At TSA, the hits just keep on coming | The Barr Code

Perhaps the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently has received reliable intelligence that al Qaeda has been busy recruiting cancer survivors as sleeper terrorists, and grade-school students travelling with their parents as suicide bombers.  Or maybe TSA’s leaders recently reminded the agency’s many thousands of security screeners that using common sense when deciding which airline passengers to subject to the most intrusive and demeaning security check possible, would result in an unsatisfactory rating on their next performance evaluation.

Whatever the reason, and despite a rising tide of criticism and resistance from the travelling public, the parade of  horror stories emanating from airport security check points continues.

A North Carolina breast cancer survivor was forced to remove her prosthesis during a “pat-down.”  At Detroit Metropolitan Airport a male bladder cancer survivor was forced to remove his urostomy bag, during his screening by a TSA agent so devoid of decency that the passenger wound up covered in his own urine.

In Salt Lake City, a young boy was pulled aside for “secondary screening.”  A video of the incident shows a TSA worker patting down the shirtless child while his father stands behind him watching.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently has documented more than 900 complaints from passengers, whose experiences at the hands of TSA left them feeling violated and humiliated by screeners who went too far in carrying out their duties.

Sadly, these stories are becoming all too familiar as the government refuses to back down from these invasive tactics; largely a show of security theater.

Yet even as TSA and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are sticking to their story that the full, naked-body scans and the intrusive manual body searches are absolutely essential to maintain the security of commercial air travel, questions abound.

Reports are surfacing, for example, that in response to a pre-Thanksgiving Day call for air travelers to “opt out” of the full-body scanners, at many TSA checkpoints the scanners were purposefully turned off in order to minimize the chance for a successful “Opt Out Day,” and to ease the PR problems faced by TSA.

In another incident, Adam Savage of the television show Mythbusters, was subjected to a full-body scan as he was making his way through security to board a flight to speak at a conference. In a video available on YouTube, Savage explains how he usually goes through his luggage to remove any items that may be potentially harmful; noting that in this particular case he forgot to do so. Savage pulled out two 12-inch steel razor blades that were accidently left in his inside jacket pocket. Holding the razor blades at the audience, he says, referring to TSA, “You’re going to look at my junk, and somehow you miss this?”

And it is not just at airports any longer. Some federal office buildings apparently are turning to the naked-image body scanners.

For DHS, the airports may be just the starting point.  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano already has floated a plan to add additional security measures to mass transit, trains, and boats.  While it is not yet clear whether such measures would be as invasive as those now employed at airports, I would not recommend holding your breath waiting for a more reasonable approach.

At TSA, the hits just keep on coming | The Barr Code.

The bare facts about “Opt-In” Day and a media-fabricated crisis that fizzled

Like most Americans, I was relieved that there were no major disruptions yesterday, on one of the busiest air travel days of the year.

The day ended with a defiant TSA calling Nov. 24 Opt-In Day — a not-so-subtle dig at the activists who asked air travelers to opt out of the full body scanners and disrupt air travel.

“What some protesters threatened as an opt out day has turned into a TSA appreciation day,” the agency said.

The mainstream news media followed in lockstep. “Travelers at area airports Wednesday appeared to be opting out of the much-hyped National Opt-Out protest against the see-all body scanners,” wrote the New York Daily News.

To read the coverage, you would think this was nothing more than a media-generated nonevent. But a closer look suggests that’s not necessarily accurate.

A few questions that remain after National Opt-Out Day lead to a different conclusion.

Did TSA change its screening procedures to make things move faster?

There’s no question that it did. I asked TSA and the Department of Homeland Security repeatedly if it planned to do anything different on Nov. 24. It referred me to TSA Administrator John Pistole’s Congressional testimony, in which he insisted the agency wouldn’t change its screening techniques (a few days later, it changed the rules for pilots and flight attendants). Yesterday, I spoke with a Homeland Security representative, who reiterated: no changes.

But the view from the airport was quite different yesterday. Passengers reported that many full-body scanners had simply been turned off. The TSA denied it had turned off the machines to speed up screening.

Did any air travelers opt-out?

Yes. Even the TSA admits there were opt-outs on Nov. 24, although its self-reported numbers are selective and haven’t been subjected to any independent audit. I profiled one of them yesterday. But TSA had staffed up to sufficient levels and selectively turned off enough full-body scanners that the protests hardly registered.

But seriously, Opt-In Day?

No, that’s hyperbole. In order for it to have been Opt-In Day, you would have had passengers lining up in front of the turned-off scanners and insisting that they walk through or be patted down, in the interests of aviation security. Calling it Opt-In Day is pure spin.

And a few questions about the photograph, while we’re at it. This snapshot appeared on the TSA site.

