ETD For Pax Opting-Out, But Not Pax Being Irradiated

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by FriendlySkies, Aug 30, 2011.

  1. FriendlySkies

    FriendlySkies Member

    I've been enjoying the Kansas afternoon, and stopped for a few minutes to think about the following scenario.

    If I opt-out, I am groped, and then have to submit to a clerk that is using an ETD trap that they grabbed from the top of the machine, and may then have to fight with the clerk over a false positive.

    If I was somehow stupid enough to use the Porno Scope, I get irradiated, and, assuming no anomalies, I'm sent on my how, without getting tested with the ETD.

    Why are those of us that opt-out subjected to the ETD? I'd argue that the pat-down is the more invasive search, and can detect more than the NoS, but they're left untested.

    Thoughts? Perhaps one of our resident screening clerks would like to answer?
    barbell likes this.
  2. INK

    INK Original Member

    I have thought about this as well, and here is my guess. The pat down has two purposes. The first is to feel around for something that does not feel like a "normal" body part. The second is to collect a sample of your person for the ETD test. As sticking the swab down your pants or collar would just be totally wrong, they do the same thing by probing with the gloves and then checking the gloves. Consider it the passenger body equivalent of the secondary bag check. It may even be that the ETD check is the primary purpose and that the frisk is the ruse to pull it off. It may also explain the possibility of the seemingly reduced intensity of pat downs of late. They get just as good an ETD check with the collar/waist check as they did with the Karate chop.
    nachtnebel and Cartoon Peril like this.
  3. RB

    RB Founding Member

    On my last Opt Out the screener grabbed a ETD patch off the top of the machine. I commented that it might be contaminated. The screener tested the patch prior to rubbing their gloves after my feel down.
  4. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    I might trust an answer from an ex-screening clerk.

    I don't trust anyone who's still working for the TSA.
    Kara Harkins likes this.
  5. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Because TSA claims that the Porno Scope can find explosives.
    Elizabeth Conley and Wimpie like this.
  6. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    This could also explain rubbing bare skin and face, assuming that stupidity is not the only reason.
  7. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    The TSA's claim is that Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) can detect explosives.

    This statement is false, and to those of us who use imaging technology it is glaringly obvious that the technology does not detect explosives.

    What it does detect, however, is tissues, lint, bra clasps, awesome hair, eye glasses, pleats, and sweat stains, among other (generally) harmless items.

    Let's take TSA at its word. They screen 2 million passengers, on average, daily. Of those I'd say 30% go through the NoS currently. Even though I've witnessed 100% post-NoS pat downs, let's take the numbers from German testing at 70% failure on false positives.

    Therefore, TSA's claim is that they are detecting 420,000 potential bombs and explosives daily. DAILY. In the 9 months the NoS has been used as primary screening, TSA has used "explosive detecting" devices that have uncovered 113,400,000 possible bombs. And yet they rub these possible bombs with their hands, and then send these people on their way.

    Monica47, Doober and Cartoon Peril like this.
  8. Pesky Monkey

    Pesky Monkey Original Member

    They're looking for drugs, not bombs.
  9. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    Let's get a visual on that:
  10. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I'm pretty sure everyone at the TSA from top to bottom knows ETD is an expensive, useless waste of time. They add it to the gropedown dog and pony show in order to make opting out even more time consuming and annoying.

    The opt-out dog and pony show with its ritualized humiliation, long delays, sexual assaults and ETD theatre has always been about making opting out as unpleasant as subhumanly possible.
    Lisa Simeone and Cartoon Peril like this.
  11. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Right on both counts, particularly expensive. It's not far-fetched to imagine that someone's getting Chertoff-style kickbacks for those ETD machines.

    This is why I'm trying to figure out how to make a public spectacle of "Look at me, I don't mind this because it gets me out of the scanner!" It's a rare case of my Asperger's working in my advantage - I'm publically uncomfortable no matter the circumstances, but it's only really bad if attention is drawn to me because I screwed something up, and it's actually worse in that case with familiar or semi-familiar people than it is with an airport full of people I'll never see again. The "humiliation" aspect they're trying to throw in is essentially neurologically incompatible with me by way of being too late. I figure this puts me in a good position to try to get people to notice that "OH GOLLY OH GEE, WHY THIS IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE SCANNER. I CAN NOT SEE WHY ANYBODY WOULD EVER CHOOSE TO GO THROUGH A SCANNER OF BODIES WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE TO AVOID IT. I WILL DO THIS EVERY TIME BECAUSE IT IS BETTER!"

    Basically it's about making the "we're gonna make you regret opting out" ploy blow up in their faces.
  12. Kara Harkins

    Kara Harkins Member

    I know what you mean. I am an aspie too and generally feel 'well, I am already miserable with all of my social triggers screaming so my best option is to take some control of things and for them to be more miserable than me'.

Share This Page