Waiving the 3oz liquid rule

...because of Coronavirus!

Discrimination Illustrates Security Theater

Last month, ProPublica asked anyone who has had their hair searched by TSA to contact them. The results of that have now been published, confirming that the body scanners find anomalies in certain hairstyles, which happen to also be more prevalent for black women. Not surprisingly, black women repeatedly get singled out for further scrutiny.

A telling quote from a TSA official inadvertently admits that naked scanners are not effective at finding actual terrorists (the purported purpose of TSA) :
"'With black females, the scanner alarms more because they have thicker hair; many times they have braids or dreadlocks,' said a TSA officer who works at an airport in Texas and asked not to be named. 'Maybe, down the line, they will be redesigning the technology, so it can tell apart what’s a real threat and what is not. But, for now, we officers have to do what the machine can’t.' [Emphases added]

You got that? The naked scanners - which violate basic rights to personal privacy and bodily integrity, and apparently discriminate against trans-individuals, black women, and (I would surmise) several other groups of marginalized people - can NOT DISTINGUISH between a real threat and something that is NOT a real threat.

Naked scanners confirmed in LA train station

I have been following the testing of new technology in train stations over the past year or so. It has been hard to find information on exactly what technology has been used. This NPR report has bad news for those of us who value liberty: portable naked scanners are now being used on subway commuters.

"As travelers approached the large black box on wheels, known as a portable millimeter wave scanner, they appeared on its screen as energy waves."

Millimeter wave scanning is the same technology being used in airports. The machine is looking through your clothes -- and, quite probably, your skin -- in real time. The computer software no longer shows the offensive nude image of a passenger, but marks the locations of suspicious items under clothes.  This could be a prosthetic, an abnormal body part, a personal hygiene product, a legal weapon, or, in very rare cases, an illegal weapon being carried with an intent to harm. (NB: It will not catch a strategically placed weapon or explosive.)

What happens when an abnormality is found? Will you be subject to a very personal groping on your way to work?

Listen to the whole story:

<iframe src="https://www.marketplace.org/2018/09/14/tech/after-la-other-major-cities-consider-subway-body-scanners/popout" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="240px"></iframe>

Throwback: The story behind Thousands Standing Around

I recently came across this old story about the heroic TSA agent (now ex-TSA agent) who was behind the Thousands Standing Around whistleblowing blog. It's a good read, and quite revealing. 

Big brother implements facial recognition at LAX

We knew it was a matter of time:

The [facial recognition] works to automate ID and boarding pass verification, allowing international fliers to use a biometric recognition system to verify their identity. Their photo is taken and matched against their passport photo, and the system automatically matches the passenger’s name on their boarding pass and passport.

Not to worry, though. They've improved the naked scanners so that you don't have to put your hands in the air (like a criminal). Big brother is kind and loving (and all-seeing).

Read the whole press release.

"Shut down the TSA"

I really didn't expect much when I clicked on this article from thehill.com. An op-ed that calls for ending the TSA (that's not by James Bovard, either)! How about that?

Congressional Fear

I recently took my children to Washington, D.C. to see some sights and visit old friends. Since I won't consent to a naked scan or physical body search, we took a cross-country train ride. Among our planned activities were tours of the White House and Capitol, arranged through my congressman's office. My daughter and I were especially looking forward to seeing "where the people argue" (her words; I told her it would be more like boring speeches and procedures than arguing).

As we stood in line for the White House security, I noticed an upcoming checkpoint area where I couldn't see what the procedure was. I had a moment of concern as the thought crossed my mind that there might be a body scanner. As I turned the corner, my concerns drained away: No scanner! Security was tight (and the line was long), but the Secret Service Agents were very friendly and the mood was relaxed. We enjoyed our self-guided tour, stopped off for some hot cocoa and hot coffee, and grabbed an Uber to the Capitol.

