Thursday, November 18, 2010

Lawmakers Blast TSA


WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite a deluge of complaints over intrusive pat-downs and revealing airport scans, the government is betting Americans would rather fly safe than untouched. "I'm not going to change those policies," the nation's transportation security chief declared Wednesday.

Responded a lawmaker: "I wouldn't want my wife to be touched in the way that these folks are being touched."

The debate over where to strike the balance between privacy and security, in motion since new safety measures took effect after the 2001 terrorist attacks, has intensified with the debut of pat-downs that are more thorough, and invasive, than before, and the spread of full-body image scans.

A week before some of the busiest flying days of the year, some passengers are refusing the regimen, many more are complaining and the aviation industry is caught in the middle.

In Florida, the Orlando Sanford Airport, which handles 2 million passengers a year, now plans to replace "testy" Transportation Security Administration screeners with private contractors, and two veteran commercial pilots are refusing to fly out of airports using the procedures.

"The outcry is huge," Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison told the TSA administrator, John Pistole, at a Capitol Hill hearing. "I know that you're aware of it. But we've got to see some action."

Pistole conceded "reasonable people can disagree" on how to properly balance safety at the nation's airports but he asserted the new security measures are necessary because of intelligence on latest attack methods that might be used by terrorists.

Pistole was a senior FBI officer last Christmas when an al-Qaida operative made it onto a Chicago-bound plane with explosives stuffed in his underwear. The explosive misfired, causing injury only to the wearer.

As TSA chief since the summer, Pistole has reviewed reports that found undercover agents were able to slip through airport security because pat-downs were not thorough enough.

Given a choice between a planeload of screened passengers and a flight with no lines or security checks, he told senators, "I think everybody will want to opt for the screening with the assurance that that flight is safe and secure."

The new hands-on searches are used for passengers who don't want the full-body scans, or when something suspicious shows in screening, or on rare occasions, randomly. They can take two minutes per passenger and involve sliding of the hands along the length of the body, along thighs and near the groin and breasts.

The new scans show naked images of the passenger's body, without the face, to a screener who is in a different location and does not know the identity of the traveler. The U.S. has nearly 400 of the advanced imaging machines deployed at 70 airports, growing to 1,000 machines next year.

A traveler in San Diego who resisted both a full-body scan and a pat-down helped fuel a campaign urging others to refuse these searches on Nov. 24, the heavy travel day before Thanksgiving. John Tyner said he told a TSA screener: "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested."

Pistole has strongly criticized the call to boycott screenings.

"On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al-Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that may prevent an attack using nonmetallic explosives," he said this week.

Tyner's encounter with security in San Diego helped make the new system the butt of late-night TV jokes. But lawmakers aren't laughing. They said they are getting hundreds of calls from people unhappy with the procedures.

"I'm frankly bothered by the level of these pat-downs," Sen. George LeMieux, R-Fla., told Pistole. "I wouldn't want my wife to be touched in the way that these folks are being touched. I wouldn't want to be touched that way."

Pistole, who has been subjected to a pat-down himself, allowed: "It is clearly more invasive." But the procedures are necessary, he said, to detect devices not seen before.

Glen Tilton, chairman of United Continental Holdings Inc. (UAL), the parent company of United and Continental airlines, said it's obvious passengers are upset but their security "is really the predominant interest."

"I am personally aware of customer frustration because I'm getting e-mails to that effect," Tilton told reporters at an Aero Club luncheon in Washington. "Clearly a number of people have put together an effort to make sure that we are aware of how they feel about it."

Still, he said airline operations had not been affected by passenger cancellations to date and he praised the TSA's screeners. "We know how difficult their job is," he said.

16 comments:

maryobriant001 said...

Yet again America is behind the rest of the world. When I flew from Italy last spring, they had just instituted similar required pat down rules. The experience was weird, but I would definitely rather be poked a little than explode somewhere in the air through an act of terrorism. Yes, it is invasive. Yes, it doesn't make me happy. But I would much rather have the knowledge that TSA is doing what it can to address security concerns and protect me even at the expense of a little privacy.

Anonymous said...

It seems as if there is no way to make people happy. If they get checked and patted down then it is an invasion but if they don't get checked then security is not doing their job. People should just get over being uncomfortable and see that security is just doing their job in keeping the public safe

CatarinaGutierrez1 said...

I don't understand why they are getting so defensive about the body scans. You can't even really see "things" on there and the people viewing the image do not know the identity of the scanned body anyway. So if you have such huge problems with getting the new pat down then just walk through the scanner.
Supposedly these methods are still ineffective according to Issac Gift of the Israeli Airlines. They haven't had a breach for 8 years. Why? They interview ALL passengers, NO EXCEPTIONS. This occurs at least twice before the passenger boards. Many people in the U.S would claim that its profiling but that cannot be so if everyone is getting the same treatment. Also, all the security officers are college educated and speak at least two languages and routinely tested by undercover agents. If an officer lets the agent by they are immediately fired. Under TSA if the officer were to do so, they would undergo training again and usually not fired. I personally would feel much safer on the Israeli Airplane than my own.

Anonymous said...

