<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;airports&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:37:48 PST</pubDate>
<title>TSA Dumps Rapiscan Naked Airport Scanners After Failure To Make Them 'Less Revealing'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08091321724/tsa-dumps-rapiscan-naked-airport-scanners-after-failure-to-make-them-less-revealing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08091321724/tsa-dumps-rapiscan-naked-airport-scanners-after-failure-to-make-them-less-revealing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lots of folks have noted the ridiculousness of the "Rapiscan" name used by OSI Systems for its x-ray airport security naked scanner -- one of the two popular "new" style scanners used at airports.  Over the last few months, I've noticed that I've been seeing fewer and fewer of the Rapiscan machines, and airports that used to have them have been replacing them with the L3 "millimeter-wave" scanners, which have all been outfitted with upgrades so that there's no more "naked" in the naked scanning (and so that operators no longer have to wait for the TSA agent hidden in a dark room with your naked images to give them the "all clear.")  Now it turns out that the TSA <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/naked-image-scanners-to-be-removed-from-u-s-airports.html" target="_blank">has ended its contract with OSI</a> and all of the remaining Rapiscan machines will be removed from airports.  The main reason is that -- despite having been requested to quite some time ago, OSI failed to make a version of their naked scanner without the nakedness.  While L3 was able to do that pretty quickly, apparently it was way too difficult to take the "naked" out of the Rapiscan.
<br /><br />
The TSA insists that the decision to dump the Rapiscan has nothing to do with the recent reports and ongoing investigation into the claims that OSI <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/17082521070/naked-scanner-maker-accused-manipulating-tests-to-make-scans-look-less-invasive.shtml">manipulated tests</a> of the Rapiscan machine to pretend that it didn't violate travelers' privacy as much as it did.  However, I'm sure that didn't help OSI.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08091321724/tsa-dumps-rapiscan-naked-airport-scanners-after-failure-to-make-them-less-revealing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08091321724/tsa-dumps-rapiscan-naked-airport-scanners-after-failure-to-make-them-less-revealing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08091321724/tsa-dumps-rapiscan-naked-airport-scanners-after-failure-to-make-them-less-revealing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>say-wha...?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130118/08091321724</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 05:31:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>The TSA's True Focus Isn't 'Safety' - It's Self-Preservation</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121217/17563321412/tsas-true-focus-isnt-safety-its-self-preservation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121217/17563321412/tsas-true-focus-isnt-safety-its-self-preservation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Despite its own worst efforts, the TSA doesn&#39;t seem to be going anywhere. Year after year, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/03463017042/tsa-continues-to-embarass-elderly-with-unnecessarily-degrading-search-procedures.shtml" target="_blank">horror story</a> after <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111003/12305416186/tsa-force-breast-cancer-patient-to-submit-to-patdown-refuse-to-let-her-show-id-card-about-implants.shtml" target="_blank">horror story</a> surfaces, detailing abuse of American citizens at the hands (very often literally) of TSA agents. If they&#39;re not <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/02250114227/tsa-frisks-baby-says-stroller-set-off-explosives-alarm.shtml" target="_blank">poking</a>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/17505215082/woman-arrested-not-letting-tsa-grope-her-daughter.shtml" target="_blank">prodding</a>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/12515417782/tsa-insists-that-it-doesnt-pick-hot-women-out-extra-scrutiny.shtml" target="_blank">fondling</a> or carelessly tossing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22570917432/bakery-creates-tsa-safe-cupcakes-after-tsa-defends-its-confiscation-dangerous-cupcakes.shtml" target="_blank">supposed explosives</a> into a trash can five feet away, they&#39;re confiscating harmless plastic swords while allowing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10294616491/loaded-gun-falls-out-checked-bag-feeling-secure-airports-yet.shtml" target="_blank">loaded handguns</a> on board. If they&#39;re not digging around in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120404/17021118376/size-matters-why-tsa-fears-thirteen-inch-laptops-not-eleven-inch-ones.shtml" target="_blank">someone&#39;s laptop</a> searching for who knows what, they&#39;re <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121001/06072120556/how-do-you-know-if-tsa-agent-stole-ipad-theres-app-that.shtml" target="_blank">"diverting" iPads</a> into their personal collections.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aviationpros.com/news/10843416/government-auditors-show-need-for-alternative-to-tsa" target="_blank">A report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) suggests that the TSA&#39;s main focus isn&#39;t safety, it&#39;s self-preservation</a>. As yearly budget reviews loom, the TSA suddenly needs to "look busy" and justify its continued existence. Anything that might cut back its funding is briefly humored and then discarded. (via <a href="http://reason.com/24-7/2012/12/17/government-auditors-show-tsa-interested" target="_blank">Reason 24/7</a>)
<blockquote>
<i>Congress in 2002 set up a program giving airports the option of having private employees conduct screening operations. Unfortunately, TSA was put in charge of deciding which locations could participate. A total of 16 out of 440 commercial airports nationwide got into the program before TSA Administrator John S. Pistole slammed the door shut last year.</i></blockquote>
Keeping private companies out of government operations ensures a steady flow of tax dollars. While taxpayers might appreciate the relief, the TSA isn&#39;t interested in dividing the pie into more slices that it absolutely has to. While it maintains its (again, very often literal) stranglehold on airport security, the airports it "services" are losing business directly as a result of its frequent bad behavior. As the GAO states, "Passengers who have negative encounters with the screening process generally associate their experiences with the specific airport."&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Private companies would be forced to follow the hated TSA procedures, but even with these limitations, the Department of Homeland Security isn&#39;t interested in taking on new "partners."
