Security Theatre

[dexfarkin]

Obviously work has calmed down a bit and I can blather on about things. Including airport security, which no one here should be surprised about, considering past posts. So, we've gone from checking everybody's shoes individuals to outlawing liquids to stop the non-existent threat of Hollywood imaged chemical bombs to finally letting minimum wage employees either zap you down with a healthy dose of radiation or grab a nice handful of your genitals to ensure that the dreaded 'Cockbomber' threat is *ahem* well in hand.

Slightly crude jokes aside (not for long though), I wonder when someone will actually have the political will to take airport security seriously. All of this nonsense is virtually useless. Security agencies have documented time and time again that North American airport security is so porous that it's a relatively simple effort to smuggle a weapon or a device past security and on to a plane. The pipeline of drugs travelling illegally on commercial flights is estimated with a street value in the billions, which requires organized criminal elements to be operating with impunity in the airports. Finally, theft in airports from containers, luggage, and even item trays for scanning lines by TSA and airport employees is a chronic problem which has actually grown more frequent by incident reports, and five times more costly based on lost article claims.

The key issue is not a lack of technology or access; simply put, it's a lack of appropriately trained, decently paid, motivated staff. Airports survive on hordes of minimum wages employees with access to most secure areas of the physical location. They receive training via videos and testing that is about on the same level as a fast food restaurant, and are given direct authority as a screener to detain anyone they determine as 'suspicious' under the auspices of an incredibly dubious and vague security primer.

The requirements for a screener for the TSA? High school, or one years experience in a position similar to the role. Yes, a year working as a bouncer at the local club qualifies. They are required to pass a criminal and standard background check.

So, your screener, who has the legal authority to put his or her hands on your genitals and those of your parents, children, friends, survivors of sexual assault or abuse, etc, needs less qualifications and security training than a temporary receptionist.

Predictably, incidents are on the rise in a big way. Heavily lobbied (and profitable) security systems such as the whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners are not thoroughly tested for potential side effects (with a number of doctors pointing out the potential risk to frequent travelers who have no choice to fly leading to skin cancer and other diseases), a pattern of abuse of such systems by employees (including the well documented case in Florida of three TSA officers caught specifically singling out buxom women for the full body scans) and standards which are improperly implemented and applied. The inconsistency of TSA Officer education and training has led to a rash of improper searches, detainments and some pretty severe restrictions of personal rights. I'm surprised that it hasn't got more media attention up to this point.

The point is that the scattershot implementation of the programs without a stable employee infrastructure creates a system designed for failure; it will lead to legal challenges, violence, and trauma for TSA employees and passengers without increasing security on the overall system.

Comments

[technophobia.livejournal.com]

http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

Some other stories about the new procedures. The second one happened at SAN. Guess where Frito and I are flying out of to see our families for Thanksgiving? (hint: it starts with "S", ends with "N", and has "A" in the middle.)

[daroos.livejournal.com]

thankfully St Louis is predictably far behind on the technology front and I probably won't have to deal with these flying out...

I've gotten a decent number of pat downs (wearing long skirts is as bad as a turban, apparently) and never had a problem with them, but I understand why some people would.

[dexfarkin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, generally people get annoyed when security squeezes their breasts and touches their genitalia. Or their childrens.

[deathpixie]

Yeah, I think this is more than the basic patdown, they're calling this one an "enhanced" pat down where they actually touch your breasts and labia or penis and testicles. Understandably, people are very uncomfortable with this, more so when it happens without warning, as the first link Twiller provided describes (I can't watch Dex's YouTube thing, since I'm at work and it's blocked, so it might be on there also).

[daroos.livejournal.com]

Hm - that is certainly 'enhanced'. Not awesome, US. Not Awesome.

[doqz.livejournal.com]

It's essentially a negative incentive. They are bullying people who have chosen to opt out of being scanned by inflicting 'enhanced' manual searches. Presumably with the purpose of making everyone accept the scans.

The upshot of all of this is likely to be airline business taking another hit, imo.

[alasdair.livejournal.com]

Not that I don't agree with most of what you say, but I got my perspective shifted on the liquids ban a while back - the inamorata was the stenographer on the early parts of this trial: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8242238.stm which is the reason that liquids are currently heavily restricted.

What the news don't report, but that was said by credible experts in court is that basically: yes, it *is* that serious a risk. The reason these guys didn't succeed is nothing to do with the liquids being hard to make or suspect in other ways, and everything to do with good intelligence. The restrictions were brought in before this case could be reported, but were in specific response to this attempt.

[dexfarkin.livejournal.com]

I'm somewhat dubious, especially considering that about a dozen different chemical engineers and explosive specialists published very detailed scenarios with a lot of compounds that could cause a reaction or explosion significant enough to cripple a plane in flight and the various challenges surrounding smuggling each one on to a plane, to the point that it would require a combination of total obliviousness on the part of security, fellow travelers and luck to make it happen.

However, I'm neither a chemical engineer or have any information as to what may have been shown in court and not released, so I'll take your word on it.

[doqz.livejournal.com]

I found TSA fairly typical of most Western organizations with the same mandate. The stand-out exception, in my experience, were the Israelis. Their focus on behavioral patterns rather than randomized/mass check translated into fairly painless transition through security (for most people, I'm just naturally suspicious-looking).

[resplendissante.livejournal.com]

We keep telling you that the belt-buckle that looks like dynamite is an acquired taste...

[doqz.livejournal.com]

And I am helping customs officers all over the world to slowly acquire it!

[daroos.livejournal.com]

Meh. I wrote my senator an angry email, and the other senator is getting an angry hand-written letter.

[ex_amurderofcrows752]

And this is why Geoff and I don't go anywhere we can't drive to.

[evilwildlex.livejournal.com]

*shudder* Well. I think I'll be avoiding going to the USA for some time unless I'm carpooling with people.

[iamgerg.livejournal.com]

"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."

Here