Who shows up at the airport with a sign like this and asks their kids to hold it and happens to take a picture that happens to find its way to the TSA website? More spin, without a doubt. Yesterday was not TSA Appreciation Day.

What did the TSA miss?

A lot, unfortunately. Remember, this agency’s mission is to “protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.” Less than 10 percent of Americans travel by plane during the Thanksgiving holidays — the rest by car or train. The TSA yesterday had an opportunity to talk about how it protected the rest of the traveling nation, not just air travelers. It could have spoken about how Opt-Out Day was incident-free, and how it had fulfilled its mission by protecting all of us. Instead, it was fixated on protecting full-body scanners and pat-downs. How shortsighted.

Did the media fabricate National Opt-Out Day?

That all depends on how you define “media.” I’ve seen some pretty simplistic coverage of this story in the mainstream media, particularly on TV. (You can always tell they have no clue when they identify the TSA as the “Transportation Safety Administration”). But the outrage over the body scanners and pat-downs heard online, in what the Department of Homeland Security patronizingly calls the “alternative media,” has been largely legitimate. There was a lot of unhappiness. There was, however, no widespread agreement over how best to protest TSA’s practices.

By way of full disclosure, I should note that my own views on opting out have evolved. A year ago, I thought the full-body scanners were a non-story. Last spring, when TSA began aggressively patting down air travelers who refused the scans at select locations, I was willing to give the agency the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it would tweak the policy before rolling it out nationwide, I thought.

Earlier this month, when it became clear that it wouldn’t change, I called for people to refuse the “either/or” choice. But in the last two weeks, it’s become clear that protests don’t work as well as public pressure combined with litigation.

What do the opt-outers have to say for themselves?

They call it a “rousing” success, which is more spin. According to its organizers,

Ultimately, the hype built by the media for National Opt-Out Day turned the event into something that it could never be. They wanted the chaos at the airports, they wanted long lines and beyond-frustrated travelers because it would make a good story.

But the protesters claim to have made their point, and they note the agency has made numerous changes to its policies — while at the same time insisting that it hasn’t made any changes — after Opt-Out Day was announced in early November.

The TSA’s missteps are likely to become a major issue when the next Congress convenes. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the agency curtailed or eliminated entirely by legislators.

What do you think? Which side won on Opt-Out Day?

The bare facts about “Opt-In” Day and a media-fabricated crisis that fizzled.

Airport pat-downs strike a nerve – USATODAY.com

he Washington Times, in an editorial: “The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has crossed the line (by) subjecting millions of Americans to X-rated X-ray scans and public groping sessions. … No matter how invasive TSA searches become, there’s no guarantee anything the agency does will prevent a terrorist attack. A balance must be struck between reasonable security measures and the maintenance of a free society. These decisions cannot be made by Obama administration officials without involving the public in the discussions. Many Tea Party candidates standing for election earlier this month promised they were going to ‘take our country back.’ Stopping TSA would be a good first step.”

Los Angeles Times, in an editorial: “We’re not wild about the new methods, but they’re a necessary evil in the era of suicide bombers who board planes with chemical explosives in their underwear. … There’s no bright line to indicate where our quest for security becomes intolerably invasive of our privacy, but we’re still pretty sure the TSA hasn’t yet crossed it. Although the pat-downs are … embarrassing, they’re also usually voluntary — to avoid them, you just have to go through the scanner. And fears about the scanners have been overblown. … The new scans might not be foolproof, but they’ll spot more dangerous materials than the old detectors and keep passengers safer. If you can’t handle such a minor inconvenience, perhaps you should stay on the ground.”

K.T. McFarland, analyst, on Fox News: “Why don’t we start profiling for terrorists and stop trying to put everyone from toddlers to granny through the same security procedures at airports? We’re wasting money, time and the people’s patience in an effort to be politically correct. In the end, it’s not keeping us any safer; if anything, it’s making us less safe since it’s diverting resources that could otherwise be used on better intelligence gathering, or developing screening devices for cargo on commercial and civilian aircraft, or checking containers before they enter U.S. ports. Ultimately, though, the debate over whether to use the new scanners or not isn’t a choice between privacy and security — because we’re not getting security where we need it — we’re reacting to the last type of terrorist threat, not the current one or the next one.”

The (Louisville) Courier-Journal, in an editorial: “Clearly, in light of all the misgivings, the message about the body scanners was not disseminated effectively enough to make a dent or even an impression on many people who fly. The Department of Homeland Security and TSA should make it their immediate mission to do so. … Certainly there are legitimate health questions for those — such as pilots and flight attendants — who might face the scanners every day, and those questions should be answered. But those who fly occasionally should acknowledge the new layer of security is a sign of the times, even if they don’t welcome their roles in the ‘Invasion of the Body Scanners.’ “

The Christian Science Monitor, in an editorial: “Privacy issues, of course, should always be of concern. Congress is right to ask TSA to keep looking for ways to reduce invasive screening. … Intrusive screening is indeed a challenge to social norms — but then terrorism is an even bigger and abnormal challenge to society. Airline security is thus a shared responsibility, one that requires all citizens and the government to work together as threats change, as new screening technology emerges, and as more fliers see that their own sacrifice at checkpoints can help all fliers feel safe — and be safe.”

