TSA Agents Have 'Limited Ability' To Spot Prohibited Items In New Naked Scanners

from the comforting dept

This probably won't come as a surprise after hearing about the massively botched TSA screening that resulted in a guy covered in urine, but a new report out by Homeland Security investigators found that training of TSA agents is rushed, poorly supervised, and not up to the necessary level for the new security screening procedures.

For example, given all the talk about just how important these new naked scanners are, you would think that the TSA agents operating them would be properly trained to use them to see the stuff those machines are supposed to spot. Not so, apparently. According to the report, due to a "software problem," TSA agents were trained on images from an older generation of machines which did not adequately prepare them to use the new machines:

TSOs must complete both new hire and recurrent training on screening technologies; however, airport training equipment is sometimes different from the devices used at screening checkpoints. According to an OTT official, when TSA deployed a new generation of x-ray machines to 81 airports, the updated recurrent training for TSOs with these machines had not been implemented because of software problems. TSOs were still training with x-ray images from older generation equipment, which limits their ability to identify prohibited items using the current checkpoint equipment.

So, we're using these naked scanners even though the people operating them haven't been properly trained on them, and they're not really able to spot the prohibited items that we're told can only be spotted using these machines or a grope. Once again, I'm trying to figure out how this makes us any safer. You can see the full Homeland Security report, which is pretty damning, after the jump. It highlights how the agents are often rushed through all aspects of training, and how ill prepared airports are to handle such training. It does not suggest an organization on top of any security threat. It suggests security theater in the extreme. I would think that making sure security is properly trained is somewhat more important than insisting that we must see everyone naked.

Filed Under: naked scanners, privacy, security, training, tsa
Companies: tsa

Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped

from the myth-of-security dept

Matt Welch has a nice post over at Reason, highlighting numerous editorials from some big time newspapers mocking people who are concerned about the TSA's naked scans and/or groping procedures, beginning with the LA Times' perfectly obnoxious shut up and be scanned. Most of the editorials take on the typical apologists' line that "this is what we need to do to be secure." This can be summarized by the claim in the Spokesman-Review, entitled "Discomfort a small price for security on airplanes."

Note the implicit assumption: that being scanned or groped somehow makes the planes safer. The problem here is that no one has presented any evidence to back this up. Instead, TSA head John Pistole says "trust us." Yet, when people ask for evidence, they're told it's a state secret. This country (last we checked) has a 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, which tends to have a high bar on what is a reasonable search. "Trust us" without any proof doesn't cut it. No one is arguing that we should make planes less secure, as these editorials suggest. We're arguing that security theater without evidence that it does anything valuable does not help anyone.

Similarly, random appeals that we should be scanned and groped for patriotic purposes, rings hollow as well. The Baltimore Sun mocks those who are protesting the procedures by calling those people "short-sighted" and arguing:

Whatever happened to the notion that we need to stick together to overcome extremists? U.S. soldiers are still dying for that cause in Iraq and Afghanistan on a regular basis. Under the circumstances, it seems a small sacrifice for the citizens back home to keep a stiff upper lip and voluntarily agree to measures that experts believe are needed -- at least until better technology and security techniques are developed.

Similarly, the Springfield Republican claims that this is just the cost of war, like rationing food during World War II:

For nearly 10 years the U.S. and its allies have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan to defeat the terrorists. But Americans at home haven't been asked to forego an ounce of sugar in this fight. Let's consider these searches the 21st-century equivalent of a WWII rationing card.

Without even getting into the reasons why the US has soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's incredibly deceitful and disingenuous to claim that because we're fighting a war, we should automatically give up on the basic 4th Amendment principles in the Constitution. Does this mean if we weren't fighting over there we could keep our Constitution as is? And if it's okay to obliterate the 4th Amendment without providing any evidence (beyond "trust us") that it actually helps, why stop with the 4th Amendment? Why not toss out the First. Our soldiers are dying, so the government should ban free speech. After all, speaking up might encourage terrorism.

Blind subservience based on vague "trust us" claims, that don't seem to have much basis in reality, is hardly a reason to give up basic freedoms.

