Monday, December 19, 2011
Incompetent TSA
Sunday, December 18, 2011
How to be a better sheep
If the bully at school beats your kid up for your lunch money, is it really good advice for you to give your child plenty of money with instructions to hand some or all of it over as soon as the bully is in sight? Or is the best advice to tell the child to avoid the bully as much as possible and to stand up for himself (not necessarily violently - perhaps by getting an adult to intervene).
Want a nice holiday? Don't fly! If you choose to fly, know your rights, stand up for them, and be prepared to go to court (or worse) defending them.
(Note that the comments on this silly article are 100% questioning the TSA and its policies. How heartwarming!)
Some local nullification in Florida
The Broward Commission may request that the Transportation Security Administration go back to the old-schoolNote that the Commission did indeed pass this.gropingspat-downs of passengers at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and ditch the use of body scanners.
The item -- which was delayed from the last meeting -- would be a direction to the aviation director to send the request to the TSA asking that it not use the body scanners "until further studies can be done that will demonstrate that they are safe to the traveling public."
But, back to the original article about the pending vote, I take serious issue with this statement:
In fact, the TSA's website hosts a boatload of documents proving the machines are safe.This is not a fact, at all. There may be a boatload of documents on the TSA website, and they may portend to "prove" that the machines are safe. But every single agency that was contracted to study the scanners has specifically stated that they were never asked to - and never did - determine whether the machines were safe to use on the general population as primary screening. For an overview, read some of my own coverage and analysis of this topic.
The TSA's response to Broward's request is full of, if not lies, then intentional misrepresentations:
Our backscatter technology was evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the National Institute of Standards andJHU/APL, for example, issued a statement awhile back saying that their studies were not done on an actual scanner, but a prototype. They stated that they were not asked to address the safety of the scanners, but just measure the level of radiation. Furthermore, in their results, they noted a much higher level of radiation exposure in the areas surrounding the scanner than are consistent with the other claims being made, calling into question the actual radiation levels or functionality of the machines.
Technology (NIST), and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. All results confirmed that the extremely low radiation doses for the individuals being screened, operators, and bystanders, including frequent flyers, aircrew, and operators, were well below the
limits specified by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society.
The FDA's role in scanner safety was summed up in the ProPublica exposé:
The FDA does not review or approve the safety of such products. However, manufacturers must provide a brief radiation safety report explaining the dose and notify the agency if any overexposure is discovered.Also from ProPublica, we know that the ANSI/Health Physics Society claim is suspect:
...ANSI convened a committee of the Health Physics Society, a trade group of radiation safety specialists. It was made up of 15 people, including six representatives of manufacturers of X-ray body scanners and five from U.S. Customs and the California prison system. There were few government regulators and no independent scientists.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
TSA caught lying (but what else is new?)
The [senior citizen] woman arrived at airport security and informed TSA she was wearing a back brace. She was taken off to a private area to remove the back brace ... TSA’s initial response was that the brace was removed, rescreened and returned in accordance with its policies, but when it was reminded that its published policies say that medical braces will NOT be removed, it issued the statement (linked above) saying that the device was removed because “There was a bit of a miscommunication and our officers were told that the passenger was wearing a money belt.”Here's Bill Fisher's comment on the post (but some of the others are worth clicking through to read, also):
So it takes TSA a week to come up with this lame-brained story [click through or keep reading to find out what the lie is]? It doesn’t matter whether it was a back brace, money belt or quesadillas, it doesn’t change the fact that they shouldn’t be strip searching people in the airports.
With all the lies this agency has told they should be a lot better at it by now. Not only are they lying about strip searching three women over the Thanksgiving weekend they’ve been caught in dozens of other lies over the past year.
Pistole promised to stop groping children four times this year and yet they are still doing it.
TSA said the scanners produced cartoonish images when they debuted, then Denver TSA Area director Pat Ahlstrom admitted in August when they added the privacy software that the previous images were “very graphic”.
They denied patting down the six year old girl in MSP until the video showed up on You Tube and they then claimed that the pat down that they didn’t do was done properly.
They claim to treat passengers “with dignity and respect”, then grope, strip search and harass them and repeatedly deny that these events happened, even after they are caught on video.
They claim that they never interfere with passenger’s right take photos and videos of the checkpoints while dozens of videos are posted on You Tube showing screeners interfering with recordings.
They claim they hold their “professional” workforce to the “highest standards”, while 91% have a high school diploma or less and sixty two have been arrested for crimes in the past year.
By making this announcement, they only reinforce the public perception that TSA is a stupid, deceitful and abusive agency deeply in need of an overhaul.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
TSA To Expedite Screening of Suspected Terrorists? Well, sort of
“The Department of Defense considers the U.S. homeland the most dangerous place for a G.I. outside of foreign war zones — and the top threat they face here is from violent Islamist extremists,” Rep. Peter T. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said during a special joint House-Senate hearing.
“The Fort Hood attack was not an anomaly,” said Mr. King, New York Republican. “It was part of al Qaeda’s two-decade success at infiltrating the U.S. military for terrorism — an effort that is increasing in scope and threat.”
The House's unanimous vote this week on a bill to accelerate airport screening military personnel for flights is the least lawmakers can do for active soldiers, its sponsor, Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.), said.
