Meaningless Security Theater

[El Barto]

Nifty article:

For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance

Oct 29 2010, 12:20 PM ET
This past Wednesday, I showed up at Baltimore-Washington International for a flight to Providence, R.I. I had a choice of two TSA screening checkpoints. I picked mine based on the number of people waiting in line, not because I am impatient, but because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.

Agents were funneling every passenger at this particular checkpoint through a newly installed back-scatter body imaging device, which allows the agency's security officers to, in essence, see under your clothing. The machine captures an image of your naked self, including your genitals, and sends the image to an agent in a separate room. I don't object to stringent security (as you will soon see), but I do object to meaningless security theater (Bruce Schneier's phrase), and I believe that we would be better off if the TSA focused its attentions on learning the identity and background of each passenger, rather than on checking whether passengers are carrying contraband (as I suggested in this article, it is possible for a moderately clever person to move contraband through TSA screenings with a fair amount of ease, even with this new technology).

In part because of the back-scatter imager's invasiveness (a TSA employee in Miami was arrested recently after he physically assaulted a colleague who had mocked his modestly sized penis, which was fully apparent in a captured back-scatter image), the TSA is allowing passengers to opt-out of the back-scatter and choose instead a pat-down. I've complained about TSA pat-downs in the past, because they, too, were more security theater than anything else. They are, as I would learn, becoming more serious, as well.

At BWI, I told the officer who directed me to the back-scatter that I preferred a pat-down. I did this in order to see how effective the manual search would be. When I made this request, a number of TSA officers, to my surprise, began laughing. I asked why. One of them -- the one who would eventually conduct my pat-down -- said that the rules were changing shortly, and that I would soon understand why the back-scatter was preferable to the manual search. I asked him if the new guidelines included a cavity search. "No way. You think Congress would allow that?"

I answered, "If you're a terrorist, you're going to hide your weapons in your anus or your vagina." He blushed when I said "vagina."

"Yes, but starting tomorrow, we're going to start searching your crotchal area" -- this is the word he used, "crotchal" -- and you're not going to like it."

"What am I not going to like?" I asked.

"We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained.

"Resistance?" I asked.

"Your testicles," he explained.

'That's funny," I said, "because 'The Resistance' is the actual name I've given to my testicles."

He answered, "Like 'The Situation,' that guy from 'Jersey Shore?'"

Yes, exactly, I said. (I used to call my testicles "The Insurgency," but those assholes in Iraq ruined the term.)

I pointed out to the security officer that 50 percent of the American population has no balls (90 percent in Washington, D.C., where I live), so what is going to happen when the pat-down officer meets no resistance in the crotchal area of women? "If there's no resistance, then there's nothing there."

"But what about people who hide weapons in their cavities? I asked. I actually said "vagina" again, just to see him blush. "We're just not going there," he reiterated.

I asked him if he was looking forward to conducting the full-on pat-downs. "Nobody's going to do it," he said, "once they find out that we're going to do."

In other words, people, when faced with a choice, will inevitably choose the Dick-Measuring Device over molestation? "That's what we're hoping for. We're trying to get everyone into the machine." He called over a colleague. "Tell him what you call the back-scatter," he said. "The Dick-Measuring Device," I said. "That's the truth," the other officer responded.

The pat-down at BWI was fairly vigorous, by the usual tame standards of the TSA, but it was nothing like the one I received the next day at T.F. Green in Providence. Apparently, I was the very first passenger to ask to opt-out of back-scatter imaging. Several TSA officers heard me choose the pat-down, and they reacted in a way meant to make the ordinary passenger feel very badly about his decision. One officer said to a colleague who was obviously going to be assigned to me, "Get new gloves, man, you're going to need them where you're going."

The agent snapped on his blue gloves, and patiently explained exactly where he was going to touch me. I felt like a sophomore at Oberlin.

"I'm going to run my hands up your thighs, and then feel your buttocks, then I'm going to reach under you until I meet --"

"Resistance?" I interrupted.

"Yes, resistance. Do you want to go into a private room?" he asked.

"Are you asking me into a private room?" I said. He looked confused. I said, "No, here is fine."

He felt me up good, but not great. It was not in any way the best pat-down I've ever received. The most thorough search I've ever experienced was in the Bekaa Valley, by Hezbollah security officers. That took quite awhile, and the Resistance really manhandled my Resistance. There was no cavity search, of course -- no magazine story, even one about Hezbollah terrorism -- is worth that. But it was the fairly full Monty.