<blockquote>
<i>[T]op Democrats want the TSA to continue rejecting applications to the program "until the costs and possible benefits can be accurately assessed," as Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, urged.</i></blockquote>
Kind of tough to assess costs and benefits if you&#39;re unwilling to actually let the program run. This lockout extends further than private companies looking to get into the airport security business. The deck is stacked against private screeners, whose performance is assessed by the one entity that is relying on their failure to stay in the money.
<blockquote>
<i>Right now, the performance of private screeners is assessed under a process directed by TSA. It&#39;s not particularly surprising that this government agency is going to do everything it can to limit potential competition. Congressional auditors found, "TSA has not conducted regular reviews comparing private and federal screener performance and does not have plans to do so." The agency isn&#39;t about to document its own relative failure.</i></blockquote>
In fact, the TSA does all it can to keep from being criticized. Here&#39;s how the traveler complaint process "works:"
<blockquote>
<i>At Ronald Reagan Airport, for example, angry flyers aren&#39;t given a form they can turn in on the spot to document their concerns. Instead, they&#39;re handed a tiny, easily lost sliver of paper containing TSA&#39;s website and mailing address.</i></blockquote>
Ah, technology... wait... what? A slip of paper that contains the TSA&#39;s website URL? If the TSA actually was interested in feedback, it could easily set up a kiosk where travelers could file a complaint electronically with reports that could be viewed and acted on daily. Instead, it justs hands out something of use to nobody and hopes that time and distance either takes the traveler out of the complaining mood or makes the details unreliably fuzzy. The TSA benefits from its neo-Luddite approach which keeps complaints to an absolute minimum, a quasi-fact it frequently references when defending itself against any complaints that somehow make it through.<br />
<br />
All of these actions have allowed the TSA to rake in nearly $8 billion <i>a year</i> without having done a single thing to improve its policies, protect travelers or <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/07365217342/tsa-posts-its-top-good-catches-2011-list-not-one-which-is-actual-terrorist.shtml" target="_blank">prevent terrorism</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121217/17563321412/tsas-true-focus-isnt-safety-its-self-preservation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121217/17563321412/tsas-true-focus-isnt-safety-its-self-preservation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121217/17563321412/tsas-true-focus-isnt-safety-its-self-preservation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>give-'em-a-inch-and-they'll-take-a-mile-(and-your-plastic-sword)</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121217/17563321412</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:05:24 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Eleven Year Old Kid Shows That Modern Airport Security Is Not As Secure A You Think</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120728/09062719865/eleven-year-old-kid-shows-that-modern-airport-security-is-not-as-secure-you-think.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120728/09062719865/eleven-year-old-kid-shows-that-modern-airport-security-is-not-as-secure-you-think.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We talk a whole lot about the security theater in airports these days. While most of what we write revolves around the TSA and its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/04390118385/tsa-security-theater-described-one-simple-infographic.shtml">crazy policies</a> that never seem to do anything to actually protect the people, there is still plenty to talk about in other nations. Take this recent story as an example of how little it takes to bypass modern security using nothing more than a little social engineering.<br />
<br />
An eleven year old Manchester boy decided that shopping with his mother was just a little on the boring side and decided to run away. Not content with running away to join the circus, as most little boys are wont to do, he decided that <a href="http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1584312_runaway-boy-11-jets-to-rome-alone-after-slipping-through-security-at-manchester-airport" target="_blank">running away on flight to Rome was the better option</a>. Despite not having a passport or a boarding pass, the boy was able to make it through airport security and board the flight. How?
