20 proposals to help achieve real security

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Cartoon Peril, Aug 1, 2011.

?

Can we really trust passengers to protect themselves?

  1. Yes, in the end, we have no other choice

    85.7%
  2. (Michael Chertoff only, please) No, that would cut into my 401(k) account.

    14.3%
  1. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    I have no objection to effective security at airports. The problem is that the current regime isn't effective. The major problem is that it doesn't recognize that passengers are the major defense against terrorism. Yet the regime treats every passenger as a potential terrorist, and meanwhile plays silly games such as the snowglobe ban. Here are 20 proposals which would IMHO actually increase actual security.

    1. There must be an atmosphere of trust restored.

    2. The general rule should be that every passenger is presumed to be trustworthy.

    3. All screening rules will be posted on-line and at the airport. There will be sufficient discretion given in particular cases to waive or alter the screening rules, but there shall be a record made in every instance where this is done. This may or may not become public record, but the presumption is that it will be

    4. There will be full and accurate disclosure of what screening includes. If it includes touching the breasts of women, or the genitalia of either men or women, that will be disclosed and anatomically correct language will be used rather than euphemisms.

    5. The WTMD and hand wands will be restored as the primary screening tool.

    6. It will be a federal felony to steal anything of value from passengers.

    7. All screeners will be required to wear a tag with their last name and badge number on it.

    8. No baggage will be opened outside of the presence of a law enforcement officer, and a full record maintained as to who, what, and when the bag was opened.

    9. Disrespect of any kind towards anyone will not be tolerated. This goes for passengers as well as for TSOs.

    10. All persons entering the secure area will be subject to equal level of screening.

    11. Parents of child will not be physically separated from children during the course of any search.

    12. A passenger ombudsman's office will be created, with the objective of investigating complaints and collecting passenger suggestions as to security improvements.

    13. There will be no further effort or discussion made of the supposed $11,000 fine.

    14. Persons who appear to be testing security will be referred to law enforcement for investigation. Insofar as all screening rules will be made public, and all rules will be fully, frankly and openly disclosed, there will be no “grope shock” that seems to generate much of the reluctance to proceed.

    15. All screening of the elderly, the infirm, and minors must be done in the presence of a medical personal provided by TSA, but not answerable to TSA, if a passenger so requests, and the right to so request shall be clearly communicated well in advance to potential passengers.

    16. All genital contact with minors must be reported to the passenger ombudsman's office, with a specific statement as to who, why, when and where it occurred, and why less intrusive means would not be effective to screen the passenger.

    17. All airports to the maximum extent possible shall have the same rules, and these shall be known and not secret.

    18. There will be no screening in a “private room” unless the person is under arrest, in which case the search would have to comply with law enforcement protocol.

    19. There will be no gawking, gaping, or staring by male TSOs at female passengers being searched. Any violation of this rule will be reported to the passenger ombudsman's office.

    20. The Behavior Detection Program will be abolished, and the funds used to fund genuine police investigations into threats to aircraft security.
     
    Fisher1949 and AngryMiller like this.
  2. FetePerfection

    FetePerfection Founding Member Coach

    No way...this can't happen...it makes too much sense. :)
     
    barbell and AngryMiller like this.
  3. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    Sorry for making sense ;-) BTW, did you notice how I was actually expecting passengers to contribute, be respectful, etc.? Hoping to shift the whole attitude away from bullying and sullen compliance.
     
    barbell and AngryMiller like this.
  4. FetePerfection

    FetePerfection Founding Member Coach

    I did notice and felt for one brief moment a little annoyed but realized exactly what you were trying to accomplish... Btw I volunteer to work in the passengers ombudsman's office to field all complaints, for a mere multi-six figure income of course.
     
    AngryMiller likes this.
  5. AngryMiller

    AngryMiller Original Member

    Ah, yes. Can see it now. Perhaps the traveler thought you were on fire when they urinated on you. Instead of being angry you should be thanking them for being proactive....
     
  6. FetePerfection

    FetePerfection Founding Member Coach

    Laughing very loudly over this...
     
  7. I like your list. A couple suggestions...

    16. Breast and butt contact should be included in this one as well.

    18. Some people want private screening for whatever reason. Private screening should probably always be an offered option, but always the passenger's choice. The private room should have video surveillance and a witness or non-TSA passenger advocate should always be available and present, unless the passenger waives the right.
     
  8. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    Sorry, I was trying to think up all the naughty bits as rapidly as possible!
     