Airport pat-downs strike a nerve – USATODAY.com.

Michael Roberts, Express Jet Pilot, For President in 2012: The Barr Code

Bob Barr

For the past year, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and its parent, the Department of Homeland Security, along with Members of Congress from both parties and the Obama Administration, have been demanding Americans give up our basic civil liberties and our fundamental right to privacy, by submitting to a full-body scan — amounting to a virtual strip search – simply because we need to fly on a commercial airliner. At least one American hero – Express Jet pilot Michael Roberts – has said “enough is enough,” and refused to participate any longer in this demeaning security charade.Although not ubiquitous at all commercial airports across the country, the scanner machines are appearing with increasing frequency at airports large and small.  Despite claims that the devices will detect all manner of hazardous substances; there also is evidence to support the argument that full-body scanners are ineffective, and serve as not much more than very costly security theater. Of course, this has not stopped TSA from transmitting nude images of American, even children, under the banner of protecting us from “terrorism.” And though the government has insisted these images are reviewed and then immediately destroyed, recent reports to the contrary have forced some agencies to admit retaining images.

Tellingly, after this privacy-infringing technology was installed recently at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who claimed that scanners “represent an important way to stay ahead of the ever-evolving threat that faces the aviation sector,” declined to walk through the machines. She instead gave the floor to volunteers to demonstrate the scanners.  Mere mortal air travelers, however, do not enjoy such personal discretion.

Many air travelers, believing that being made to feel safer is the same thing as being made safer, submit to the intrusive devices with a shrug of the shoulders because they are “willing to do what it takes to be safe from terrorists.”  There is, however, a growing number of Americans who may submit to the Big Brother scanning machines only because there is oft times no real alternative and they have deadlines to meet in catching their flights. Many of these grudging participants are quietly seething at the prospect of either having their nude image ogled by a faceless and nameless federal employee in another room, or being publicly groped by a TSA employee who is peeved that the passenger had the audacity to decline their offer of a free scan.

But Michael Roberts, Express Jet Airlines pilot, refused to go along.

Recently, even after passing through normal security measures at Memphis International Airport en route to his assigned flight, Roberts was selected for a full-body scan.  This was demanded of the pilot notwithstanding he had passed through security at the very same airport for the last four years without being subjected to additional screening. He refused, and also turned down a “pat-down,” the only other alternative left to him by TSA as the prerequisite to boarding the flight he was scheduled to pilot.

Roberts’ stand is very simple, as he explained in an interview with Good Morning America, “The Fourth Amendment [protection against unreasonable searches and seizures] is there for a reason.”  Unfortunately, and unlike Napolitano, his stand for his privacy and desire not to be treated like a criminal may ultimately cost him his job.

Roberts, a true patriot, is still not sitting by idly. He is suing in hopes of changing these unconstitutional procedures. His heroic stand against an intrusive government, and his refusal to surrender his liberty on the Altar of Security is an example we should admire and emulate. And in my eyes the courage he exhibited in this instance, and his demonstrated understanding of the Bill of Rights, places him in the top tier of candidates seeking the office of President of the United States in 2012.

Michael Roberts, Express Jet Pilot, For President in 2012 » Comment Page 1 | The Barr Code.

Related Articles

• Pilot refuses full-body scan, pat down (cnn.com)
• ExpressJet pilot refuses body scan, puts privacy over safety? (gadling.com)

Full body scanners arrive at JFK – TSA head doesn’t want to use them | Gadling.com

Earlier this week, JFK Airport in New York plugged in their first batch of full body imaging machines. The director of the Department of Homeland Security had many good things to say about them, but when the time came to actually show them off to the media, she handed the floor to some brave volunteers. In a real case of “do as I say, not as I do”, Janet Napolitano really only wanted to talk about them, not actually use them.

The new scanners will be used for all passengers selected for secondary screening, but those passengers can decline and be subjected to an enhanced pat-down. Ever since the first scanners were implemented, passengers have been told over and over again that the images will never be misused, and that images won’t be stored. With those rules in place, I’m not entirely sure why the head of the department that installed them wouldn’t want to show them off herself.

Of course, it could have something to do with the real fear that the radiation is considered unsafe, or that her colleagues working the monitors may see a side of her she doesn’t really feel comfortable sharing. She wouldn’t be the first government employee to be mocked for something shown on the revealing images.