<blockquote>
<i>It&#39;s then understood Liam &lsquo;tail-gated&rsquo; a family with other children even though he had no passport or boarding card tricking security staff into thinking he was part of the group. By the time he passed through the scanner at security, it was 1.15pm.</i><br />
<br />
<i>It is understood Liam headed almost immediately to the first departing flight, the 2pm service to Rome where passengers were already queuing to board the flight.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Airline staff at the gate again appear to have thought he was with a family and failed to check for a passport or a boarding card and allowed him to walk to the plane.</i></blockquote>
Since the boy was only eleven, he was able to pass for a member of a family traveling through the security checks without any questions. He was then able to pull the same maneuver when boarding the flight. While it might be easier for a kid to pull off something of this nature, it does show that there is still a major weakness in security, something that no amount of post 9/11 security policy can fix.<br />
<br />
One of these weaknesses is that we are training our security to look for the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/01531214053/weve-trained-tsa-to-search-liquid-instead-bombs.shtml">wrong things</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Aviation security expert Chris Yates said: &ldquo;This was a lapse but I don&#39;t believe this was a serious security breach. Anybody who passes through Manchester Airport must be screened whether that is through a full body scanner or a metal detector. That did happen in this instance.</i></blockquote>
You see, the people running security were so caught up in looking for potentially dangerous objects such as liquids over 3 ounces or nail clippers that they completely neglected to check if the people entering the gates or boarding the flights were supposed to be there. Even with this kid being eleven years old, that is a pretty big slip up. One that resulted in a lot of people being suspended while an investigation is under way.<br />
<br />
I know what some of you are going to say. "The kid was eleven, how much of a threat could he be?" Sure this kid was eleven. He couldn&#39;t have been too much of a threat. However, it shows a major weakness in our security: the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050623/1559203.shtml">human element</a>. Humans are naturally fallible. We make mistakes. As long as there is a human element, no amount of security is foolproof. Even though this kid was eleven, social engineering knows no age boundaries. Even the strongest security systems in the world can fall by a single lapse in judgment by a human being. As we become more and more dependent on machines to scan and screen passengers, we will be opening up larger and larger holes via the human element.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120728/09062719865/eleven-year-old-kid-shows-that-modern-airport-security-is-not-as-secure-you-think.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120728/09062719865/eleven-year-old-kid-shows-that-modern-airport-security-is-not-as-secure-you-think.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120728/09062719865/eleven-year-old-kid-shows-that-modern-airport-security-is-not-as-secure-you-think.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>news-at-eleven</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120728/09062719865</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Canada Has Hidden Microphones In Airports Recording Conversations</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/03415419381/canada-has-hidden-microphones-airports-recording-conversations.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/03415419381/canada-has-hidden-microphones-airports-recording-conversations.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Some recent news out of Canada involves reports that the airport in Ottawa has <a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa airport wired with microphones Border Services/6788759/story.html" target="_blank">hidden microphones installed, designed to record conversations of people</a>.  The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) doesn't seem to see anything wrong with this, admitting that it's spent $500,000 upgrading video equipment to also include audio capturing.  And, while the CBSA says that:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;It is important to note that even though audio technology is installed, no audio is recorded at this time. It will become functional at a later date..."
</i></blockquote>
...it's also worth pointing out that the group admits similar equipment is already functional elsewhere.
<br /><br />
What about your privacy rights?  Well, clearly you read the fine print on the website of the airport you were using, right?  That's where the details are going to be posted.  There will be signs in the airport... telling you to check the website, because you just know people are going to rush to do that.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/03415419381/canada-has-hidden-microphones-airports-recording-conversations.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/03415419381/canada-has-hidden-microphones-airports-recording-conversations.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120619/03415419381/canada-has-hidden-microphones-airports-recording-conversations.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>why-that's-not-creepy-at-all</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120619/03415419381</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:19:23 PDT</pubDate>
<title>German Police Admit That Full Body Naked Airport Scanners Suck; 35% False Alarm Rate</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/15314915411/german-police-admit-that-full-body-naked-airport-scanners-suck-35-false-alarm-rate.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/15314915411/german-police-admit-that-full-body-naked-airport-scanners-suck-35-false-alarm-rate.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've noted all sorts of privacy and health problems related to full body "naked" scanners -- but there's a separate but important question: do they actually work?  There's been some evidence presented that they wouldn't have spotted a variety of recent terrorism attempts, but now German police have noted that the machines <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/08/german_police_c.html" target="_blank">also have a ridiculously high false alarm rate</a>:
<blockquote><i>
The weekly, Welt am Sonntag, quoting a police report, said 35 percent of the 730,000 passengers checked by the scanners set off the alarm more than once despite being innocent.
<br /><br />
The report said the machines were confused by several layers of clothing, boots, zip fasteners and even pleats, while in 10 percent of cases the passenger's posture set them off.
<br /><br />
[....]
<br /><br />
In the wake of the 10-month trial which began on September 27 last year, German federal police see no interest in carrying out any more tests with the scanners until new more effective models become available, Welt am Sonntag said.
</i></blockquote>
