Kudos to Slate

Slate doesn't give the TSA a pass with regard to naked scanners.

Does the federal government view civilians as basically the same as criminals?

Of course.

"The controversial airport screening machines that angered privacy advocates and members of Congress for its revealing images are finding new homes in state and local prisons across the country, according to the Transportation Security Administration."

Erroneous Conclusion of Travel Survey

The survey described in this article, "Is The TSA Becoming More Tolerable?," is discouraging. But the author makes the wrong conclusion. That people don't hate the TSA as much is a sign that people become complacent and adjust, even under objectionable conditions. It is not a sign that the a abusive bureaucracy is doing a better job of being nice.

NY Times can't stop praising the TSA

To follow up last week's column filled with positive comments about pre-check and how pleasant it is to fly now, the NY times has a new column praising - get this! - naked scanners and how well the TSA treats people with metal implants.

The author, and the people he quoted, are missing the forest for the trees: What if disabled people neither had to be seen naked, nor had to be groped? In other words, what if security at airports was humane and customer focused?

To praise body scanners because it avoids a pat-down (aka, full-body custody search, without the formal declaration of arrest) for people with certain (personal, private) medical conditions is like saying slavery is okay as long as no one is whipped. Both the naked scanner and the pre-custody search are morally offensive!

Are scanners on their way out?

I hope so!

From an article summarizing a recent GAO report (which was negative about aspects of the naked scanners), we learn that there is criticism from Congress. And it may affect the bottom line:

"Since TSA has failed to analyze and utilize AIT false alarm rates, we have no idea how many passengers are being subjected to pat-downs due to technological failures," House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., said. "TSA should not spend a single dollar on additional AIT machines until all of the deficiencies identified in this report are resolved.”

Perks of Pre-Check Highlighted in NY Times

I am against Pre-Check (formerly, Trusted Traveler; always 'Papers, Please!') as a long-term solution to airport security, as I've written about here before. However, the expansion of the program may be a promising sign that public opinion can, and has, affect airport security policy. That is a point also noted in this NY Times editorial about the Pre-Check program.

I do worry that this is an effective ploy to appease enough of the traveling public to allow the TSA to continue to shed our rights. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Security theater still works for some of the masses

In this incredible story of a teenage stowaway who survived dangerous conditions, we see a glimpse of the wizard behind the curtain. Airports are not secure, and it is essentially impossible to make them 100% impenetrable. A quote from an airport rep betrays as much:

"We have 1,050 acres. That's a lot of fence line. He could have scaled the fence line really through any area here at the airport. It's very easy to do so under the cover of darkness, and it appears that's what he did."

Politicians and bureaucrats, such as the one quoted in the article, will say we need more security, more money thrown at the "problem". Some of the public hopefully realizes that calls for tighter security are futile, and - if they are really paying attention - detrimental.

More TSA harassment

Here is a story about a young woman whose rights were violated when the TSA rifled through her wallet. When they found her fake IDs (for getting into bars, not countries), they threw their weight around.

The TSA Isn’t Good at Reading Body Language (And Neither Are You)

I am pleasantly surprised to see this post at Smithsonian blog. It is critical of the TSA - specifically it's wasteful spending on dubious behavior-detection training - but comes from a government-affiliated institution.

A glimmer of 10th Amendment hope...

...then the hope us extinguished by a Republican politician. According to this news article, Ohio has laws on the book that prohibit the use of x-rays except as prescribed by a doctor. This means that, technically, the TSA can't legally irradiate people in Ohio airports. But a more winnable test case has arisen with the recent spate of jails using naked scanners on inmates (Tuskeegee, much?).

A sheriff in Ohio bought a scanner similar to, but more powerful than, the airports' naked scanners. It is made by a subsidiary of Canon, and is designed to see inside of people to stop smuggling and theft. Well, the Ohio state health department has shut it down (sanity, at last!).

But, of course, a GOP state senator is doing his best to get the ban lifted. Shameful.

How to fly and keep your dignity

Love this column giving ideas of tactics to use while flying under the tyranny of the TSA. His first suggestion, to be mentally prepared, is really key. Appearing sympathetic to fellow-passengers, both in appearance and temperament, are also smart ideas. And this is all devised to make sure you actually catch your flight on time.

If you need some source material for his last suggestion of printing out copies of anti-TSA exercises and leaving them in the airport, there are several links on the blogroll at right to choose from.

Celebrity detained, keychain confiscated

Read the story of this menace to society that the TSA saved us from!

Slate's response to whistleblower

Slate bends over backwards to downplay Harrington's revelations.

Link the whistleblower story

This is amazing, but I don't have time to comment on it further. I figure, at the very least, I should post the link to the Politico essay from the TSA whistleblower, Jason Harrington.

How opting-out can help

This editorial is a very thorough history of naked scanners, just in time for opt-out week. A worthy read!