I draw three lessons from this week's experience: The pat-down, while more effective than previous pat-downs, will not stop dedicated and clever terrorists from smuggling on board small weapons or explosives. When I served as a military policeman in an Israeli army prison, many of the prisoners "bangled" contraband up their asses. I know this not because I checked, but because eventually they told me this when I asked.

The second lesson is that the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check.

The third lesson remains constant: By the time terrorist plotters make it to the airport, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop them. Plots must be broken up long before the plotters reach the target. If they are smart enough to make it to the airport without arrest, it is almost axiomatically true that they will be smart enough to figure out a way to bring weapons aboard a plane.

UPDATE: Many people are asking me if I actually named my testicles "The Resistance." Of course not. I was just messing with the guy from TSA. My testicles are actually named "Tzipi" and "Bibi."

UPDATE 2: The sequel to "the Resistance" 

Making people jump through hoops just to show us all who's in charge.  Bogus security measures don't really bother me too much.  Nor does an imaging thing or getting fondled by overpaid assclowns.  What bothers me is The Man shoving his authority in my face just so that we'll all get better accustomed to our subservience. 

[EPICVIEW]

its just a matter of time before the term "anal cavity bomber" is going to sadly be in our venacular..

[Vivace]

Meh.. I don't see this any differently than the forced exercise shit you get in Junior High school. Do this or have the rest of the class mock you and shit on you for the rest of the year. Pressure through embarassment is always the best way to get a person to do what you him to do and the few that make a stink ain't going to make big enough waves to change anything anyways. So in the end, unless you really feel like throwing your middle finger at security in airports you should either "drive" or "stay home".

Funny thing is I saw on something similar on my way to Rome. They had the back scatter thing ready to go and the couple in front of me said no. It took them 10 extra minutes to get through while I was basically "rushed" through because the line behind me was getting too long.

[El Barto]

Meh.. I don't see this any differently than the forced exercise shit you get in Junior High school. Do this or have the rest of the class mock you and shit on you for the rest of the year. Pressure through embarassment is always the best way to get a person to do what you him to do and the few that make a stink ain't going to make big enough waves to change anything anyways. So in the end, unless you really feel like throwing your middle finger at security in airports you should either "drive" or "stay home".

No way.  Talking back to them will cause you to miss your flight and allow them to saddle you with administrative fines with little course for appeal. 
Telling one of those ass-hats "this is bullshit!" will land you in a world of hurt. 
Michael J. Rendon v. Transportation Security Administration

[El Barto]

Pilots urged to avoid body scanning

Pilots' unions for US Airways and American Airlines are urging their members to avoid full-body scanning at airport security checkpoints, citing health risks and concerns about intrusiveness and security officer behavior.

I'm happy to see this.  I hope many others follow suit.  I'd like to think that they will, but it seems much more likely that the TSA will change their policies to appease the pilot's union and prevent further dissent.  Still, it's nice to see somebody making a fuss.

[millahh]

Well, the title of the latest Muse disc has new meaning for me now...

Also, the only meaningful thing is stopping terrorists before they get to the airport.  Off the top of my head, I can think of one extremely easy way to bring down a plane with stuff that couldn't be detected with any security device currently operating, or even physically possible.  I'm sure there are several more.*

We're just lucky that the bad guys are working harder instead of smarter so far.



* No, DTVT, I'm not proposing that we start enumerating them here...

[Fuzzboy]

I'm taking a flight to Argentina tomorrow, and I'd honestly rather have them feel my balls than take pictures of them.

[millahh]

I'm taking a flight to Argentina tomorrow, and I'd honestly rather have them feel my balls than take pictures of them.

If you asked nicely, they could do both...

[El Barto]

Oh, I'm sure that the radiation is perfectly safe for them.  The government wouldn't do anything that might damage your nuts. 

[Fuzzboy]

It's not the radiation I have an issue with, it's just that I'd rather have one dude feeling up my cojones and thinking "I hate my job" than a few people in front of a screen staring at my totally average-sized wang.

[El Barto]

So now we have this weasel John "don't touch my junk" Tyner.  In this instance, the dude was clearly looking to start shit with them, and honestly the TSA handled him quite courteously.  Unfortunately, it seems like most people who're opposed to this silliness are idiots or people with small dicks.  Nobody really seems to care that the government is making people jump through hoops just to show you that they can.   