I would argue that this is actually <i>worse</i> than useless, in that providing a significant number of false positives makes it <i>much, much harder</i> to spot the actual positives.  It desensitizes agents to assume that any alarm is a false alarm.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/15314915411/german-police-admit-that-full-body-naked-airport-scanners-suck-35-false-alarm-rate.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/15314915411/german-police-admit-that-full-body-naked-airport-scanners-suck-35-false-alarm-rate.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/15314915411/german-police-admit-that-full-body-naked-airport-scanners-suck-35-false-alarm-rate.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-worse-than-useless</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110805/15314915411</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:38:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Tonight On Security Theater: After Hours Airport Antics Expose Security Tunnel Vision</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Costanza</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/20390814723/tonight-security-theater-after-hours-airport-antics-expose-security-tunnel-vision.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/20390814723/tonight-security-theater-after-hours-airport-antics-expose-security-tunnel-vision.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written quite a bit, recently, about the more <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/02250114227/tsa-frisks-baby-says-stroller-set-off-explosives-alarm.shtml">controversial actions</a> of the TSA and their airport screening practices.  And now there's a somewhat amusing story that demonstrates why many people think that doing things like groping little children -- and claiming that it's not only <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110414/02544013890/tsa-gropes-6-year-old-girl-says-its-okay-since-it-followed-standard-operating-procedure.shtml">proper</a>, but necessary -- is really just security theater.  Two travelers, stranded at Dallas-Fort Worth airport, made the local news after <a href="http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/06/15/video-of-hijinks-at-dfw-not-laughing-matter-for-airport-board-member/">filming themselves goofing around in the terminal, after hours</a>.  A DFW airport board member was not amused and vows that this kind of thing is "not going to happen again."  However, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv1va9Jdt7g">this isn't the first time</a> something like this has happened (though it might be a first at DFW), so it kind of makes you wonder why the security folks hadn't already taken steps to prevent this.   Of course, it looks like these guys were just having fun, but doesn't it seem like a couple of guys wandering unchecked in a nearly empty terminal might be a bit more of a security risk than a toddler's underwear?  Apparently, the experts don't think so:
<blockquote>
<i>Aviation security experts who have seen the video say it doesn&rsquo;t show any major security concerns because the two guys were ticketed passengers who had already been screened by the TSA.</i>
</blockquote>
Hmm, so, the fact that they were "ticketed" and "already screened" means that there's nothing that they could have gotten their hands on, as they made their way through the terminal (at one point, entering the kitchen of a restaurant), that might pose a threat to other travelers?  While I don't think anyone should be freaking out about these incidents, they do seem to lend credence to the idea that many of the actions taken by the TSA are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/01531214053/weve-trained-tsa-to-search-liquid-instead-bombs.shtml">just for show</a>, while obvious security holes are left wide open.  They'll go out of their way to make sure a baby isn't the next underwear bomber, but can't even send someone to remind some marauding men to stick to the designated passenger areas and quit messing with airport property?  Good show.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/20390814723/tonight-security-theater-after-hours-airport-antics-expose-security-tunnel-vision.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/20390814723/tonight-security-theater-after-hours-airport-antics-expose-security-tunnel-vision.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/20390814723/tonight-security-theater-after-hours-airport-antics-expose-security-tunnel-vision.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pay-no-attention-to-the-men-beyond-the-checkpoint</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110616/20390814723</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:19:49 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TSA Molests Miss USA, Makes Her Cry... For Your Safety</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/15195914059/tsa-molests-miss-usa-makes-her-cry-your-safety.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/15195914059/tsa-molests-miss-usa-makes-her-cry-your-safety.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Since the TSA "enhanced patdown" experiences started last fall, I've heard from a variety of people who came out of the experience feeling seriously violated, with more than a few asking about legal actions they could take after feeling sexually assaulted and molested by the experience.  It really is a lot more common than you might think.  Many of those I've spoken with have decided that they didn't want to go public with the story of their own experience and their own feelings, because it felt so intrusive and so personal, that having to "relive" it by fighting the TSA would be just horrible.  This is part of what I find most nefarious about the TSA groping brigade: like many sexual assault victims, they're put in a position where after it's over, doing something about the assault only forces you to relive the experience.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, some people are speaking out.  The latest is former Miss USA, Susie Castillo, who has <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/tsa-reduces-former-miss-usa-to-tears/237924/" target="_blank">posted an emotional video</a> right after being groped by the TSA and feeling totally violated, leading her to break down and start crying:
<center>
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/22866046?title=0&#038;byline=0&#038;portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</center>
What's really bizarre is after she goes to complain to the TSA... they give her a "complaint card" to fill out as if that makes being sexually assaulted better.
<br /><br />
In a blog post about the experience, Castillo notes that she's gone through the patdown before, but <a href="http://www.susiecastillo.net/blog/2011/4/25/my-tsa-pat-down-experience.html" target="_blank">this one was much more invasive</a> than previous ones:
<blockquote><i>
Well, this pat down was completely different. It was MUCH MORE invasive than my first one at LAX, just a week before. To say that I felt invaded is an understatement. What bothered me most was when she ran the back of her hands down my behind, felt around my breasts, and even came in contact with my vagina! Honestly, I was in shock, especially since the woman at LAX never actually touched me there. The TSA employee at DFW touched private area 4 times, going up both legs from behind and from the front, each time touching me there. Was I at my gynecologist&rsquo;s office? No! This was crazy!
<br /><br />
I felt completely helpless and violated during the entire process (in fact, I still do), so I became extremely upset. If I wanted to get back to Los Angeles, I had no choice but to be violated, whether by radiation or a stranger. I just kept thinking, &ldquo;What have I done to deserve this treatment as an upstanding, law-abiding American citizen?&rdquo; Am I a threat to US security? I was Miss USA, for Pete&rsquo;s sake!