The amount of security/checks is almost ridiculous, so much, to a point that it becomes useless. It's disgusting to see some TSA agent patting down a woman/man who could pass for seventy years of age...
AND it's horrifically absurd that these TSA agents, representing the government, have to be "Politically Correct" when they do their random searches. It scares me as a citizen, and a customer of commercial airliners, to know that the agents are not allowed to use their own judgment to search the correct people. Who cares if you search 4 brown people and 1 white person? Statistics have shown that terrorists are middle-eastern Muslims of darker skin color.
And who cares if they search 50 white people and 1 brown person? I don't care as long as the agents are allowed SOME use of common sense.

JanieMahan5 said...

im not sure what to think about these scans. they seem like a serious invasion of privacy. are they really necessary? im not so sure. i feel like the previous policies were already taking care of business making this new policy superfluous.

AliFleming01 said...

i aprove of the new security procedure at airports, i would want to be 100% safe and i will give up my personal boundries for that guarantee. I truly hope that others will come to see the fact that these people are not here to feel you up but to keep you and other passenger safe from attacks of any sort.

Tynan Shadle 1st said...

I hate going through TSA having to take practically everything off and then having to put it all back on. I also hate to see some people being patted down thouroghly and being embarrased in public due to this routine. I also hate the idea that al-Quaeda might be able to slip through our security if things are changed. The security is a neccesity, albeit an uncomfortable one.

Samantha Brookes 2nd said...

I really don't like these new procedures and think that they are too intrucive, but at the same time I understand that safety is important. I don't necessarily have a problem with them doing such things to those who are serious suspects and have failed more than one of the other procedures they preform at security, but for my 70 year old grandmother to be touched in such a way or be scanned just because her artifical knees set off the metal detected is a problem. If they have very subantial reasonable cause to believe that these people are a threat, then fine. But for me to be violated because I forgot to take the lotion out of my purseis ridiculous. We've gone almost ten years now with out any major airport security threat without this technology, why do we need it now?

ChelseyBryant2nd said...

Okay, I completely understand the fact we still have crazy people trying to blow us up...but why don't we start with this stupid molesting crap in the big airports where they're more likely to come through? I highly doubt Al Quida is using the Lubbock airport as a base. -.- Anyway, I definately don't wanna be felt up or shown naked to some guy in a private room. The second they wanna touch me I will yell out, "I'M A MINOR AND YOUR MOLESTING ME!" Yes I will probably be arrested or something stupid, but the embaressment will be completely worth it. On a further note, how is this legal? These people are basically groping you or looking at your naked body. That used to be called molestation...but because it's for terrorism it's magically not anymore...I think I'll be avoiding airports for awhile...

Chelsea Huffhines 2nd said...

People always have to complain about something. If you are one of the very few passengers chosen to be patted down, just suck it up and be thankful your plane won't explode. Being uncomfortable for two minutes won't kill you, but a hidden bomb probably will.

Rihin Chavda Prd-1st said...

First of all, its safety first, if you do not want to be touched dont fly. i understand their problems about someone's wife being touched, but that is why a woman security is touching her, not a man. If they dislike the policy let them drive. but on the plane, it's safety first because if some one person goes unchecked that could risk the lives of everyone else on the plane, which is a large number. I think the law is fine the way it is.

Maggie Duke said...

Unlike most other problems, at least to me, this seems like one that does not have a definite answer. Though I am all for physical privacy, I am all for effective security as well. I do not think security or privacy should be minimized or even ignored. The real question to me is not whether these procedures are invasive, I believe all sides contest to that; it is more a question of the results. For instance, if these procedures are raking in more explosive (an actual percentage more) than was the previous system, then those numbers should be made public and I think the public would in turn quiet down a bit. This is a bit problematic seeing as how it’s a very new system and so no real numbers are definitive yet. Also, something I think airlines should VERY SUTBLY capitalize on is the fact that they are a business and not a government entity. As such, they have certain rights in the free-enterprise system to use whatever means (efficient and necessary) to uphold security and, ultimately, the safety of the passengers. Once again, a solution that will prove to be problematic, one, because how do you go about this subtly and yet capitalize on it and two, the embittered rebuttals they will receive because of the fact that they use several government entities in turn for the business to be one at all. (i.e., air?).

Like I said, not a problem that has a ready answer or ready solution, but there is an idea that I heard on a nightly news report:
"We should be training airline employees, not how to spot a bomb, but rather how to spot the bomber."

Laura Liu 5th said...

I agree with John Pistole; security is the top priority. I would rather go through the full body scan knowing it could detect nonmetal explosives than just going through a metal detector knowing that there have been times when it hadn't stopped a terrorist. Also, if people object to pat downs, then they should just go through the scanner. The person monitoring doesn't know who they are looking at so there really shouldn't be a big issue over privacy.

Joshua Powe 1 said...

Well this is a major step in the right direction for the government. The formula in these drinks are very lethal and should be banned. Great idea.

Unknown said...

So basically some people rather be untouched and allow bombs on a airplane? Calm down people its not like after they pat you down the security officer is going to ask you on a date or for your number!! It is just for our safety. Personally I like the pat downs:)!

Raul Perez 1 said...

I believe that the TSA should not be invading people's privacy with such grotesque pat-downs.They need to respect people's privacy. There should be more use of the scanners than the pat-downs. I have a theory, that this is all hype to frighten terrorists from trying to sneak dangerous items onto planes.