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Generally a good list, problem with #9 is the definition of "disrespect" (usually charged as "disorderly conduct"). Citizens (passengers) have a constitutional right to criticize government and its representatives. This criticism might seem unpleasant & inconvenient to those who are criticized, but it still is constitutionally protected.

    Watch the Andrea Abbott case -- it will hinge on this.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  10. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    My hope would be that with full disclosure and reestablishment of trust, mutual respect would follow without the rather tricky question of defining "respect".
     
  11. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Great to put alternatives out there that deal with the trust issue, not just technique!
    & #4 genitalia--Nope --done with that.

    Yes, all the rules out in the open. Pat-downs? If there is cause, then there is a standard (real) police procedure. Having a body does not indicate suspicion/cause, per #2.
    Be interesting to see TSA's response, because they seem really, really committed to the groping and we can only speculate as to why. (But I don't think logic is part of their model).
     
  12. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    add where you like:

    w. No TSA clerk shall touch buttocks, sexual organs, hair, or any other part of the body for any reason. If there is probable cause to suspect dangerous items being concealed upon a person, that person should be turned over to LEOs for further searches and they shall be liable to defend their actions in court under current case law regarding reasonable searches by LEOs.

    x. No device or test shall be used on passengers if it generates false positives, for any reason. False positives mean that the test or device indicates the presences of items or substances that in fact are NOT on the passenger.

    y. No person who is in a wheelchair, or that has a cast or prosthetic, or that has surgery or any disability, shall be imposed upon to submit to medically unsafe procedures, or any procedures performed by unqualified TSA clerk personnel (see definition of "house troll" in subpart j). They shall not be physically felt over or groped in their private areas, forced to disrobe or divest themselves of diapers or medical attachments

    z. The doctrine of administrative search, commonly known as the "Anything Goes" exception, shall be executed at dawn by Seal Team 6, and quietly interred in the deepest hole on the face of the earth.

    z sub 1: Every lavatory in the sterile area shall have a small statue of John Pistole installed as the centerpiece in each men's urinal.

    z sub 2: No TSA clerk who has participated in rubdowns of passengers shall continue in employment with TSA. Those who have outstanding complaints against them and have video evidence against them can be prosecuted under assault statutes. This latter includes anyone who authorized such rubdowns, up to and including the President of the United States.
     
    RadioGirl, barbell and KrazyKat like this.
  13. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Comment:

    A screener doesn't remove so much as a piece of tissue from a passenger's bag.

    If only someone with some sense would suggest these measures.

    I don't think we have to speculate; we know why they are groping people. It's because the tag team of Pistole and Nappy have been convinced, thanks to Skeletor, that someone will bring explosives on board a plane and that the only way to find those explosives is via the use of the nude-o-scope and if such is refused, via an extremely invasive grope.
     
    barbell likes this.
  14. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Face, (expletive deleted). This planet's got a core and I suggest we make damn good use of it.
     
    RadioGirl and nachtnebel like this.
  15. mikemey

    mikemey Original Member

    It makes too much sense, therefore the government will never enact it.

    I thoroughly like it though.
     
  16. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    I honestly think it's more than that. It's to enforce compliance. Unquestioning obedience. We already have enough testimony, on the record, by TSA agents themselves that the gropes are meant to be punitive.
     
    barbell and AngryMiller like this.
  17. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    The Donald tells
    "You're Fired!"

    Seriously, credentialing dogs?
     
    AngryMiller likes this.
  18. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I would quibble and say (expletive deleted) is too good.
     
  19. AngryMiller

    AngryMiller Original Member

    At MSP last Wed. morning I told the groper to stay off of my testicles, scrotum, and perineum. Closed upper thighs together and was told to relax. To his credit though he did keep his paws off those places. This is getting tiring. If I didn't need a job I wouldn't be working as a field service tech. For those who say change careers, how many people are willing to hire someone 58 yrs old and in marginal health?
     
    barbell likes this.
  20. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Saying "change careers," to anyone, in this economy -- which will only get worse -- is ignorant. People can't just snap their fingers and change their jobs. Never could, but certainly not now.

    I feel tremendously lucky that I'm in a situation where I make my own hours and work from home. I take the occasional business trip, but only by train nowadays, since I told my various freelance employers that I won't fly. Going to Boston later this month on the train.

    But I feel for people who must fly for work. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. Some HR departments have started to address this and have had to change their policies. They don't want to be accused of forcing people to risk assault as a condition of employment. I think this is a good avenue to pursue. If I still worked at a company, I'd be pushing the HR department, by repeatedly asking about it, to develop a policy to address this.
     
    AngryMiller likes this.

Share This Page