Filed Under: editorials, journalism, privacy, security, tsa

San Diego Airport Says Recording TSA Gropings Is An Arrestible Offense?

from the not-cool dept

We already covered the guy who was arrested after stripping down for the TSA, highlighting how one of the charges was his failure to complete the security procedure (after stripping down, he pointed out there was no need for a pat down...). However, there was a second charge that was even more troubling that actually deserves a separate post, which is that he was also charged with "illegally recording the San Diego Airport Authority." I was trying to figure out the exact rule (listed as 7.14a), and some of the folks over at Flyertalk have posted the full 7.14 rule (or you can see the full San Diego Airport Authority rules (pdf) if you'd like):

(a) No person shall take still, motion or sound motion pictures or voice recordings on the facilities and airports under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (the "Authority") without written permission from the Authority's Executive Director or his or her designee.

(b) Filming of X-ray equipment located on the facilities and airports under the jurisdiction of the Authority is strictly prohibited. Any person(s) caught filming such X-ray equipment may have their film confiscated.

I'm having trouble seeing how this rule can possibly be legal -- especially with all the stories today of TSA agents abusing (or simply not understanding) the new rules. Recording the interactions with the TSA seems like an essential step in making sure that personal liberties are respected. Making that illegal raises all sorts of questions. And while this is specific to San Diego Airport, it makes me wonder if there are similar restrictions elsewhere.

Just a few months ago, we pointed out how law enforcement and the courts were abusing wiretap laws to find people guilty of wiretapping for recording law enforcement in public places. Thankfully, some courts have pushed back on such cases, and it seems like this is a situation where declaring an outright ban on videotaping within the airport is a restriction that doesn't make any sense at all.

Filed Under: airports, recording, san diego, security, tsa
Companies: tsa

Botched TSA Pat Down Leaves Traveler Covered In Urine

from the these-are-experts dept

It certainly appears that the TSA might need a bit more training with these new intrusive groping pat downs. MSNBC has the story of a survivor of bladder cancer, who now has to wear a urostomy bag, which collects his urine for him alongside his body, trying to travel via the airport in Detroit. He tried to explain all of this to the TSA folks, and asked for a private room (as has always been promised) for a pat down, after the TSA decided that something was amiss after he went through the scanner. However, at first the TSA claimed there was no private room, then refused to listen to him explain his medical condition and did not heed warnings about how they were going to break the bag. And, yes, you guessed it, the TSA broke the bag, covering the guy and his clothes in urine, which he was unable to clean up until after boarding his plane. TSA boss John Pistole has since called the guy to apologize, but it's getting more and more difficult to take Pistole at his word when he spews his "trust me, I know what I'm doing" speech:

"After coming to TSA with 26 years of intelligence and law enforcement experience at the FBI, I understand the serious threats our nation faces and the security measures we must implement to thwart potential attacks"

That's getting tougher and tougher to believe.

Filed Under: pat downs, security, tsa
Companies: tsa

Man Strips Down For TSA, Told He Still Needed To Be Groped; Arrested For Failing To Complete Security Process

from the grope-grope-grope dept

The TSA stories are coming fast and furious these days. The latest takes place (yet again) at the San Diego airport, where a guy first refused to go through the naked image scanner, and when he was told he had to be patted down stripped down to his bicycle underwear, which (as he noted) "left nothing to the imagination." His argument was that at that point, he shouldn't need a pat down, but the TSA ordered him to put his clothes back on so he could be patted down. He argued that they could just go through his clothes. End result? Guy in underwear gets arrested, handcuffed, and escorted through the airport in his underwear -- and is being charged with the same thing that the "don't touch my junk" guy was threatened with: "failing to complete the security process." Feeling safer?

Filed Under: arrests, privacy, searches, security, tsa
Companies: tsa

Whether Or Not The TSA Has Ever Caught A Terrorist Is Apparently A State Secret

from the which-means-no dept

We asked recently if there was any evidence, ever, that the TSA's security procedures prevented an attack on an airplane. Last week the TSA claimed, without any details, that its procedures had stopped 130 "prohibited, illegal or dangerous items" from getting on airplanes in the last year. But it provides no details. And, in a day when a bottle of water and nail clippers are considered "prohibited," it's difficult to judge if this actually means anything.