</i></blockquote>
Yes, for your safety, the TSA needs to sexually assault Miss USA.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/15195914059/tsa-molests-miss-usa-makes-her-cry-your-safety.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/15195914059/tsa-molests-miss-usa-makes-her-cry-your-safety.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/15195914059/tsa-molests-miss-usa-makes-her-cry-your-safety.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>feeling-safer?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110427/15195914059</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:34:08 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Want To Grope People At Random In Airports (Not Just At Security)? Join The TSA!</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/16072113656/want-to-grope-people-random-airports-not-just-security-join-tsa.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/16072113656/want-to-grope-people-random-airports-not-just-security-join-tsa.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The TSA's sexual assault-as-security theater continues.  The latest involves reports from a woman, who, despite having already cleared security at LaGuardia airport, was approached by a TSA agent near the gate for her flight, and told that he had to <a href="http://consumerist.com/2011/03/tsa-can-apparently-pat-you-down-even-after-you-pass-security-checkpoint.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">give her a pat-down on the spot</a>, ordering her to drop her things and assume a spread-eagle position against the wall, at which point, he "patted her down," grabbing her breasts, thighs and crotch.  The woman claims that two other women were given similar "security treatments," which to most people would sound like a public sexual assault.  The TSA was asked about this and said it could not comment "because of security concerns."  Yes, so apparently, if you want to sexually assault women at will, the TSA is the place to be and they'll cover it up for you, due to "security concerns."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/16072113656/want-to-grope-people-random-airports-not-just-security-join-tsa.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/16072113656/want-to-grope-people-random-airports-not-just-security-join-tsa.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/16072113656/want-to-grope-people-random-airports-not-just-security-join-tsa.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-you-look-kinda-cute...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110328/16072113656</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:05:33 PST</pubDate>
<title>Man Acquitted In Lawsuit Over Filming The TSA And Not Showing ID</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/04120212794/man-acquitted-lawsuit-over-filming-tsa-not-showing-id.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/04120212794/man-acquitted-lawsuit-over-filming-tsa-not-showing-id.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few folks have sent in variations on this story, involving how a guy named Phil Mocek has <a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/local/433918_tsa.html" target="_blank">been acquitted of charges filed by the TSA</a> after he refused to show TSA officials his ID back in 2009.  Mocek had no ID on him and noted (correctly) that you do not, in fact, need ID to fly.  He filmed the entire incident and then was charged with four misdemeanors: disorderly conduct, concealing his identity, refusing to obey a police officer, and criminal trespass.  You can see the video here:
<center>
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Pc5DBUK1K8M" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
</center>
It turns out that Mocek was completely correct in that he did not need to have ID and he was well within his rights to film the encounter.  At no point did he raise his voice or act in a "disorderly" manner, and it appears that the jury recognized that -- and also recognized that the TSA and the police appeared to simply be annoyed at the guy for doing what was completely within the law.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/04120212794/man-acquitted-lawsuit-over-filming-tsa-not-showing-id.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/04120212794/man-acquitted-lawsuit-over-filming-tsa-not-showing-id.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/04120212794/man-acquitted-lawsuit-over-filming-tsa-not-showing-id.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-him</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110124/04120212794</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:15:46 PST</pubDate>
<title>San Diego Airport Says Recording TSA Gropings Is An Arrestible Offense?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/16092011976/san-diego-airport-says-recording-tsa-gropings-is-arrestible-offense.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/16092011976/san-diego-airport-says-recording-tsa-gropings-is-arrestible-offense.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We already covered the guy who was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/02490011960/man-strips-down-tsa-told-he-still-needed-to-be-groped-arrested-failing-to-complete-security-process.shtml">arrested</a> 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 <a href="http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/tsa-airport-screeners-gone-wild-san-diego-again" target="_blank">"illegally recording the San Diego Airport Authority."</a>  I was trying to figure out the exact rule (listed as 7.14a), and some of the folks over at <a href="http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1150867-new-arrests-san-diego-tsa-using-gestapo-tactics-3.html" target="_blank">Flyertalk</a> have posted the full 7.14 rule (or you can see the <A href="http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Code%207.14%20Filming.pdf" target="_blank">full San Diego Airport Authority rules</a> (pdf) if you'd like):
<blockquote><i>
(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.
<br><br>
(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></blockquote>
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.
<br><br>
Just a few months ago, we pointed out how law enforcement and the courts were <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100603/0859019675.shtml">abusing wiretap laws</a> to find people guilty of wiretapping for recording law enforcement in public places. Thankfully, some courts have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100927/16352111185/judge-tosses-out-wiretapping-charges-against-motorcyclist-who-filmed-cop-with-helmet-cam.shtml">pushed back</a> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/16092011976/san-diego-airport-says-recording-tsa-gropings-is-arrestible-offense.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/16092011976/san-diego-airport-says-recording-tsa-gropings-is-arrestible-offense.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101122/16092011976/san-diego-airport-says-recording-tsa-gropings-is-arrestible-offense.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-cool</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101122/16092011976</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:49:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101115/11033711873/tsa-threatens-to-sue-guy-for-not-agreeing-to-having-his-groin-touched-by-tsa-agents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101115/11033711873/tsa-threatens-to-sue-guy-for-not-agreeing-to-having-his-groin-touched-by-tsa-agents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been a lot of talk lately about the new backscatter scanners at airports that take a "naked" image of the passenger, and how airports have now instituted newer and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/00593911491/pilot-not-allowed-through-security-after-he-refuses-naked-backscatter-scan.shtml">more invasive</a> patdowns for those who refuse to go through the scans.  Many feel that both of these practices goes <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101109/11252211780/pilot-group-urges-pilots-to-refuse-naked-backscatter-scans-and-avoid-groping-pat-downs.shtml">way too far</a>.  A whole bunch of folks have now been submitting the story of one guy who refused to go through the backscatter scanner, and then told the TSA (in a slightly crude manner) that he <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html" target="_blank">would not consent to having his groin groped</a>.  Specifically, he warned the officer, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."  This, of course, led to supervisors and supervisors and various reports being written up before he was escorted out of the screening area and told he  would not be able to fly.
<br /><br />
Of course, we've seen similar stories before.  But where this one got even odder is that after he went to the ticket counter and was able to get his ticket refunded (even though it was a non-refundable ticket), he was approached by a man in a suit and two of the people who had both detained him in the security area and escorted him out of it -- and told that he <i>could not leave the airport until he submitted to the invasive screening</i>.  If he tried to leave, he was told he would be sued and could face fines of $10,000:
<blockquote><i>
At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn't know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents' supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area. When I asked why, he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined. I told him that I would submit to a walk through the metal detector, but that was it; I would not be groped.