Once through the standard security at the Capitol (metal detectors and bag scanners), we met some staffers in Devin Nunes' office. An intern, named Chris, was our tour guide and took us on an in-depth and interesting tour. After visiting all the other areas of the Capitol, we handed over our phones (thanks to C-Span) and we proceeded to the House Gallery. Following Chris, we wound our way around. We turned a corner and Chris said, "It's time to take everything out of our pockets." I started to rummage, but noticed: a Millimeter Body Scanner.

I hesitated for a moment. I thought about the 4-day train ride we had just completed for the express purpose of protecting our dignity. And here I was, only a couple of yards away from the device I spend so much time, energy, and money avoiding. The moment passed, and the calm and clarity of what must happen next came over me. I bent over next to my daughter and said, "I'm really sorry, but we're not going to go see the people argue. This machine here is one of the ones that they have at the airport that I've told you about. Do you understand?"

To say the least, she was mad (at me) and very disappointed. I am thankful and proud that she behaved relatively well given that she's only eight and we had been talking about and planning for this visit to the gallery for weeks.

I, too, was very disappointed. I still am, and, upon further reflection, I am also very disheartened. (More on that later.)

Next, I turned to Chris and said, calmly, "Chris, we're not going to do this." I'm sure he was taken by complete surprise. He asked if I would prefer a pat-down, and I, of course, declined. He began to put his belt back on, etc ... when the security guard told him to step forward into the scanner. Chris said we had changed our mind. I let Chris do all the talking, and he seemed prepared to do so as our tour guide.

Can you guess what came next? The security guard said we could not leave the area without getting scanned. He wasn't wearing a blue shirt, but he sure acted like a caricature of a TSA worker. Chris responded with what seemed like disbelief to me. He said, "We're not going in. Can't we just turn around and go back the way we came?"

At this point, I was feeling quite anxious. What was happening was precisely the reason that I don't fly. Friends have told me that my chance of getting scanned or patted down is very slim and they can't understand why I won't even try. This was why. I was being told that I was not allowed to change my mind. The only choices now were to be virtually disrobed or to be physically felt-up. And this would happen to my children, too. The week before, our (female) pediatric nurse had been very deliberate in giving my daughter as much privacy as possible during her annual physical exam. We tell our children at these Dr. visits that not just anybody can look at, let alone touch, their private parts. I do not believe that the government employee with a power-trip qualifies.

My adrenaline was pumping as I prepared to stand my ground. Scenarios started to flash through my mind's eye. What was I prepared to do? I didn't really come to any conclusion, but I was readying myself for a difficult time.

I noticed that a police officer-looking individual appeared. Both he and the security guards were too far away for me to read their badges. I purposefully did not move an inch closer to the checkpoint, so I can only make a guess that the "officer" was from a different agency than the "guard." In any case, he clearly outranked the power-tripping guard. Chris repeated his request to go back without being scanned. The officer listened, then gave us instructions to turn around and go back the way we came. My heartrate immediately returned to normal.

I am now convinced that naked scanners are here to stay. If politicians are using them for their own security, they have no sympathy for the cause of freedom. This illustrates to me, more clearly than ever before, the disdain that elected officials have for the public. What do they care if our dignity is stripped in airports when they insist on stripping it in what is supposed to be their public meetings?

Going to the gallery while Congress was in session was going to be such a terrific hands-on civics lesson for my 2nd grader. Instead, we both got a completely different kind of civics lesson. 

P. S. I would not be surprised if the officer's cool head prevailed in part due to my demographic (white mother with 2 small children). I would guess that - given the recent shootings and the fear of terrorism - a white or Middle-Eastern man travelling alone would have been treated with more suspicion.

P. P. S. On what I ought to have done if they did not let us turn back: I think I should have clearly stated that I did not consent to the search. For the sake of my kids still having a mom around for the rest of the day, I should have refused the scanner and proceeded with the pat-down under protest. I would have tried my utmost to keep the kids out of the screening, but allowed the scanner if pressed, as it would be less traumatic for them. Regardless, thinking through this all makes my stomach turn.