Over at Slate, Juliet Lapidos tries to dig into the question, but the TSA won't point out a single specific case claiming it's a "national security" issue. Huh? Actually telling us whether or not the naked scans and crotch grabs catch anyone is a state secret? That seems likely to mean that the answer is, no, they have not caught anyone or stopped any attempted attack, and they're just too embarrassed to say so. In fact, Lapidos points out that, in years past, the TSA has publicly announced when it "caught" someone -- as in the one time, nearly three years ago, it found a guy who had enough materials in his (checked) suitcase to make a pipe-bomb. Of course, there wasn't an actual pipe bomb in the suitcase, so it wasn't going to blow up the plane or anything.

So, in effect, it seems pretty clear that the security screening process isn't catching anyone. Of course, supporters might claim that terrorists are too scared off by the screenings, so that's why we're safe. But that makes little sense. As Jeffrey Goldberg showed a few years back, it's quite easy to get things past the security screenings if you really want to. This is security theater, plain and simple. And the TSA must know that. Which is why it's a "state secret."

Filed Under: security, state secrets, terrorism, tsa

President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans

from the well,-look-at-that... dept

As the whole mess with the TSA scanners has received a lot more attention in the last week or so, a few folks are noticing that ex-Homeland Security boss Michael Chertoff, who's been quite busy defending the naked scanners, happens to be making a ton of money from one of the main ones, Rapiscan, made by OSI, a client of Chertoff's consulting firm. Of course, similar concerns were brought up a year ago when Chertoff was busy promoting the scanners, but it appears that many in the mainstream press continue to highlight his old Homeland Security title, while downplaying his current role making money from seeing those scanners sold.

However, perhaps even more interesting is the news that President Obama was finally asked to address the whole thing this weekend, and (not surprisingly) defended the scans and the pat downs as "the only [procedures] right now that [the TSA] considers to be effective," to prevent terrorism (while also admitting that he doesn't have to go through security to get on airplanes, so he hasn't experienced the scans.

No surprise there. Of course, what he didn't mention is that he just got done traveling with the CEO of OSI, the parent company of Rapiscan, the makers of the main naked scanner that is being purchased and put into all these airports. Apparently, OSI CEO, Deepak Chopra (no, not the new agey guy), "was selected to accompany US President, Barack Obama, to Mumbai and attended the US India Business Entrepreneurship meeting..."

Now, of course, all of this may be perfectly legit and reasonable. There may be plenty of reasons why all of these things happened. Chertoff and Obama may really believe these scanners are the best way to protect us. But, as Larry Lessig has been fond of pointing out lately with his anti-corruption project, it's these kinds of "connections" that make the American public lose trust in their government, since it can certainly be read in a rather corrupt manner.

Filed Under: obama, scans, tsa
Companies: osi, rapiscan

Pilot Sues TSA For Overly Intrusive Searches

from the and-here-we-go dept

Before the don't touch my junk guy, there was Michael Roberts, the pilot who, back in October, refused both the naked backscatter scan and the intrusive groping pat-down, was not allowed to fly his plane, and was put on leave by his company (ExpressJet). He's now suing the TSA over the search process:

"People are messed up because they touch your crotch," pilot Michael Roberts said. "They touch your bottom, your breasts, I mean, everything.

That said, I haven't seen the actual legal filing, so I'm not sure if he has much of an actual case here. It will be interesting to follow either way.

Filed Under: lawsuit, michael roberts, privacy, searches, tsa
Companies: tsa

TSA Agents Absolutely Hate New Pat Downs, Find Them Disgusting And Morale Breaking

from the this-is-what-you-get-with-security-theater dept

One of the common themes that people keep mentioning in talking about the new TSA pat down procedures is that those involved must "enjoy" the groping they're giving people. But, of course, most TSA agents are normal every day people who don't actually want to grope random people. Chris Tolles points us to a post from BoardingArea.com, who reached out to some TSA agents and found that many TSA agents hate the new rules and find it to be sapping morale to have to grope passengers. Some of it appears to be the verbal abuse they're getting from travelers, but some of it is just the fact that they have to keep touching people they'd rather not touch in that way:

"It is not comfortable to come to work knowing full well that my hands will be feeling another man’s private parts, their butt, their inner thigh. Even worse is having to try and feel inside the flab rolls of obese passengers and we seem to get a lot of obese passengers!"

