Harvard Law students challenge TSA

Harvard Law Record:

Two Harvard Law students have filed a federal lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration that claims the use of "nude body scanners" and new enhanced pat-down techniques at airport security checkpoints are unconstitutional. ...

Pradhan said a TSA agent put his fingers inside the waistband of Pradhan's pants, felt his groin, and lifted his buttocks.

"They run their hand all the way up [to a person's groin] , and they don't necessarily stop," he said. "They'll go all the way up until – well, they go all the way up."

TSA public relations

A satire from Popehat.

Relative risk

Mark Bennett (via Infamy or Praise, which does an extensive round-up of commentary on the TSA controversy):

Never mind that Heathrow is outside TSA’s bailiwick. Let’s run the numbers supposing that Al Qaeda had succeeded in 2006 in killing 1,500 people on flights leaving US airports. There were 50 other commercial air travel fatalities in 2006 (the Lexington Comair crash), so a successful Al Qaeda domestic-travel megaplot would have raised the number of fatalities to 1,550. There were 724,733,000 passenger emplanements in 2006. So if such a plot had succeeded the risk of getting on a plane in 2006 would have been 2.13 in a million. The same year there were 1.42 fatalities per million highway passenger miles, so getting on a plane in 2006 (if the imaginary domestic plot had succeeded) would have been about as dangerous as driving 150 miles.

Even in that nightmare scenario, for trips longer than 150 miles, it would have made more sense to fly than to drive. As much as Thiessen and the rest of those who are willing to give up freedom and dignity for a little more safety hate it, the risk of terrorism is not that great. That sixty-six percent of Americans polled recognize such gives me hope.

TSA patdown "game" a counterproductive lesson for children

Raw Story:

An expert in the fight against child sexual abuse is raising the alarm about a technique the TSA is reportedly using to get children to co-operate with airport pat-downs: calling it a "game".

Ken Wooden, founder of Child Lures Prevention, says the TSA's recommendation that children be told the pat-down is a "game" is potentially putting children in danger.

Telling a child that they are engaging in a game is "one of the most common ways" that sexual predators use to convince children to engage in inappropriate contact, Wooden told Raw Story.

Children "don't have the sophistication" to distinguish between a pat-down carried out by an airport security officer and an assault by a sexual predator, he said.

The TSA policy could "desensitize children to inappropriate touch and ultimately make it easier for sexual offenders to prey on our children," Wooden added.

More evidence scanners turned off

As we discussed before, it's a mistake to call Opt-Out Day a failure because so few opted out of being scanned. (Jacob Sullum claims that it "fizzled"; the Hit & Run commenters correct him.) I have to consider it a success because the protest encouraged the TSA to informally modify their policies to reduce the number of scans taking place by turning off the machines. This doesn't appear to be because of the fear that the lines would be unmanageable on Thanksgiving Wednesday. This weekend I flew roundtrip DCA to LAS and back, and at both airports, despite manageable lines, none of the security checkpoints had scanners operating. There was no line Tuesday morning at LAS, but the scanner was roped off.

Jonathan Adler asks whether the TSA backed down and compiles other evidence of scanners being shut down.

"Say no!"

Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution, the best economics blog out there:

Here is what New York State's Office of Children & Family Services recommends that you tell your children about inappropriate touching:

• You are special and important.
• Your body is your own.
• You have the right to say "NO" if someone wants to touch you in any way that makes you feel uncomfortable, afraid or confused.
• There are parts of your body that are private. You have the right to say "NO" to anyone who wants to touch your vagina, penis, breasts or buttocks. You have my permission to say "NO" even if that person is an adult ... even if it's a grown-up you know.
• Pay attention to your feelings. Trust your feelings about the way people touch you.
• If someone bothers you, I want you to tell me. I promise that I will believe you.
• If someone touches you in a way that does not seem right, it is not your fault.

Children need to know that the safety rules about touching apply all the time, not just with strangers ... or with men ... or with baby sitters. In many cases ...children are sexually abused by people they know and trust [including] authority figures....
Also, abusers seldom need to use physical force...Unfortunately, abusers can use threats successfully because children are taught to believe and obey adults.

Excellent advice for children and for adults.
Authority figures, for example, may also use threats of violence to engage in abuse against adults, for example, "you will be blown up unless you let me touch your genitals and take naked pictures of you." 

TSA supervisor facing charges for sex with 7-year-old

WPTZ (h/t M.P.):

[Jason] Beauharnois was a supervisor for the Department of Homeland Security's TSA at the Burlington Airport. He has since been suspended without pay.

Of course, any large organization is going to have an employee who ends up being charged with a sex crime. Even if TSA engaged in expensive screening for its employees to weed out potential sex offenders, that screening would be imperfect—and it wouldn't make the unnecessary, costly, and counterproductive intrusiveness of its current search policy any better.

Ready for your TSA pat-down?

A Life Magazine photo-essay.

TSA bumper stickers

Via Ian Brooks. Some are offensive, some are funny.

Airplane II anticipates the Rapiscan

Like the Rapiscan itself, NSFW. Via Economic Policy Journal:

The media sneers at you

Hit and Run and Popehat document the media mavens calling you crybabies for daring to complain about TSA policy. Missing from any of their analyses: any evidence that any of this "enhanced" searching is useful or beneficial at the margin or otherwise.

Former police chief: pat-downs punitive, ineffective

Homeland Security Watch (2009) via Gizmodo:

We have asked TSA to find the tools terrorists use and prevent both from boarding a passenger plane. We have unintentionally created an agency that now seeks efficiency and compliance more than any weapon or explosive.

While returning my computer and shoes to their proper places, I watched the screening line at BWI. I thought about the haphazard events surrounding the security screening process. As I watched the screening officers, I wondered what information drives their decisions. Left only to my observations, I concluded that their decisions were entirely random, and likely based upon three criteria: passenger load, staffing, and whim.