UPDATE:
I meant to post this link long ago. These scanners were moved to the House Gallery less than 2 months before our visit.

Illusions In Vegas

Here is a first-hand account of getting Pre-Check in the name of expediency. Are TSA procedures not about keeping us safe? From the author:

"Of course, deep down we all knew this already. The TSA is not about keeping us safe, nor is it about apprehending would-be terrorists. The TSA serves one purpose and one purpose only: To create the illusion of safety, the perception that someone is in charge and taking care of things, even if any sensible person can see that it’s all a charade."

Anecdotally, I've heard of this happening at other times and places. Proof that it is all security theater for those paying attention.

Why not? "TSA’s Layers of Security"

Here we continue our series on public comment on TSA's naked scanners (aka, AIT, Advanced Imaging Technology) during their belated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):

Commenters addressed the TSA layers of security discussed in the NPRM. A privacy advocacy group suggested that the layered approach discussed by TSA is not supported by data and, therefore, does not justify the need for AIT. The commenter also recommended that TSA revise the layered approach so weaknesses in security can be identified. Furthermore, a few commenters suggested that TSA focus on other security methods, such as profiling, interviewing, and “Pre-check” screening programs to identify dangerous individuals. An individual stated that the efficacy of AIT screening has not been scientifically proven. The commenter further suggested that since there are other approaches used by TSA to identify potential threats, AIT would be most useful as a secondary screening method instead of as the primary screening method A professional association, however, stated that because of the advanced methodologies of adversaries, technologies like AIT scanners are needed to secure air travel. The commenter suggested that techniques involving human intervention, such as Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques, the Behavioral Detection Officer program, and passenger screening canines would also be useful. Many commenters mentioned their support for the use of racial profiling tactics instead of AIT, and argued that such measures would be more efficient and effective. 

An advocacy group alleged that TSA’s “trusted traveler program” approach would weaken security because it can eliminate entire classes of passengers from AIT screening. The commenter recommended that TSA consider other, less invasive and cost-effective screening procedures that would allow TSA to implement AIT as a secondary, rather than a primary, screening tool. Furthermore, the commenter suggested that TSA enhance layers of security by testing canine bomb detection, face recognition, and explosives residue machines, in an effort to reduce the need for AIT scanning.

Why not? "Evolving Threats to Security"

We are continuing to examine the public's thoughts on naked scanners. This next section is titled "Evolving Threats to Security," and highlights both favorable and unfavorable reviews:

Commenters also addressed the evolving threats to aviation security discussed by TSA in the NPRM. Some commenters stated that TSA’s screening efforts are not linked to the decrease in aircraft-related terror attempts since September 11, 2001. For example, individual commenters and a non-profit organization stated that the threat attempts listed in the NPRM were thwarted by intelligence efforts, not TSA screening. Other individual commenters, however, supported TSA’s efforts to deploy tools like AIT scanners to detect and deter future attacks. Individual commenters credited secured cockpits and stricter policies for cockpit access with preventing terrorist attacks on commercial airlines since September 11, 2001. Furthermore, a few individual commenters suggested that in addition to enhanced cockpit security, passengers’ awareness and willingness to fight back deters terrorists from targeting planes. 

Several commenters discussed the evolving threat from nonmetallic explosives. A few individual commenters suggested that TSA’s response to the increased threat of nonmetallic explosives is not sustainable because terrorists will find other ways to hide devices. A few individual commenters disagreed with TSA’s focus on nonmetallic threats, because these types of weapons have been used for several decades.  

A few individual commenters suggested that the long lines at checkpoints, which the commenters stated are caused by TSA screening, are more attractive targets to terrorists than airplanes. Lastly, several individual commenters stated there is no evidence indicating that terrorist threats similar in magnitude to September 11, 2001, are increasing.

