In a Wall Street Journal interview over the weekend, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) bureucrat John Pistole admitted that his security decisions are limited by TSA politics. What a dangerous situation to have your security dictated by political concerns.
From the Wall Street Journal interview:
There will be no additional tortures. Cavity searches or other more expansive body checks are out at least as long as terrorist body bombs require, as today, an external initiator or trigger. “As far as the intrusiveness and the invasiveness of the person, based on what we know, I don’t see us going further than” current policy, he says. “I don’t think we can, frankly. I think we’ve probably reached the public limit.”
Either the TSA provides real security or what they do is security theater; a show aimed at making travelers feel safe, but that doesn’t actually make them significantly safer. Either Pistole is delivering security that responds to the threat in a comprehensive and effective way or he is not. He can not have it both ways.
If he is backing off of providing what he considers to be real security because of the public outcry, that is an admission that his goal is not real security. If he is providing real airport security, then why is a public outcry relevant? Will he only accept that security which the public won’t complain about too loudly? It seems that way. And this is one of many reasons why politicizing airport security will never work. It must remain firmly outside the sphere of politics and government so that it can not be compromised by purely political concerns.
New technology may bring some relief, as well. The agency is testing a next generation of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) that can spot foreign objects without all the anatomical detail thrown in. Amsterdam airport already uses such so-called blob machines, which show an outline of the body. “I’m a big proponent of those,” Mr. Pistole says …
Filtering nude body scanner images through cartoon-figure filters is a band-aid solution. Like a band-aid, there are ways of removing the cartoon-figure filter, either through capabilities purposely implemented by the manufacturer or by unauthorized modification of the software. This is smoke and mirrors.
The Wall Street Journal thinks the debate is about “the proper balance between safety and civil liberties”. This is poppycock and it plays to the strengths of the TSA (and Homeland Security). Any compromise of liberty puts us in danger. Liberty is required for there to be safety. The TSA is forcing us to trade all of our civil liberties at airport checkpoints – where TSA agents claim they can do anything they like with us – for no additional security. This is the bottom line that the other side refuses to recognize. They have no answer for it so they can’t admit it.
I [the reporter] met Mr. Pistole at the Secure Flight facility in a cookie-cutter office complex (exact location withheld at TSA’s request) near Washington. Floors of computer servers and intelligence analysts here clear the names of up to two million passengers flying within or into the U.S. each day.
I thought clearance was only necessary for inbound flyers from outside the US. Did anyone know about the internal clearances? It’s news to me. Has anyone been denied internal travel by this protocol?
This as-close-to-zero-risk-as-possible approach reflects the political reality of a country that wouldn’t hesitate to second-guess him if there was a successful attack. Hence the “blunt force approach,” says Mr. Pistole, adding that, “I’m sorry for the inconvenience to those people who feel like their privacy or their civil liberties have been abridged or negatively impacted, but for me it really comes down to trying to save lives.”
If Pistole can’t do the right thing without trampling our dignity and privacy he should get off the hot seat. Period. End of story.
But whether the controversial AIT machine would even spot an underwear bomb is a matter of debate. TSA “never put it on someone and tested it,” Mr. Pistole says. “I’m assured that . . . it’s not a 100% guarantee but it gives us the best opportunity to pick it up.”
Finally, the TSA admits something we have been saying for some time. The scanners would not have detected the explosive device used by the underwear bomber. But, they were rolled out on that pretext. One lie corrected, hundreds to go, John.
“Yeah, it’s inconvenient,” he says, but “for those who say it’s groping, I wonder how many have actually been through it.” For the sake of journalism, I opted out of the full-body image screen this week at Washington’s Reagan Airport to test this premise. A friendly screener patted me down with “the back of my hand” in sensitive areas, and didn’t honor the TSA’s invocation to run up the thigh until he met resistance. My experience wasn’t bad, but Mr. Pistole admits that isn’t always the case.