And on a side note, have I mixed up my media biases?  I thought CNN was supposed to be pro-terrorist, anti-American liberals.  Both of their stories about this fellow sound a great deal like the standard FOX "you do want Americans to be safe from terrorists, don't you" bullshit. 

https://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/15/california.airport.security/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

[millahh]

I like the suggestion that men start wearing kilts (and wearing them properly) for going through security.

[Tick]

If it makes me safer they can look at my old penis, or my wife's wonderful parts or my kids for that matter. Its not like someone is going to jerk off to a scan of my modest penis.
I would rather be scanned than get a hand job and a prostate examination.
Seriously, times have changed, and it is just necessary, and not a violation of rights. I don't want to be blown up on a plane because someone had a bomb in his shorts and was not happy to see me.

[El Barto]

If it makes me safer they can look at my old penis, or my wife's wonderful parts or my kids for that matter. Its not like someone is going to jerk off to a scan of my modest penis.
I would rather be scanned than get a hand job and a prostate examination.
Seriously, times have changed, and it is just necessary, and not a violation of rights. I don't want to be blown up on a plane because someone had a bomb in his shorts and was not happy to see me.

Except that it has nothing to do with and no actual bearing on safety. 

[Tick]

If it makes me safer they can look at my old penis, or my wife's wonderful parts or my kids for that matter. Its not like someone is going to jerk off to a scan of my modest penis.
I would rather be scanned than get a hand job and a prostate examination.
Seriously, times have changed, and it is just necessary, and not a violation of rights. I don't want to be blown up on a plane because someone had a bomb in his shorts and was not happy to see me.

Except that it has nothing to do with and no actual bearing on safety. 

Scanning has no bearing on safety? What would?

[El Barto]

As a few people have pointed out, including Millahhhh a few posts above, if they're not stopped before they get to the airport, luck is the only thing that'll prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do.  Nobody is going to spend months or years planning something and then waltz into a metal detector with a Glock tucked in their waste-band. 

The so-called underwear bomber managed to bypass security altogether.  And even if he hadn't it's debatable as to whether or not AIT would have spotted the explosives. 

If anybody wants to read some other thoughts on the whole thing, the pilots are really rampaging about this.  The Professional Pilots Rumor Network has been discussing the pilot that refused both screens (and is likely in a world of shit) and Flyertalk has a whole sub-forum regarding TSA.  I mention these because between the pilots and the frequent business travelers, it's real easy to figure out what a joke the security procedures are.  Those of us that fly once or twice a year see something completely different than the regulars.

[Tick]

As a few people have pointed out, including Millahhhh a few posts above, if they're not stopped before they get to the airport, luck is the only thing that'll prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do.  Nobody is going to spend months or years planning something and then waltz into a metal detector with a Glock tucked in their waste-band. 

The so-called underwear bomber managed to bypass security altogether.  And even if he hadn't it's debatable as to whether or not AIT would have spotted the explosives. 

If anybody wants to read some other thoughts on the whole thing, the pilots are really rampaging about this.  The Professional Pilots Rumor Network has been discussing the pilot that refused both screens (and is likely in a world of shit) and Flyertalk has a whole sub-forum regarding TSA.  I mention these because between the pilots and the frequent business travelers, it's real easy to figure out what a joke the security procedures are.  Those of us that fly once or twice a year see something completely different than the regulars.

Well, I guess my post was saying if it would help I would be for it. I am not a guy who fly's more than once every few years so, I am no expert.
If it would stop terrorists wouldn't you be for it even it it did intrude on your privacy?

I would probably be the idiot who sees some hot chick and gets a giant boner right before being scanned.

[Tick]

[El Barto]

As a few people have pointed out, including Millahhhh a few posts above, if they're not stopped before they get to the airport, luck is the only thing that'll prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do.  Nobody is going to spend months or years planning something and then waltz into a metal detector with a Glock tucked in their waste-band. 

The so-called underwear bomber managed to bypass security altogether.  And even if he hadn't it's debatable as to whether or not AIT would have spotted the explosives. 