Double-speak: When "surrendered" means "stolen"

A friend writes:

I was flying from SBA [Santa Barbara airport] to SFO [San Francisco airport].  I only had carry on since I was just going away for 2 nights to a friend's.  I absentmindedly packed my full size (5.2oz) Tom's toothpaste instead of a smaller tube because I had run out of the small tubes and I didn't think the 3oz liquid rule applied to toothpaste any longer.  

I have TSA pre-check, but - for some reason I haven't quite cleared up - United isn't recognizing me as that so my boarding pass didn't have it noted that way and I had to go through the song and dance of taking my shoes off, and going through the scanner. At SBA they require you to remove your liquids from your suitcase when putting luggage through the x-ray no matter who you are.  As a side note, if I had gone to the ticket counter to insist on Pre-check on my boarding pass (because SBA is so small) the only change would be that I could leave my shoes on and I would go through the old school metal detector.   

After I passed through the full body scanner and was waiting for my luggage and bags to come through they pulled my bag of toiletries aside and said the toothpaste violated the 3 oz rule.  I right away said, "Since when is toothpaste liquid? And, by the way, I've gotten that size tube through in the past."  (I may have fibbed there; not quite sure to be honest.)  They then said I could check my luggage if I like.  At this point who wants to get dressed again to then go downstairs, check in a bag (which is going to add 30 minutes to my trip by waiting for it on a carousel in SFO), then come back up to then just get undressed again and go through security again?  In hindsight I should have said OK, then just went back to my car to put my toothpaste in and still done carry-on.  But, I get so annoyed I can't think straight.  

So, after refusing and saying no, the TSA agent advised that I was surrendering my toothpaste.  That is when I lost my cool.  Hell no! I'm not surrendering anything.  I then accused her of stealing my toothpaste and she said, again: no, she was not; that I was surrendering.  I then decided to school her on the difference of surrendering (doing something voluntarily in my book at that point) vs the TSA taking my toothpaste without me agreeing to it (stealing).  I then grabbed my stuff in a huff and went over to a bench to put everything back on and back together.  Then to the bar to have a stiff drink.  

I just want to pause here and look at a couple things.

Journalism student at UC Irvine gets it right

I love this editorial by Roy Lyle. He asks, " Isn’t the better answer, though, just not to scare so easy?" after exposing TSA's security theater.

Legal child molestation

A father posted a video of his 10-year old daughter getting a TSA enhanced pat-down after they found her smuggling a Capri Sun (Horrors!) through security. Watching this video literally made my stomach turn, and it is an excellent reminder of why my children and I haven't flown since widespread use of the scanners and associated pat-downs.

It is also disturbing to read the defenses of the TSA procedures in this case. For example, one blogger wrote:

Sure, it probably felt awkward to be singled out. And yes, it was inconvenient. But I’m having a hard time understanding how this simple pat-down crossed any lines.

 "Awkward" and "inconvenient" are not nearly strong enough words for how I would feel about be the object of such a pat-down, let alone how a child might feel or a loving parent might feel seeing this happen to their child. I will grant that I am more sensitive than some (many? most?) others; my husband, for example, opts-out and feels akin to "awkward" and "inconvenienced". But, some of the words I would use if this applied to me or my children are: Violated, Molested, Assaulted, etc...

Double-speak from the TSA

I was so bored by the predictable calls from the Congress to Do Something! that I didn't blog about it here. I didn't expect any elected officials to acknowledge that there might be fundamental issues with a system that peers under passengers' clothing. Sure enough, it is only how a small fraction of the passengers subjected to such incredible invasive procedures are treated that the elected officials think is an issue.

So, we now have a response from the TSA. It is a typical non-response, where they are going to make some superficial changes and promises (always more training!). What is very interesting, though, is that their story is contradicted by an advocacy group:

However, after reading this story and reviewing TSA's comments, NCTE Director of Policy, Harper Jean Tobin, issued a clarifying statement walking back the organization's involvement with TSA. In an email to The Advocate, Tobin said:

"TSA's response completely misses the point. Whatever they call it, a machine flagging someone for questions or pat-downs of intimate body areas just because of their body parts is unacceptable — no matter how politely officers handle it.

