They May Not Have Thought This Through
Nov. 2nd, 2010 03:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Recently in the news is the American TSA (you know, the nice uniformed people in airports who do security) and their new technique for discouraging people from opting out of those awful body scanner security theatre devices. Apparently they have gone in for very public, very intimate pat downs, presumably in an attempt to humiliate refuseniks into using the "perve at your naked body scanners".
One source quotes someone in the know:
Passengers have reported feeling unpleasantly surprised at the intimacy of the searches, but I can't help feeling that the TSA haven't thought this through very clearly, because there's an obvious problem with this from their point of view, which I think I can illustrate with this video:
Just saying...
Also posted at http://auntysarah.dreamwidth.org/248323.html - you can comment here or there.
One source quotes someone in the know:
An effective pat down "has to be invasive" and touch both breasts and genitals, says Billie Vincent, a former security director for the Federal Aviation Administration. "It is clearly a technique that most people would consider an invasion of their privacy."
Passengers have reported feeling unpleasantly surprised at the intimacy of the searches, but I can't help feeling that the TSA haven't thought this through very clearly, because there's an obvious problem with this from their point of view, which I think I can illustrate with this video:
Just saying...
Also posted at http://auntysarah.dreamwidth.org/248323.html - you can comment here or there.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 04:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 04:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 05:14 pm (UTC)And with regard to the actual effectiveness of any of these extra security crackdowns...well, it pains me to have to agree with Michael O'Leary.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 06:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 06:01 pm (UTC)Ta much! :-)
no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 06:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 06:28 pm (UTC)I did watch (and enjoy) the film as a child when I had friends over, but my mother stood over us and fastforwarded any dentist scenes as my brother was going to the dentist the next day and she didn't want him to be scared. So I missed all these bits! (And now I am the one going to the dentist soon, who doesn't want to be scared...)
no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 06:22 pm (UTC)Still like the stories of people going through the scanners after taking viagra :-) Have you heard that the scanners are becoming compulsory at Manchester Airport?
no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 06:26 pm (UTC)a) 60% of air freight leaving or entering the UK goes on passenger flights,
b) it's <b>solely</b> up to the country of departure as to whether they want to security checks on said freight,
c) we (UK) have the tightest checks in the world on (outgoing) air freight, but that still manages to only covers a 'representative sample' of items, and is a fraction as through as those done on ALL passenger luggage*.
d) an organisation representing international air freight movers whose name I forget called the system of security checks 'a pathetic mess',
it makes all this stage-show with passenger checks seem terribly like "we have always been at war with Eurasia".
I sometimes wonder if this 'terrorism target - weak point treadmill' (like euphamism treadmill) will continue to be played out till advantage is taken of the fact ISO containers are very rarely checked before entering the country, our lorries regularly haul ISOs into city centres, and they can currently carry up to 29 tons (may be getting increased) [1]. Which in terms of modern chemical explosives equates to ~46tons equiv of TNT.
* yet they check 8 out of 10 parcels for tax levying
no subject
Date: 2010-11-02 09:05 pm (UTC)We must do something.
This is something.
Therefore, we must do it.