute probable cause.

I think that the issue boils down to utter simplicity. The basis of the entire American judicial process and way of life is "innocent until proven guilty." The basis of the entire TSA process is "guilty until proven innocent." Those two missions are fundamentally opposed.

I agree with everything you have said.

If I was acting strangely or not answering the questions that the interviewer asked me, I would not blame them for a performing a pat down. But being assumed a terrorist is not the way the security at the airports should work.

Time will tell. I think things will change. Perhaps all the powerful people (George Soros comes to mind) who invested in these screening measures will lose some of their investment. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I agree with everything you have said.

If I was acting strangely or not answering the questions that the interviewer asked me, I would not blame them for a performing a pat down. But being assumed a terrorist is not the way the security at the airports should work.

Time will tell. I think things will change. Perhaps all the powerful people (George Soros comes to mind) who invested in these screening measures will lose some of their investment. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

IIRC, he sold all his shares. I read something about that the other day.

 

[Minnie]

Airport?
Type scanner?
Any patdown?

MCO
Traditional
No

It was just the same normal process.