Cravaack said the TSA was testing a program that would use Department of Defense "Common Access Card" to quickly identify - and clear for flights - military personnel.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Columnist remains inside the box
The column is about a teenager who had trouble at the airport because she had an image of a gun sewn onto her purse. Low-level bureaucrats tend to get in more trouble if they think, so it is in their best interest to do really dumb stuff that is, nonetheless, by the book. The columnist's discussion of this is apt, but is decidedly less cynical than I am.
My issue is with this non-sequitor:
I am OK with the full-body scanners that were so controversial earlier this year, and I’m happy to put my travel-sized liquids in a resealable bag.
...All citizens deserve freedom and privacy, whether or not they’re in the air.How are full-body scanners and precise inane instructions on how to carry your personal items consistent with "freedom and privacy." They're not! This is not a matter of some aspects of the TSA abusing some power. This is a case of a bureaucracy being given way more power than is legal, and running with it.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Former airline advisor thinks airline bailouts are needed
...feds should be less concerned with what gels your aunt puts in her carry-on, and more concerned about lax screening for terrorist sympathizers among the airlines' own work force... it's cost $56 billion since 9/11... [bombs have been] detonated before going through security...and shipped..."The scientific community is divided as to whether behavioral detection of terrorists is viable,"...most aviation-focused attacks are likely to originate outside the U.S.But, Brandt's solution is, well, dumb: "Brandt proposes that the government subsidize airlines for better employee background checks or explosives detection tech."
If the government would get out of the air-travel business, then airlines would have every incentive in the world to institute "better employee background checks" as well as "explosives detection tech." It's called the profit motive. Right now, when an airline makes money, they keep the riches. But if someone crashes one of their planes, they get bailed out by the feds. On top of that, the feds have taken pretty much all of the responsibility and cost for screening for threats.
But this is unsustainable. The price tag for fed-run security and taxpayer-subsidized airlines keeps going up and service keeps going down. It will be better for us all if the umbilical cord is cut now. Otherwise, we'll be dragging a dead industry around, allowing it to slowly kill the transportation industry as has been happening with railroads for decades.
Americans don't want cancer
But, there's a new poll out that specifically links the risk of cancer and the "security" of x-ray scanners. It's nice to know that,
Even if X-ray body scanners would prevent terrorists from smuggling explosives onto planes, nearly half of Americans still oppose using them because they could cause a few people to eventually develop cancer, according to a new Harris Interactive poll conducted online for ProPublica.It's unfortunate that a third of Americans still strongly support the scanners.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Re: TSA Strip Searches In 2011
Ruth Sherman, an 88-year-old frequent flier with JetBlue, meantime, told the media that she was taken aside by TSA officials and asked to pull her pants down and show her colostomy bag.And now a 66-year old woman is telling a similar story: "[Linda Kallish] had to partially remove clothing to show an official her pump implant."
Note that Ms. Sherman was scanned first, so she got a virtual strip search, then an actual strip search, while Ms. Kallish had a pat-down, then a strip search!
Bureaucrat reads fellow bureaucrat's report, Concludes 'independent' report unnecessary
The [Office of Inspector General] serves as an independent and objective inspection, audit, and investigative body to promote effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in the Department of Homeland Security's programs and operations, and to prevent and detect fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and waste in such programs and operations.Even if you believe that a bureaucrat paid a salary by the very department that is the epitome of the police state can be "independent and objective," there is still a glaring problem here. Nowhere in the mission of the DHS Inspector General does it say that he is to "prevent and detect" health and safety issues. This guys job is to make sure that all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted on the procedural and maintenance forms for these scanners. And this is pretty much what he said he did. He is not checking to see if these machines can adversely affect the health of individuals - particularly the frail. It's not his job and he did not say that he audited that aspect of the scanners.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
TSA To Stop Groping Soldiers? Well, Sometimes....
Monday, December 5, 2011
TSA Sex Crimes 2011
Harold Rodman, TSA worker, arrested for sexual assault
Mexico vs US
Thought I'd share the experience I had on last weeks flt from Mexico. We went thru metal detector with shoes on, carryon bags xrayed but not rifled thru. Their security agents were polite & curteous asking"how did you like Mexico?". This is the way the US should be AND if it is this uncomplicated to fly INTO the US why does tsa make it so difficult to fly WITHIN the US?
It's BS!
Sunday, December 4, 2011
TSA Strip Searches In 2011
The report of an 85 year old woman being strip searched at JFK this week and left bleeding during the process raises some serious questions about the extent of the abuses in our airports. TSA quickly denied that strip searches are part of their screening protocol, which is obviously a lie in view of four similar reports this year.
If pulling down a person’s underwear doesn’t constitute a strip search, what does? And if no clothing is being removed why does the TSA website say “At any time during the screening process you can request a disposable paper drape for privacy”. Not only do they strip search an elderly woman, but callously record her humiliation on video.
They continued their assault on this woman even after the she was bleeding and only allowed her get treatment after they were finished. This is outrageous and the TSA workers and officials involved should be prosecuted.
This is at least the fifth TSA strip search of a passenger this year including the strip search of Shoshana Hebshi in Detroit on September 11th. In that incident the agent moved Ms. Hebshi away from the toilet during the strip search so the video would not fully capture her image.
The others include a 97 year old woman strip searched at LAX, another in Miami, and yet another in Houston. TSA is not only violating the rights of people, they now violate even most basic standards of decency.
How extreme must these TSA incidents become before Congress demands this be stopped? This is the same agency that has had 62 screeners arrested for serious crimes, including murder and 10 screeners charged with child sex crimes. This agency is clearly out of control and needs to be replaced.