Now they are showing up at more and more airports, you may have been asked to go through a virtual strip show -were you comfortable with that?

Full body scanners arrive at JFK – TSA head doesn’t want to use them | Gadling.com.

Related Articles

• Body scanners unveiled at JFK, but Napolitano doesn’t volunteer (nydailynews.com)

Itineraries – Airplane Air Is No Riskier Than Other Enclosed Spaces, Study Says – NYTimes.com

Thousands of flights to Mexico were canceled last year in response to the outbreak of the H1N1 virus there. And the SARS scare in 2003 prompted airports and airlines to adopt emergency measures, among them screening passengers for high fevers as they boarded.

No wonder, then, that an aircraft’s cabin is commonly seen as a particularly effective purveyor of communicable disease. True, jet travel can spread diseases from one continent to another far faster than in the past. But recent studies, including a report in August by the National Research Council’s Transportation Research Board, make a case that, in general, an airplane is no more a health threat to occupants than any other enclosed environment, like a theater or subway.

“There is always an increased risk of infection whenever you enter a confined space, but an aircraft cabin is no worse an environment than the office you sit in every day,” said Dr. Mark Gendreau, an emergency and aviation medicine expert at the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Mass.

Cabin air, he said, is refreshed about 15 times an hour, compared with less than 12 an hour in an office building. On most full-size jets, the air is also circulated through hospital-grade HEPA filters, which are supposed to remove 99.97 percent of bacteria and the minuscule particles that carry viruses. The cabin air is also divided into separate ventilation systems covering every seven rows or so, limiting the ability of germs to travel from one end of the plane to the other.

Still, that does not rule out the prospect of diseases spreading from passenger to passenger on a long flight. Travelers tend to ignore doctors’ advice to avoid flying if they are sick, exposing unsuspecting seatmates to a threat of infection, the research panel noted.

In the summer of 2007, federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, developed a “do not board” list to stop people with serious infectious diseases from flying to or from the United States. The impetus came from some well-publicized cases, including the May 2007 incident in which an American man infected with tuberculosis flew to Europe for his wedding, and then promptly dropped out of sight. He was later placed under quarantine by the United States government when he returned via Canada.

Four years before that, after an outbreak of SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome, airports and airlines adopted emergency screening measures as the disease spread quickly around the world. There is no evidence, however, that large numbers of passengers were affected during those episodes, and the few identified cases involved people sitting within a few rows of an infected person.

While prominent pandemics have garnered the most attention, it is garden variety ailments, like colds or stomach viruses, that travelers should be worried about, members of the research panel said. And air travelers are more likely to pick up these bugs by touching a lavatory doorknob or a latch on an overhead bin. Charles P. Gerba, a professor at the University of Arizona and an expert on public hygiene, said research showed that viruses like influenza can survive for hours on such surfaces, which are not necessarily disinfected in routine cleaning between flights.

In fact, Dr. Gendreau of the Lahey Clinic said that the first thing he did upon boarding a plane was to take out an alcohol-based hand sanitizer and wipe down his tray table and other hard surfaces.

Many road warriors have their own rituals for staving off a sickness that could ruin not just their trip but any business they hope to gain. Stephen Wood, chief market strategist for North America at Russell Investments in New York, said that despite flying some 120,000 miles a year, he never became ill while traveling because he relied on some basic common sense practices, like drinking lots of water during a flight and avoiding alcohol.

But many frequent fliers say a long flight can leave them feeling as if they have the flu, even if they are perfectly healthy. Medical experts attribute that achy sensation to the effects of the lower oxygen and the aridity of air inside a plane that is at a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet and above. Even though most cabins are pressurized at around 8,000 feet above sea level, it is a higher altitude than most people are used to, and the swift ascent and descent of the plane only exaggerate the effects. “Fliers may actually be experiencing a mild case of mountain sickness,” Dr. Gendreau said.

Airplane manufacturers do not dispute this. The air inside a plane must be dry as a desert to protect the metal fuselage from the dangers of corrosion, said Ken Price, an interiors expert at Boeing. As a result, humidity levels can dip below 10 percent, contributing to any discomfort a traveler may experience on a flight. The company’s new 787 Dreamliner will have “much more humidity than any current plane,” he said, because it is made from composite materials that are more flexible. The Airbus A350, another midsize plane being developed by a European aerospace consortium, will also be built mainly from composites.

The next generation of planes will be pressurized at closer to 5,000 feet above ground, and Mr. Price said that tests showed that the difference in cabin pressure would help reduce the aches and pains associated with long flights.

Itineraries – Airplane Air Is No Riskier Than Other Enclosed Spaces, Study Says – NYTimes.com.

Related Articles

• Air Inside Airplanes Is Not As Risky As Previously Thought, Study Finds (huffingtonpost.com)