While NCTE offers training to government agencies as a matter of course, our training has so far reached a small fraction of TSA staff who don't actually screen people — but most importantly, they haven't retrained the machines. If TSA is going to rely on body scanners at all — and there is plenty of evidence they're not only too invasive but ineffective — they have to be able to tell the difference between a body part and a bomb. Right now they can't, and that needs to change."

Three chears from Harper Jean Tobin for pointing out that these scanners really oughtn't be used on anybody!

An analogy

I like this succinct article comparing the TSA to a hypothetical retail location. It begins:

Imagine a retail store whose sole reason for existence, it seems, is not to make shopping a pleasure or create satisfied customers but to prevent those customers from shoplifting.

As he points out, this is unimaginable.

 

At what cost?

Take a look at this blog post looking at the economic costs of making publicly-funded airport security effective. An excerpt:

If a 95% failure rate results in some people waiting longer than 20 minutes, then how would an 85% or 75% failure rate affect wait times? In other words, what is the marginal impact in wait times as a result of improving failure rates?

Read more: http://securitydebrief.com/2015/07/21/after-tsa-airport-failures-security-versus-the-economy/#ixzz3gppqwWHE

Of course, this is something that the market can answer if security were left up to those with vested interests: airlines, airport owners*, and passengers.

*Unfortunately, airports tend to be "owned" by municipalities, so this can not be a true market, but - as history has shown - is a vast improvement over federal management of security.

And here's the band-aid

The string of negative publicity following the IG report of the TSA's 95% failure rate at detecting bombs, combined with a Congressional hearing on other TSA ineffectiveness, was so thrilling to see! With editorials across the country calling for abolishing the TSA or at least a top-to-bottom revamp of the TSA, we instead get: a bipartisan bill insisting that the TSA maintain its equipment better (Yeah. That'll work.)

Rice’s legislation, the Keeping Our Travelers Safe and Secure Act (HR 2770), would require the TSA administrator to develop and implement a preventive maintenance process for airport screening technology within 180 days. The process must include specific maintenance schedules, guidance for TSA personnel and contractors on how to conduct and document maintenance actions, mechanisms to insure compliance and penalties for noncompliance.

Note how that barely scratches the surface of the IG's concerns:

“Our audits have repeatedly found that human error— often a simple failure to follow protocol—poses significant vulnerabilities,” [DHS inspector general John Roth] said. Further, despite the billions spent on aviation security technology, “our testing of certain systems has revealed no resulting improvement.”

Other areas of concern include how TSA plans for, buys, develops and maintains equipment; potential for misuse of the expedited PreCheck screening system; continued vulnerabilities in baggage screening equipment; unreliability of the behavior detection program; cybersecurity; and more.

Not to mention all those lost badges.

Is it too much to hope that this loser bill will fail and something with real muscle will be proposed instead?

Fresno Bee editorial on the TSA failure

I just love how this story isn't going away! Another editorial in a mainstream newspaper slams the TSA.

Ever optimistic that we'll see some real changes and I can start flying again one day.

What's worse than the TSA?

A good editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal makes a very good point:

"Close this agency [TSA] down and allow every American airport to retain private security contractors... They certainly can’t perform any worse than the TSA."

TSA failure (and spin in 3...2...1...)

The TSA failed some in-house tests. When a student receives a10% on an exam, it's usually time to drop the class. When the TSA gets a similar score (missing 67 out of 70 bombs), it's "out of context"; an indication of weaknesses to work on; and time for a high-level scapegoat to be fed to the media.

(Melissa Block of NPR interviewed John Pistole, former TSA director, about this. It was completely mundane. My cynical side says she isn't a journalist, but rather just part of the media machine that can get interviews with officials anytime she wants as long as she never really presses then to actually inform taxpayers about what is really going on and how they are culpable.)