</i></blockquote>
With groups like EPIC and the ACLU fighting these machines, I'm guessing the guy has already been contacted by them and other such groups.  The idea that buying a ticket and entering the screening area means you've agreed, no matter what -- even if you decide not to fly -- to go through an invasive screening process, seems like a pretty radical reading of the 4th Amendment that I'm sure some civil liberties groups would happily challenge.
<br /><br />
You can listen to the audio of most of the encounter at the link above (there's video too, but it's mostly of the ceiling).  Some have questioned why he was filming, and if he had set this up with a plan to get into a confrontation all along.  You can see his <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/motivation-of-my-filming-of-my-tsa.html" target="_blank">explanation here</a> which makes sense.  He claims that he had checked online prior to flying and the TSA's website had said that San Diego Airport did <i>not</i> have the backscatter scanners, which is why he agreed to fly through there.  Then, when he got to the security area, he chose a line that was a traditional metal scanner, rather than the backscatter lines.  The person in front of him was told to go to the backscatter scanner, and after refusing he realized they might ask him to go instead, so he then turned on his camera, since he'd heard of numerous other incidents, and wanted a recording just in case.  Throughout the experience he points out that 80% of the passengers are just going through the traditional metal detector, and he'd be fine if he could just use that same process, but they won't allow it.
<br /><br />
It seems pretty clear that these new invasive scans and pat downs are going to end up in the courts.  From my perspective, they certainly seem to go way beyond the "reasonable" standard, but who knows what the courts will say.  That said, in this case, the security officials went way beyond even that level, by threatening to sue the guy for not consenting to go through with it, even <i>after</i> he had said he would no longer be flying.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101115/11033711873/tsa-threatens-to-sue-guy-for-not-agreeing-to-having-his-groin-touched-by-tsa-agents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101115/11033711873/tsa-threatens-to-sue-guy-for-not-agreeing-to-having-his-groin-touched-by-tsa-agents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101115/11033711873/tsa-threatens-to-sue-guy-for-not-agreeing-to-having-his-groin-touched-by-tsa-agents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that'll-go-over-well</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101115/11033711873</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:37:48 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Pilot Not Allowed Through Security After He Refuses 'Naked' Backscatter Scan</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/00593911491/pilot-not-allowed-through-security-after-he-refuses-naked-backscatter-scan.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/00593911491/pilot-not-allowed-through-security-after-he-refuses-naked-backscatter-scan.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been a lot of talk lately about the new body scanners at airports, which create a "virtually naked" image of you -- bringing up all sorts of privacy concerns, especially as reports are coming out about how the machines can <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100405/0242138878.shtml">record images</a>.  Many people, concerned about how these machines operate, have asked not to use them, and there are usually other options.  <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/18/what-happened-when-o.html?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29&#038;utm_content=Google+Reader" target="_blank">Boing Boing</a> points us to the story of a working, uniformed pilot (working for ExpressJet) who <a href="http://www.expressjetpilots.com/the-pipe/showthread.php?39523-Well-today-was-the-day" target="_blank">refused to go through the backscatter scanner</a>.  After being directed to a normal metal detector, and declared an "opt-out," he was told he needed to be patted down by security.  He refused, noting that it was intrusive and that he had made it through the normal metal detector without a problem (the same security review he'd been given for many years as a pilot -- even in that same airport).
<br /><br />
At that point, the TSA got upset, and a bunch of other folks got involved, including the airport police.  He was detained, asked all sorts of questions (some he refused to answer), and not allowed to leave when he asked.  At one point he was told he was free to leave, but then was stopped again and told he was not allowed to go until he spoke to one more person.  The pilot, Michael Roberts, noted during his explanation of what happened that he's actually taught the TSA-mandated security training program at ExpressJet.  The whole story is yet another example of security theater in action -- people just doing things because it's on the checklist, not because it makes anyone more secure.
<blockquote><i>
"What do you mean I 'should know better'? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"
<br /><br />
"I'm not saying you've done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."
<br /><br />
"Understood. I've been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that's what it's come to now, I don't want to enter the facility that badly."
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/00593911491/pilot-not-allowed-through-security-after-he-refuses-naked-backscatter-scan.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/00593911491/pilot-not-allowed-through-security-after-he-refuses-naked-backscatter-scan.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/00593911491/pilot-not-allowed-through-security-after-he-refuses-naked-backscatter-scan.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>security-theater</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101020/00593911491</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:49:49 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The History Of The (Fake) 'Free Public WiFi' You Always See At Airports</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101011/03194311357/the-history-of-the-fake-free-public-wifi-you-always-see-at-airports.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101011/03194311357/the-history-of-the-fake-free-public-wifi-you-always-see-at-airports.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you travel a fair bit, as I do, you've noticed at almost every airport that there's an "ad hoc" (i.e., computer-to-computer rather than computer-to-WiFi) option called "Free Public WiFi."  It seems to be everywhere.  I've never connected to it, because I know enough not to connect to an ad hoc offering, but I was always amazed at the fact that I see it in pretty much every airport I've been to.  I had wondered if it was a honeypot scam for a while, but I couldn't believe that scammers would be able to set up such honeypots in so many airports worldwide and no one would catch them and take it down.  So how could there be such "Free Public WiFi" (which obviously was not what it claimed to be) in so many places?