If anybody wants to read some other thoughts on the whole thing, the pilots are really rampaging about this.  The Professional Pilots Rumor Network has been discussing the pilot that refused both screens (and is likely in a world of shit) and Flyertalk has a whole sub-forum regarding TSA.  I mention these because between the pilots and the frequent business travelers, it's real easy to figure out what a joke the security procedures are.  Those of us that fly once or twice a year see something completely different than the regulars.

Well, I guess my post was saying if it would help I would be for it. I am not a guy who fly's more than once every few years so, I am no expert.
If it would stop terrorists wouldn't you be for it even it it did intrude on your privacy?

I would probably be the idiot who sees some hot chick and gets a giant boner right before being scanned.

I'm in no hurry to die, but I'm not afraid of death either.  What's more important to me is not living this fairly short life in a police state.  Plus, I understand how risky various endeavors in life actually are.  Terrorism just isn't that big of a threat in this country.

And I've considered a variety of circumstances involving the new screening procedures, and sporting wood was one of them.  I'll bet it's already been done by now.  The funny thing is, I suspect that it'd be so amusing to the screeners that they wouldn't even notice a packet of Semtex strapped to your thigh.

I also considered Millahhh's suggestion about the kilt.  I think you could probably get into a great deal of trouble over that.  Interference is a pretty broad and subjective concept.  I suspect that allowing some TSA flunky to unknowingly grab your uncovered pecker could fit into that category.  I'm really not sure how they'd handle that situation. 

[millahh]

Who said anything about them unknowingly grabbing it?  I figure the best bet is to let them know a priori exactly what they're in for...

It was referenced in that Atlantic column, but the single best way to kill people, snarl air traffic, and confound the security system would be to wear a massive bomb and go through a security line.  Pick the right time of day at the right time of year, and it would kill hundreds of people, it would shut down airports across the country, cause major rollbacks of civil liberties in new and inventive ways, an you'd never even have to go through a single security check.  When you think about that, it's clear just how silly this TSA business really is.

Also, the companies that make the backscatter machines have spent ALOT of $ on lobbying recently...surely to tighten up regulations, so that more and more of their machines will be needed.

[El Barto]

Yeah, what happens when a security checkpoint requires it's own security checkpoint?

Anyway, some random musings.  I guarantee that a few registered sex offenders have already gotten jobs with TSA.  As soon as somebody finds out that Chester has a job that allows him to fondle little Meaghaghn's perky young tits, the show's over. 

Airplanes really aren't a great target anymore.  They pulled off a pretty big score, and they're probably looking elsewhere for their next one.  I'd probably go with cruise-liners, myself.  You send 5500 souls to the briny depths, and that'll get people's attention. 

I suspect a bus or train station is probably next.  That's a whole lot of places that will need to invest in high-tech security bullshit.  It'll be a huge boon for the security industry.  Their just aren't enough major airports.  They need to expand to other commuter gathering points, and I figure they're just praying for the evil Muslims to help them out. 

[Cool Chris]

Airplanes really aren't a great target anymore.  They pulled off a pretty big score, and they're probably looking elsewhere for their next one.  I'd probably go with cruise-liners, myself.  You send 5500 souls to the briny depths, and that'll get people's attention. 

I suspect a bus or train station is probably next.  That's a whole lot of places that will need to invest in high-tech security bullshit.  It'll be a huge boon for the security industry.  Their just aren't enough major airports.  They need to expand to other commuter gathering points, and I figure they're just praying for the evil Muslims to help them out. 

I work for a cruise line, and I haven’t heard any grumblings about enhanced port security. Obviously airport security is a big concern for us with the amount of air travel we are involved in, for both our employees and for guests. I’ve been on a ship once, but that was for an employee function, where I am sure security was lighter than normal. But I’m not sure the terrorists would want to sink 1) thousands of rich, old grannies living off their dead husbands’ pensions, or 2) hundreds of Indonesians who are Muslim.

But yes, they probably aren’t thinking “Hey, that airport job worked so well back in 2001, we should try another one of those!” But then we’d need to look at what their motivation is/was. To make us live in fear, make our own gov’t crack down on our liberties, kill Americans for the sake of killing them..

[Progmetty]

https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jaLDxc9XMzwy07iPnGAUp2ibTW6A?docId=CNG.fdbb7c4f77a7e27e62fcb703b7e9f08a.31
"If you touch my junk.."

[El Barto]

https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jaLDxc9XMzwy07iPnGAUp2ibTW6A?docId=CNG.fdbb7c4f77a7e27e62fcb703b7e9f08a.31
"If you touch my junk.."