Of course, it does seem like a lot of the "morale" part comes from everyone accusing them of molesting them. I recognize, they're not the ones making policy, but many of the people being groped do feel violated and it's not surprising that many of them speak out.

"Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me, said in my presence as I patted passengers down. These comments are painful and demoralizing, one day is bad enough, but I have to come back tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to keep hearing these comments. If something doesn’t change in the next two weeks I don’t know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country."

This is going to be a serious problem for the TSA if it doesn't figure out something quick. So far, the TSA seems to be in near absolute denial that this is actually a problem, but if these TSA responses are indicative of how most TSA agents feel, there are going to be a lot fewer security people at airports very, very soon.

Of course... it could be true that at least some of those actually are enjoying the process. Reader Lance point us to (an admittedly hearsay) story of a pilot traveling with his 18-year old daughter. As they approached the naked image scanner, the pilot overheard a TSA agent say into his radio: "heads up, got a cutie for you." One of the points the TSA has been making is that the folks looking at the images are off in another room somewhere, unable to see the people -- but they are in contact with those at the security checkpoint, and you'd have to imagine this kind of thing happens.

Filed Under: employees, morale, pat downs, tsa

TSA Likely To Face Multiple Sexual Assault Charges For New Searches

from the tipping-point dept

Think the complaints about the TSA are beginning to reach a tipping point? There's a whole bunch of new news on this front, starting with a California district attorney saying that he's ready to charge TSA agents with sexual assault if evidence is presented that the new pat downs go too far (apparently multiple DAs are now saying this).

Hopefully, some other DAs are willing to do the same, because some are ready and willing to file sexual assault charges. Richard Kulawiec points us to the news of how a nursing mother in Dayton feels she was sexually assaulted by the TSA. Contrary to claims from the TSA, she was not informed that her private parts would be touched (repeatedly, from the sound of it). She was not given the option of having it happen in a private area. And, she notes, this was not about her refusal to go through a full body backscatter scanner, since those aren't even in operation at that airport. The account is pretty chilling as the woman is clearly quite troubled by the experience (as she should be).

Along those lines, at the federal level, Ron Paul has introduced new legislation that would make it clear that TSA agents are subject to sexual harassment laws. You can see him speaking about it here: Separately, reports are coming out that TSA agents are not screened for psychological problems. In fact, the process doesn't take much at all:

TSA doesn't require much at all, it turns out. This government agency-gone-wild performs a background check to weed out applicants who are convicted felons, but TSA does not test at all for applicants’ psychological soundness.

These are low-wage government employees granted full authority to touch passengers however they like. There is no indication that TSA agents have selectively abused their authority, but as with all government programs: If there are no checks in place to limit power, authority will be abused. Forget racial profiling; if there no limits to officials’ power, what would stop them from claiming the most attractive powers need a more thorough patdown?

In fact, it's so silly that the parody video below, of a "porn-addict applying for a job at the TSA" really doesn't seem all that far-fetched these days: Meanwhile, a Congressman from Florida is telling airports they should ditch the TSA and find alternative options for security -- and it appears that Orlando Airport has decided to do exactly that. Of course, I'm not convinced that private security agents will be any better, and they still have to follow TSA guidelines, so I'm not sure it'll really make that much of a difference. But it does show the level to which lots of folks are fed up.

That said, apparently legislators in New Jersey and Idaho have introduced legislation banning the naked body scanners (oh and in New York as well). Of course, I'm sure the TSA will just claim that in the absence of the machines, they'll just have to do more groping.

As for the TSA? Well, it's still trying to defend its position. Its latest is to claim that 130 prohibited, illegal or dangerous items have been kept off airplanes in the past year. What, like nail clippers and bottles of water? Where are the actual details? What has been caught? Who has been arrested? What happened to them?

Filed Under: ron paul, searches, sexual assault, sexual harassment, tsa
Companies: tsa