<br /><br />
The answer?  Well, it's all Microsoft's fault.
<br /><br />
Apparently, there was a bit of a bug (one of many...) in Windows XP in terms of how it handles certain situations, and it <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130451369" target="_blank">effectively created a "virus"</a> in that unwitting travelers around the globe are all broadcasting "Free Public WiFi" from their computers without realizing it, after they tried to connect to such a network:
<blockquote><i>
When a computer running an older version of XP can't find any of its "favorite" wireless networks, it will automatically create an ad hoc network with the same name as the last one it connected to -- in this case, "Free Public WiFi." Other computers within range of that new ad hoc network can see it, luring other users to connect. And who can resist the word "free?"
<br /><br />
Not a lot of people, judging from the spread of Free Public WiFi. Computers with the XP bug that try to connect to the Internet will remember the name, create their own ad hoc networks and entice other users wherever they go.
</i></blockquote>
And so it continues to spread.  No one's quite sure where it started, but somewhere way back when, someone set up such an ad hoc network in an airport (perhaps as a joke or a honeypot), and it got picked up by others... and then it just continued spreading.  Eventually, it should die out as Windows XP machines finally go extinct, but for now, enjoy (but don't bother connecting) the "Free Public WiFi" found in so many airports...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101011/03194311357/the-history-of-the-fake-free-public-wifi-you-always-see-at-airports.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101011/03194311357/the-history-of-the-fake-free-public-wifi-you-always-see-at-airports.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101011/03194311357/the-history-of-the-fake-free-public-wifi-you-always-see-at-airports.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>an-accidental-XP-virus</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101011/03194311357</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Jan 2010 06:35:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Time For 'Israelification' Of U.S. Airports?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1154497594.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1154497594.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>theodp</b> writes <i>"A few days ago, the Toronto Star reported that <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother">security experts point to 'Israelification' as a possible cure for what ails North America's security-paralyzed airports</a>. That is, how can we make our airports more like Israel's, which deal with far greater terror threat with far less inconvenience. 'It is mindboggling for us Israelis to look at what happens in North America, because we went through this 50 years ago,' said Rafi Sela, president of a transportation security consultancy. Unless a more sensible approach to security is adopted, Sela warned that North American airports could be crippled by needless airport evacuations. As if to prove his point, Newark Liberty International Airport -- which is <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/newark_liberty_international_a_4.html">planning to unleash $160,000 high-tech full-body scanners</a> on travelers to improve security -- <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34682282/ns/us_news-security/">had to be evacuated Sunday night and flights were grounded</a> after a man <a href="http://gawker.com/5439246/newark-airport-incident-reveals-obvious-security-flaw">walked the wrong way through a screening checkpoint exit</a> to enter the secured side of a terminal. Looks like we may owe Mr. Sela an I-told-you-so on this one."</i>
<br /><br />
I had seen the Toronto Star article when it came out, and it's definitely worth reading.  It does appear that the Israelis are a lot more focused on security that works, rather than security theater -- though I don't think any security system is foolproof.  I do think that there's a lot to what Sela says at the end of the article as to why the TSA hasn't followed Israel's lead:
<blockquote><i>
"We have a saying in Hebrew that it's much easier to look for a lost key under the light, than to look for the key where you actually lost it, because it's dark over there. That's exactly how (North American airport security officials) act," Sela said. "You can easily do what we do. You don't have to replace anything. You have to add just a little bit -- technology, training. But you have to completely change the way you go about doing airport security. And that is something that the bureaucrats have a problem with. They are very well enclosed in their own concept."
</i></blockquote>
As for the question on "full body scans," while not mentioned in the article, it's worth noting that Israeli airport security apparently doesn't use such machines either.  I saw an interview recently with an Israeli security expert, who said that using such machines (the ones that allow screeners to effectively see travelers naked) would create a much bigger mess, as traditional and religious men would become incredibly offended at screeners seeing their wives naked.
<br /><br />
The key difference in the two systems is that the US (and most others) seem intent on scanning what you're bringing on the plane.  The Israelis are a lot more interested in who you are and how you act.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1154497594.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1154497594.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1154497594.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>security-or-security-theater</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100104/1154497594</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:28:35 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Next Stage Of Security Theater: Homeland Security Wants More Info To Let You Board A Plane</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081023/0034082623.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081023/0034082623.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security would like to add another layer of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/0302542587.shtml">security theater</a> to the airplane boarding process.  Homeland Security is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102202646_pf.html" target="_new">now taking over the process of matching your identity to government watch lists</a> at airports (away from the airlines), and they're going to start demanding more info.  You will not be allowed to fly if you don't provide your first and last names, birth date and gender.  This is positioned as a way to avoid the various "false positives" we've heard so much about with fliers who have similar names to those on the no-fly list.  While it's good that they want to cut down on those false positives, it's not as if this makes you any safer.  It just requires giving up more privacy to fly.