Like I said earlier, that guy was seeking confrontation, and quite honestly, the TSA folk were remarkably professional about it.  Honestly, that guy set the cause back a bit.

I guess you get hassled like a mo-fo flying back and forth from Egypt.  You have any bad experiences?

[Progmetty]

As a mofo indeed I do sir, I'm flying back and forth from the states to Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) every month and once a year to Egypt to visit my family, I work in Abu Dhabi and live in San Antonio.
I've had several bad experiences but I never took it personally and never let it bother me to the next day, the way I see it is that if a few bad apples that look like me and have the same religion and mother tongue as I do are out to cause harm to the states then I welcome a little TSA prejudice and salute the extra measures, I understand why this is happening to me and I accept it cause it's justified.
For example I'm ALWAYS "Randomly selected for extra screening" in the U.S, never fails, every time, I don't find this annoying as much as I find it kind that they didn't just tell me that they're doing it to me cause I'm Arabic and Muslim, I got used to it and I usually go to the airport a little early to avoid missing my flight because of this.
One of the funnier occasions was in Atlanta a few days after the under wear bomber thing, the TSA people seemed confused and had a disorganized fashion about how they dealt with us that day, I arrived from Abu Dhabi and after going through passport control I was taken away for "a few questions" and they took me to a big waiting room with about 40 people waiting to be questioned, all of them obviously Arabs, TSA fellas took my passport and told me to wait till they call out my name, they were calling out the names of the people who'd be taken to a smaller room for private questioning and the names were all like "Mohamed AbdFatah, Rania Mostafa, Ahmed Rami, Kamal Eldeen Fouad, etc", Arabic names, then suddenly "Carlos Rodriguez" and everybody turned around to see Carlos who awkwardly felt how unique he was as he walked to the officer heh, I whispered "I can't believe some Carlos is getting dragged into this too" to the couple standing next to me but they didn't understand the joke heh
I almost missed my San Antonio flight that day but thank God for Delta they waited an extra 15 minutes for me, I dunno if they'd do that for anybody or because I'm a Diamond Medallion card holder with them (you can imagine the amount of mileage I get with them by traveling all this distance 6 times a year, Delta adores me )

[William Wallace]

Good article on the utter uselessness of the TSA security procedures.

https://blogs.forbes.com/artcarden/2010/11/14/full-frontal-nudity-doesnt-make-us-safer-abolish-the-tsa/

The Republicans control the House of Representatives and are bracing for a long battle over the President’s health care proposal.  In the spirit of bipartisanship and sanity, I propose that the first thing on the chopping block should be an ineffective organization that wastes money, violates our rights, and encourages us to make decisions that imperil our safety.  I’m talking about the Transportation Security Administration.

Bipartisan support should be immediate.  For fiscal conservatives, it’s hard to come up with a more wasteful agency than the TSA.  For privacy advocates, eliminating an organization that requires you to choose between a nude body scan or genital groping in order to board a plane should be a no-brainer.

But won’t that compromise safety?  I doubt it.  The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility.  This might be beside the point: in 2003, William Anderson incisively argued that some of the steps that airlines (and passengers) would have needed to take to prevent the 9/11 disaster probably would have been illegal.

The odds of dying from a terrorist attack are much lower than the odds of dying from doing any of a number of incredibly mundane things we do every day.  You are almost certainly more likely to die or be injured driving to the airport than you are to be injured by a terrorist once you’re in the air, even without a TSA.  Indeed, once you have successfully made it to the airport, the most dangerous part of your trip is over.  Until it’s time to drive home, that is.

Last week, I picked up a “TSA Customer Comment Card.”  First, it’s important that we get one thing straight: I am not the TSA’s “customer.”  The term “customer” denotes an honorable relationship in which I and a seller voluntarily trade value for value.  There’s nothing voluntary about my relationship with the TSA.

A much more appropriate term for our relationship is “subject.”  The TSA stands between me and those with whom I would like to trade, and I am not allowed to without their blessing.

Second, the TSA doesn’t provide security.  It provides security theater, as Jeffrey Goldberg argues.  The kid with the slushie in Tucson before the three-ounce-rule?  The little girl in the princess costume at an airport I don’t remember?  The countless grandmothers?  I’m more likely to be killed tripping over my own two feet while I’m distracted by the lunacy of it all than I am to be killed by one of them in a terrorist attack.  The moral cost of all this is considerable, as James Otteson and Bradley Birzer argue.