I was left to conclude that I am not screened because I look like a terrorist. I am routinely screened because I look like someone who will readily comply. I decided then that my next invitation to enjoy additional screening would be met with more inquiry.

Backups at TSA screening increase risk of terrorist attack

ABC News via Goldberg @ Atlantic:

Among the possible targets in the suspected European terror plot are pre-security areas in at least five major European airports, a law enforcement official told ABC News. Authorities believe terror teams are preparing to mount a commando like attack featuring small units and small firearms modeled after the Mumbai attack two years ago.

The State Department issued a highly unusual "Travel Alert" Sunday for "potential terrorist attacks in Europe," saying U.S. citizens are "reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure."

One scenario authorities fear is a repeat of the 1985 attack on the Rome and Vienna airports, when Palestinian extremists threw grenades and opened fire on travelers waiting at ticket counters injuring 140 and killing 19, including a small child.

Thanks for the linkage

From Overlawyered, Popehat, Professor Bainbridge, Simple Justice, Womanist-Musings, Chequerboard and many Twitterers.

If you're interested in my non-TSA thoughts on law and public policy, please read the Manhattan Institute weblog I edit, Point of Law.

Mother harassed over breast milk screening

Stalking conviction not disqualifying for TSA position

As we learn from WBS-TV after a TSA agent is arrested for sexual assault. (via @drudgereport)

3-year-old girl searched by TSA because of her tantrum

From CW39; Tribune Co. may take down the YouTube video.

Polls shift

Policy opposition to the TSA has been muted because of repeated polls showing something like 81% of Americans support the new screening methods. Of course most Americans don't fly, and most Americans hold opinions even when their only information on the subject was prompted with a pollster's question. Even I, someone who has been annoyed with the TSA since 2002, was alright with the naked scanners—until I learned that they weren't any more effective than a standard metal detector, that they had potential radiation problems, and that they were considerably slower than regular metal detectors. Well, good news. The "don't touch my junk" publicity has shifted public opinion dramatically. According to Zogby via WWF,

The implementation of full body scans and pat downs by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as part of security enhancements at our nation's airports will cause 48% of Americans and 42% of more frequent fliers to choose a different mode of transportation when possible, a recent Zogby International Poll finds.

Overall, 61% of the 2,032 likely voters polled from Nov. 19 to Nov. 22, oppose the use of full body scans and TSA pat downs. Republicans (69%) and Independents (65%) oppose in greater numbers than Democrats (50%).

Of those polled, 52% believe the enhanced security measures will not prevent terrorist activity, almost half (48%) say it is a violation of privacy rights, 33% say they should not have to go through enhanced security methods to get on an airplane, and 32% believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs to be sexual harassment. This is in line with frequent fliers (fly more than once every 3 months), as 53% say the enhanced measures will not prevent terrorist activity, 48% believe it's a violation of their privacy rights, 41% say they should not have to go through it to get on an airplane, and 35% believe it is sexual harassment.

While roughly the same amount believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs are necessary to keep the country safe and prevent terrorist activities on airplanes (34% of frequent fliers vs. 29% overall), frequent fliers are more likely to feel that the enhanced methods are not needed because metal detectors and bag screenings are working fine (33% to 26%). Just 16% of frequent fliers say no one has an absolute right to fly and if people don't like the security measures, then just don't fly compared to 20% of everyone polled.

The Zogby poll also finds when given a choice, likely voters will choose full body scan over the TSA pat downs (48% to 7%), but 42% would rather have neither. Frequent fliers feel about the same.

"The TSA Needs to Opt Out of Tweeting"

Gizmodo finds TSA tweets creepy.

Menstruation and the TSA

Joe Sharkey @ New York Times via Dark Politricks:

I’m getting a lot of questions about the new security regime, including some pointed ones from women. Do the imagers, for example, detect sanitary napkins? Yes. Does that then necessitate a pat-down? The T.S.A. couldn’t say. Screeners, the T.S.A. has said, are expected to exercise some discretion.

A traveler writes Gladrags about her experience with that "discretion":

This email isn’t going to be as polished as I would normally send, but I’m upset and I don’t want what happened to me to happen to anyone else (if I can stop it).

I recently traveled via air, and was subjected to that new scanning device. “No problem,” I thought. I was wearing jeans and a linen tanktop, bra, panties, and one camouflage pantyliner.

I’m a rule follower, so I never have any problems at the airport. Not this time. I was stopped, and then held for 15 minutes while they tried to find a female supervisor. I couldn’t get to my bag, my shawl or my shoes; just standing there while the TSA agents kept me in one place.

Now, I don’t want this to be about bad TSA agents; they were doing their job, they were as delicate as they could be, etc., etc. But what ultimately happened is that I was subjected to search so invasive that I was left crying and dealing with memories that I thought had been dealt with years ago of prior sexual assaults.

Why?

Because of my flannel panty-liner. These new scans are so horrible that if you are wearing something unusual (like a piece of cloth on your panties) then you will be subjected to a search where a woman repeatedly has to check your “groin” while another woman watches on (two in my case – they were training in a new girl – awesome).

So please, please, tell the ladies not to wear their liners at the airport (I didn’t even have an insert in). I’m a strong, confident woman; I’m an Army vet (which is why those camo liners crack me up), I work full-time and go to graduate school full-time, I have a wonderful husband, and I don’t take any nonsense from anyone. I don’t dramatize, and I don’t exaggerate. I’m trying to give you a sense of who I am so you won’t think that this is a plea for attention, or a jumping on the bandwagon about the recent TSA proposed boycott.

I just don’t want another woman to have to go through the “patting down” because she didn’t know that her glad-rag would be a matter of national security.