Why have the pat downs been toned down? No answer here. But we need one. Is the TSA toning them down nationwide? Are individual screeners rebelling? I’d like to know. What about you?
” Cavity searches or other more expansive body checks are out at least as long as terrorist body bombs require, as today, an external initiator or trigger. ”
They have been using remotely controlled bombs (IED?) in Iraq for years, John Sandford in one of his Prey novels, the second one with the female assassin, describes a plausible method of rigging a cell phone.
And yes there have been internal clearance checks in the US since 9/11. Ted Kennedy supposedly was denied travel clearance once. Please note that the ID checks prior to 9/11 were done by the airline to ensure that the person flying was the person named on the ticket. The airlines have a revenue source by not letting a wife, as example, fly on a ticket in her husband’s name. It had no security basis.
Oh, right, forgot about that. Of course. Thanks.
You ask, “I thought clearance was only necessary for inbound flyers from outside the US. Did anyone know about the internal clearances? It’s news to me. ”
The internal “clearance process is called “Secure Flight”. While the TSA has described Secure Flight in terms of “shifting watchlist matching from airlines to the TSA”, the Secure Flight clearance (permission) process is a black box that isn;t limited to watchlist matching.
The essence of Secure Flight is a change in the default from YES (you *can* fly unless your name matches a name on a watchlist) to NO (you *can’t* fly unless, after sending the TSA your name and other information, the airline receives individualized, per-person, per-flight prior permission to board you, in the form of a “cleared” message from TSA):
https://www.papersplease.org/sf_faq.html
This aspect of Secure Flight was the central basis for the objections to Secure Flifiled by the Identity Project with the TSA, and my testimony at the TSA hearing on Secure Flight:
https://www.papersplease.org/sf_resources.html
You also ask, “Has anyone been denied internal travel by this protocol?”
We don’t know, since (1) the “cleared/not cleared/inhibited” messages are sent to the airline, not the traveler, (2) the policy of the TSA is never to confirm or deny that anyone was denied travel on the TSA’S orders, and (3) no US court has yet reviewed the legality of any no-fly order (in part because this secrecy of the corders makes it difficult to establish legal standing to challenge an order the TSA won’t confirm was issued.
Thanks for the great comment!
“Reached the public limit?” Oh, I think they’ve pretty much passed the public limit. The “warm and friendly” interview being referenced the abuses of the TSA are pretty much papered-over. Reign in the TSA now! Spend the money on real, effective security practices, not this “security theater” drivel that’s been foisted onto the American people. The TSA is essentially a jobs program whose only real product so far has been unwanted intrusion on our Fourth Ammendment rights. “Feel” as though our rights have been violated Mr. Pistole? No, it’s a fact our rights are being violated.
Its only going to get worse. We have to defeat these lying molesters now, before they get stronger.
Molesting security theater that doesn’t even serve the cause of safety is a strong motivator for resistance.
The idea of a cartoon filter is close to a total joke. What can be distorted through software can be undistorted through other software.
In case of a crime, these images become of forensic value — so obviously individuals must be identifiable in court, if need be. The filter is nothing. (Not to mention, that the images will be saved — another TSA lie.)
The TSA lies so much they are both sexual molesters and mind molesters.
I’m really curious about what internal justifications and communications happened at TSA to implement the “backing off” of the grope-searches over the recent holidays. Is anyone filing a narrowly tailored Freedom of Information Act request to get these internal policy communications? I assume there must have been such communications because the TSA definitely changed their policy (silently and temporarily) across the country at the very same time they were strongly denying they would change anything.
I think this could be very important because it is likely to conclusively prove that TSA policies are not unchangeable and in fact are manipulated to suit PR and perception goals (instead of supposed security) – something that TSA’s public statements emphatically deny.
The reason I say that the FOIA request must be narrowly tailored is that TSA will inevitably invoke “security” as justification to stonewall releasing this info. That’s why the request must be restricted to past communications about the policy modifications around this specific holiday and not disclosure of current or future policies.