For even more theater of the absurd, consider that the TSA screens pilots.  If a pilot wants to bring a plane down, he or she can probably do it with bare hands, and certainly without weapons.  It’s also not entirely crazy to think that an airline will take measures to keep their pilots from turning their multi-million dollar planes into flying bombs.  Through the index funds in my retirement portfolio, I’m pretty sure I own stock in at least one airline, and I’m pretty sure airline managers know that cutting corners on security isn’t in my best interests as a shareholder.

And the items being confiscated?  Are nailclippers and aftershave the tools of terrorists?  What about the plastic cup of water I was told to dispose of because “it could be acid” (I quote the TSA screener) in New Orleans before the three-ounce rule?  What about the can of Coke I was relieved of after a flight from Copenhagen to Atlanta a few months ago?  I would be more scared of someone giving a can of Coke to a child and contributing to the onset of juvenile diabetes than of using it to hide something that could compromise the safety of an aircraft.

And finally, most screening devices are ineffective because anyone who is serious about getting contraband on an airplane can smuggle it in a body cavity or a surgical implant.  The scanners the TSA uses aren’t going to stop them.

Over the next few years, we’re headed for a bitter, partisan clash over legislative priorities.  Before the battle starts, let’s reach for that low-hanging, bipartisan fruit.  Let’s abolish the TSA.

[Fiery Winds]

Along those lines, here's another article that highlights an effective alternative.  I wonder how it would scale though.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother

While North America's airports groan under the weight of another sea-change in security protocols, one word keeps popping out of the mouths of experts: Israelification.

That is, how can we make our airports more like Israel's, which deal with far greater terror threat with far less inconvenience.

"It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago," said Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy. He's worked with the RCMP, the U.S. Navy Seals and airports around the world.

"Israelis, unlike Canadians and Americans, don't take s--- from anybody. When the security agency in Israel (the ISA) started to tighten security and we had to wait in line for — not for hours — but 30 or 40 minutes, all hell broke loose here. We said, 'We're not going to do this. You're going to find a way that will take care of security without touching the efficiency of the airport."

That, in a nutshell is "Israelification" - a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death.

Fliers urged to opt out of airport security en masse

Despite facing dozens of potential threats each day, the security set-up at Israel's largest hub, Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, has not been breached since 2002, when a passenger mistakenly carried a handgun onto a flight. How do they manage that?

"The first thing you do is to look at who is coming into your airport," said Sela.

The first layer of actual security that greets travellers at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport is a roadside check. All drivers are stopped and asked two questions: How are you? Where are you coming from?

"Two benign questions. The questions aren't important. The way people act when they answer them is," Sela said.

Officers are looking for nervousness or other signs of "distress" — behavioural profiling. Sela rejects the argument that profiling is discriminatory.

"The word 'profiling' is a political invention by people who don't want to do security," he said. "To us, it doesn't matter if he's black, white, young or old. It's just his behaviour. So what kind of privacy am I really stepping on when I'm doing this?"

Once you've parked your car or gotten off your bus, you pass through the second and third security perimeters.

Armed guards outside the terminal are trained to observe passengers as they move toward the doors, again looking for odd behaviour. At Ben Gurion's half-dozen entrances, another layer of security are watching. At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer.

"This is to see that you don't have heavy metals on you or something that looks suspicious," said Sela.

You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side?

"The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela.

Lines are staggered. People are not allowed to bunch up into inviting targets for a bomber who has gotten this far.

At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Sela plays devil's advocate — what if you have escaped the attention of the first four layers of security, and now try to pass a bag with a bomb in it?

"I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with play-doh in it and two pens stuck in the play-doh. That is 'Bombs 101' to a screener. I asked Ducheneau, 'What would you do?' And he said, 'Evacuate the terminal.' And I said, 'Oh. My. God.'

"Take Pearson. Do you know how many people are in the terminal at all times? Many thousands. Let's say I'm (doing an evacuation) without panic — which will never happen. But let's say this is the case. How long will it take? Nobody thought about it. I said, 'Two days.'"

A screener at Ben-Gurion has a pair of better options.

First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away.

Second, all the screening areas contain 'bomb boxes'. If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation.

"This is a very small simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports," Sela said.

Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben-Gurion Airport shares with Pearson — the body and hand-luggage check.

"But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America," Sela said.

"First, it's fast — there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela. "Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys."

That's the process — six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes.

This doesn't begin to cover the off-site security net that failed so spectacularly in targeting would-be Flight 253 bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — intelligence. In Israel, Sela said, a coordinated intelligence gathering operation produces a constantly evolving series of threat analyses and vulnerability studies.

"There is absolutely no intelligence and threat analysis done in Canada or the United States," Sela said. "Absolutely none."

But even without the intelligence, Sela maintains, Abdulmutallab would not have gotten past Ben Gurion Airport's behavioural profilers.

So. Eight years after 9/11, why are we still so reactive, so un-Israelified?

Working hard to dampen his outrage, Sela first blames our leaders, and then ourselves.

"We have a saying in Hebrew that it's much easier to look for a lost key under the light, than to look for the key where you actually lost it, because it's dark over there. That's exactly how (North American airport security officials) act," Sela said. "You can easily do what we do. You don't have to replace anything. You have to add just a little bit — technology, training. But you have to completely change the way you go about doing airport security. And that is something that the bureaucrats have a problem with. They are very well enclosed in their own concept."

And rather than fear, he suggests that outrage would be a far more powerful spur to provoking that change.

"Do you know why Israelis are so calm? We have brutal terror attacks on our civilians and still, life in Israel is pretty good. The reason is that people trust their defence forces, their police, their response teams and the security agencies. They know they're doing a good job. You can't say the same thing about Americans and Canadians. They don't trust anybody," Sela said. "But they say, 'So far, so good'. Then if something happens, all hell breaks loose and you've spent eight hours in an airport. Which is ridiculous. Not justifiable

"But, what can you do? Americans and Canadians are nice people and they will do anything because they were told to do so and because they don't know any different."

[skydivingninja]

FW: Great article.  I mean, a metal detector at the fifth checkpoint is still a good idea, but those are great ways to add unintrusive security measures.  Plus, if someone at the TSA who's gone through this behavior analysis training quits, he has a lot more job experience than "professional molesting," which can only benefit them.  Everybody wins, really.

[El Barto]

Ben-Gurien served just under 11 million PAX in '09.  DFW 56 million, and it's only the 8th busiest airport in North America.  Ben-Gurien would be roughly comparable to Sacramento International.  Even still, they suggest arriving 3-4 hours in advance for your flight.  Add to that, they have 10 airports that serve commercial airlines, and only two are international.  NA has 376 with regular passenger service.  Attitudes aside, that level of security just isn't feasible here.  The manpower required would be ginormous.  Even if you could muster up an army large enough to accomplish what they do,  the infrastructure couldn't handle the increase, and you'd be looking at 8 hours just to get to your plane.  Would anybody still bother flying if you had to spend a full day at the airport before boarding?  And while we're all sleeping in cots in the security line, the bad guys are shipping bombs in clock radios and toner cartridges that don't get checked for shit anyway. 

And lets say that you did manage to make airport security impenetrable, they'd just move on to train stations.  Or shopping malls.  Or football games.  Or mega-churches.  Doc Millahh pointed out that for now the bad guys seem to be working harder instead of smarter and he was absolutely correct.  Unfortunately, we seem to be making the very same mistake. 

More important is the point that nobody seems willing to face.  There's an adage that says if somebody is determined enough, nothing you do is going to stop them.  All you can really hope for is that whatever they want to do has been made such a pain in the ass they decide to blow it off.  Making reasonable efforts to stop them is a sensible thing to do, but people should learn to live with the fact that occasionally they're going to pull one off.  Despite whatever hoops those TSA ass-hats want to hold in front of us all, there's still a slight possibility that somebody manages to blow up a plane this Wednesday.  On the bright side, it's much, much more likely that some mechanic on a 4 day coke binge missed a tiny bit of metal fatigue during your plane's last inspection and you're going to disintegrate over Iowa at FL320. 

Shit happens.  Time to get on with our lives.

[zerogravityfat]

yup, i am for behavior profiling, especially the electronic kind that measures the biometrics automatically with the flashing screens of provocative stuff, that sounds like a very safe and easy way to deal with terrorism.