<br /><br />
Also worth noting is that this is the first time that the government has actually admitted how many people are on the no fly list (about 2,500) as well as the "selectee" list for extra careful searches (another 16,000).  They also noted that it's quite rare for anyone on the no-fly list to actually try to fly (about once a month -- and it's almost always initiating in a foreign country).  Of course, if you were actually a terrorist, would you fly under your real identity?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081023/0034082623.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081023/0034082623.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081023/0034082623.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>feel-safer?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081023/0034082623</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:08:47 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Security Theater In Action</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/0302542587.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/0302542587.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Atlantic has an article in which the author, Jeffrey Goldberg, put various Bruce Schneier theories to the test, to see just how ridiculous airport security is these days.  As expected, he discovered that Schneier is correct <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security" target="_new">in calling most airport security "security theater."</a>  It's designed to make people think they're safer because they see <i>something</i> that looks like security, even if that security does absolutely nothing to stop terrorists.  As the article notes, it's not at all difficult for terrorists to bypass the system, so the only thing the system is really good for is to (a) catch really, really dumb terrorists or (b) to make other people think that the security is doing something.
<br /><br />
Schneier, of course, has been making this point for years, so it was interesting to see what sort of response Goldberg was then able to get out of the TSA's boss, Kip Hawley.  His responses seem to fall into one of two categories.  First, he suggests that the TSA is well aware of the potential vulnerability described, but he can't really explain how it's been fixed, or secondly, he insists that any odd behavior will be spotted by trained employees and stopped.  Except that Goldberg tested that theory too, attempting to behave quite strangely -- including ripping up a bunch of fake boarding passes in plain view of people... who all ignored him.
<br /><br />
Hawley's responses at times border on incomprehensible:
<blockquote><i>
"What do you do about vulnerabilities?" he asked, rhetorically. "All the time you hear reports and people saying, 'There's a vulnerability.' Well, duh. There are vulnerabilities everywhere, in everything. The question is not 'Is there a vulnerability?' It's 'What are you doing about it?'"
<br /><br />
Well, what are you doing about it?
<br /><br />
"There are vulnerabilities where you have limited ways to address it directly. So you have to put other layers around it, other things that will catch them when that vulnerability is breached. This is a universal problem. Somebody will identify a very small thing and drill down and say, 'I found a vulnerability.'"
</i></blockquote>
Either there's some totally secret system that the TSA is using to actually stop these vulnerabilities, or there isn't a system and Hawley is just being confusing in order to create some doubt.  I'm not sure either one makes me feel any safer about flying.  While some may claim that we should feel safer because there <i>might</i> be a more secretive plan in place that Hawley won't talk about, consider me a skeptic.  Security through obscurity has rarely proven to be as effective as a real and open security plan.  I'm not saying that the TSA should reveal everything it does, but given Goldberg's experiences in "probing" the system, it's not clear that any "secret plan," whether real or implied, is working particularly well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/0302542587.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/0302542587.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/0302542587.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-you-feel-safer-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081020/0302542587</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:12:40 PST</pubDate>
<title>TSA Inspections Are Still A Farce</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071116/104044.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071116/104044.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you thought taking your shoes off and putting your liquids in little plastic bags was going to stop terrorists from smuggling bombs onto planes, think again. A new report from the Government Accountability Office finds that <a href="http://www.nbc4.com/news/14600788/detail.html?dl=mainclick">investigators were able to smuggle bomb components through TSA checkpoints</a> without being caught. This isn&#39;t much of a surprise; a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061101/113122.shtml">similar test</a> last year found that the TSA caught only 2 out of 22 people who tried to smuggle dummy weapons through checkpoints in a Newark airport. This is not really surprising. The TSA&#39;s strategy has been basically reactive: the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters, so those get banned. Somebody tries to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Colvin_Reid">smuggle explosives onboard in his shoes</a>, so the TSA makes us all take our shoes off. Somebody tries to <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/terrorism_secur.html">smuggle liquid explosives</a> onto a plane, so the TSA bans bottled water. There&#39;s <a href="http://www.schneier.com/interview-hawley.html">no reason to think these rules actually make us safer</a>, but they do allow the TSA to pretend they&#39;re &quot;doing something&quot; about terrorism. A TSA spokeswoman insists that this wasn&#39;t a fair test because they only got by one of their &quot;19 layers of security.&quot; I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if the other 18 layers were as ineffectual than the others, but one thing that can be said for them is that they&#39;re a lot less annoying for travelers. How about if the TSA stops wasting resources forcing 5-year-old girls to take their shoes off, and shift those resources to the sort of in-depth police work that <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/terrorism_secur.html">led to the foiling of last year&#39;s liquid explosives plot.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071116/104044.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071116/104044.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071116/104044.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>security-theater</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071116/104044</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:46:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Automatic Airport Check-In Is Patented?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/023844.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/023844.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I've been flying a lot over the past few years, and it's become pretty standard for airlines to now have self-serve kiosks where you can check in and print out a boarding pass.  If you have a bag to check, you then take it to a "bag drop" station.  There are fewer and fewer places where this <i>isn't</i> the norm -- but apparently <a href="http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=970606000000000275">Alaska Airlines owns a patent on the process</a>.  The company says it got the patent to "reward the employees" who came up with the idea, but that doesn't make much sense.  As William Stepp points out in the link above, wouldn't Alaska Airlines have been better off not spending all that money filing a patent.  In fact, if they wanted to reward the employees who came up with the idea, why not just give the money wasted on the patent filing to the employees?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/023844.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/023844.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/023844.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-why?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070810/023844</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>