TSA Defending Its Groin Grabbing Or Naked Image Security Techniques

from the so-next-we'll-have-someone-blow-up-the-airport dept

Following all the negative publicity about the TSA's scanning techniques, the TSA is now going all out to defend its practices. First, while announcing that it has started investigating the "don't touch my junk" case in San Diego, the TSA seems to be standing by its position, telling a reporter:

"What he's done, he’s violated federal law and federal regulations which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it."

On its own blog, the TSA's pseudonymous blogger "Bob" has also defended both the procedure and the potential for a fine for backing out of the search:

AIT is optional for everybody. However, if you decide to opt-out of AIT screening, you must undergo alternative screening, which will include a pat-down. As I've said before, there is nothing punitive about it- it just makes good security sense. Obviously a passenger can't completely opt out of all screening if they opt out of AIT. That would not make good security sense. AIT is deployed to help us find non-metallic threats, so if you'e selected for AIT and choose to opt-out, we still need to check you for non-metallic threats. That's why a pat-down is required. If you refuse both, you can't fly. It is important that all screening procedures are completed. This ensures that terrorists do not have an opportunity to probe TSA's procedures by electing not to fly just as TSA's screening procedures are on the verge of detecting that the passenger is a terrorist.

This sounds logical for about half a second until you actually think about it (apparently the TSA is figuring you won't). That's because it's still letting most people in airports just go through the metal scanner. So, claiming that "all screening procedures" must be completed for all passengers is simply false. For the vast majority of passengers, they just go through the metal detector and are never screened for non-metallic items, contrary to the TSA's claims here.

As for that final claim, it's almost as if the TSA doesn't even think through the logical next steps. Let's say you're a terrorist with explosive underwear (the threat we're told this is designed to stop). You get selected for the backscatter naked scan, and refuse. Then you know you're about to be searched and you can't back out. What do you do? Your options are to get caught and arrested... or to blow the airport sky high right there with all the people around you. Which do you think is more likely?

The latest is that this debate has moved onto Congress, with Senator Lieberman asking a bunch of softball questions to TSA administrator John Pistole, where Pistole insists these techniques will actually help terrorist threats:

What I am concerned about, and I know many share this concern, is if we have an individuals who opts out of the advanced imaging technology--let's say Abdulmutallab had done that, if that had been the case in (inaudible). If he had opted out, thinking that, well, I'm not going to receive a thorough pat-down, so I can get on that flight, and if that had been successful on Christmas Day, I think we might be having a different dialogue here this afternoon and in the public.

Ok, let's just be clear here. Abdulmutallab -- last year's underwear bomber -- was successful in getting on the plane. What stopped him was not TSA security, but passengers on the plane seeing what he was up to. That brings up a separate question. Has the TSA ever caught anyone with a bomb with these procedures, ever? Security theater doesn't make people safer.

Filed Under: backscatter scans, privacy, tsa
Companies: tsa

If You Don't Get Every Detail Of Your TSA Detention Exactly Right, The TSA May Publicly Shame You

from the how-nice-of-them... dept

Following our story on the guy, who was detained by the TSA for refusing to go through a backscatter scan or to have his groin fondled by TSA agents, some folks pointed to a similar experience by Meg McClain, which she detailed on a radio program. You can hear her story here: In response, the TSA has put out a public blog posting, which more or less calls McClain a liar. They took the somewhat extraordinary step of publishing the surveillance videos of what happened during McClain's detention, suggesting that it proves she lied about the incident. The videos have no sound and for much of it you can't really see what's going on. It does suggest that McClain may have exaggerated some aspects of the detention. Rather than an hour, it looks as if it lasted more like 25 minutes. There may not have been a "dozen" police and TSA agents, but (especially towards the end) there are an awful lot (and some appear to be out of the camera's frame at times). Also, she claims that no one else had to go through the backscatter scans while she was detained -- and suggests she was "singled out" -- but that's not the case. Though, it does appear that no one else is brought over to the roped off area for a full on search while she was held in that area.

The big controversial claims involve whether or not she was handcuffed. While her version of the events stated she was handcuffed to the original chair she was placed in, that is not true. Some viewers of the second video suggest that as she's escorted from the area, it appears her hands are bound together in some way. Honestly, it's a little tough to tell one way or the other from the video. Her hands are definitely held together during the time she's escorted away. Why that's the case is not clear. You can see both videos below, though, they're relatively long and not much happens:

What I find a lot more troubling about the entire thing, however, is this idea that if you speak out against the way you were treated the government might come out and try to publicly shame you by claiming you were lying. These types of incidents can be quite nerve-wracking, and it's unlikely that anyone going through them will get every single detail correct, even if the larger description of what happened is accurate. The same thing was true of the other story in San Diego, where the guy even admitted he was so shaken he didn't remember the exact order that things happened.

For the government's response to be to attack someone's credibility based on getting some small things wrong, rather than acknowledging the larger concerns raised by these types of searches and detentions, is really quite troubling.

Filed Under: backscatter scans, meg mcclain, privacy, tsa
Companies: tsa