[Tick]

I was thinking. With all the capabilities in technology today no one can convince me they couldn't make scans that don't even show the person at all. They could just reveal any foreign objects on the person.
One lady on GMA this morning said a TSA agent had there hand in her underwear searching her.
Another guy who has cancer warned he was wearing a bag that held his urine. The assholes broke it searching him and he was covered in urine.
When they interviewed the head of the TSA , he agreed searching a woman's underwear went to far. Ya think?

[El Barto]

I was thinking. With all the capabilities in technology today no one can convince me they couldn't make scans that don't even show the person at all. They could just reveal any foreign objects on the person.

That's actually a pretty good idea, and shouldn't be too hard to implement.  However, it only matters if you buy into the story that safety and security is the reason they're actually doing this.  I don't. 

[Tick]

I was thinking. With all the capabilities in technology today no one can convince me they couldn't make scans that don't even show the person at all. They could just reveal any foreign objects on the person.

That's actually a pretty good idea, and shouldn't be too hard to implement.  However, it only matters if you buy into the story that safety and security is the reason they're actually doing this.  I don't. 

I fly once or twice every few years. I am flying to Florida in two weeks and I hope It goes well at the airport.

[William Wallace]

This is from my local paper. Note that the security ideas we've discussed, like those in use in Israel, aren't even on the table. Everybody is still focused on making the scanners better.

https://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/21/3199405/tougher-screening-is-price-for.html

The week around Thanksgiving is always one of the busiest travel times. This year, air travelers will face stricter screening measures – full-body scanners and pat-downs – that are intensifying the debate over how intrusive the searches must be to protect the flying public.

Civil liberties groups and others are up in arms about the ramped-up security at airports.

But it is a fact of life in the post-Sept. 11 era, when would-be terrorists have repeatedly targeted airplanes.

And there's the core question: Would you rather board a flight with all passengers fully screened, or one for which they haven't?

If they're honest about it, the answer is obvious to even the most ardent civil libertarians.

Most travelers have come to terms with the routine – taking off your shoes, undoing your belt, turning on your laptop – as airport security tries to keep up with increasingly diabolical plots.

Now a growing number of airports (about 60 so far, including Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco, but not yet Sacramento International) employ full-body scanners that allow Transportation Security Administration employees to see through passengers' clothing to check for hidden weapons and explosives.

Travelers who don't want to go through the scanner are required to undergo pat-down body searches that include the breast and groin. Those started in Sacramento several weeks ago.

An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union put it rather nicely: "You have a choice of being ogled or fondled."

Yes, the right to privacy should not be readily compromised. Much screening is more about peace of mind than actual safety. In our legitimate resistance to unfair profiling, grandmas and innocents are unnecessarily searched.

Civil liberties groups are suing the TSA to stop the use of full-body scanners, claiming they invade privacy and pose a health risk because they emit radiation.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, among those suing, is also supporting a nationwide "opt-out" on Wednesday. Travelers are being urged to just say no to the full-body scanners and insist that they be frisked in full view of other passengers.

Organizers' denials notwithstanding, the timing is obviously designed to attract the most publicity possible, but is likely to make holiday travel even more grueling – and could hurt their cause.

A California software engineer is a hero to foes of the stricter measures after a video went viral of him warning a TSA screener at the San Diego airport last weekend: "If you touch my junk, I'm going to have you arrested."

John Tyner rejected both the full-body scan and the pat-down search, was kicked out of the airport and now faces a possible civil lawsuit and fine of as much as $11,000. (The typical maximum penalty for interfering with screening is more like $3,000, according to TSA guidelines, and no one has actually been fined yet.)

TSA Chief John Pistole told Congress last week that he understands the privacy concerns, but insisted that the tougher screening is necessary. The TSA says full-body scanners have detected more than 130 illegal or dangerous items this year. The agency says very few passengers are required to receive a pat-down, and since that policy was fully implemented Nov. 1, it has received fewer than 700 complaints out of 34 million passengers who were screened.

Technology could soon quell at least some of the controversy. The TSA is getting updated scanners – already in use in the Netherlands – that use radio waves instead of radiation to detect contraband, and displays it on a generic mannequin instead of showing an image of the passenger's body.

Until then, the traveling public will just have to gripe and bear it.

[ReaPsTA]

What destroys my ability to think rationally is the response of the TSA head.  Essentially, he says they're looking into it, but we shouldn't get too hopeful for any changes.  And that we shouldn't whine because it's to make us safer.