The ETD swab Test as a Proxy for Random Full Genital Searches

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by nachtnebel, Oct 16, 2012.

  1. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    With the recent Dan Loesch incident, it has become quite clear that the TSA's ETD swab test protocol is not a badly designed and implemented test. People who object to this test are very vocal in their complaints that it flags a huge number of commonly used products, that it alarms 100% of the time on people who don't have explosives on them.

    We are ignoring the obvious.

    What security people have been calling for is random full body searches, including genitals. Clearly, random genital probing like what is done to "resolve ETD alarms" would be politically unfeasable if done on people at random. But what if you could achieve this using the cover of a test that yields alarms on a very large swath of the people? You would have in effect a random full body and genital area search with everyone involved, victim and searcher, thinking it was because of an alarm.

    It's not. The overbroad net cast by the ETD test is there by design. It is by design intended to generate full body and genital area searches. We are wasting our breath talking about the ETD flagging innocent people. TSA knows this and wants this.
  2. I have thought this, too. The same principle is true, I think, of the caliber of people they hire. They preference a low-brow, low-intelligence, criminal element not by accident or incompetence, but because those people do the kind of job the TSA wants done (if only in that they are more than willing to violate people's rights, persons, and property).

    But back to ETD searches, yes. If it was just that their machinery was unfortunately faulty but a better solution wasn't available, the protocol for clearing a false positive would include a second, carefully executed test to rule out contamination or machine error or whatever. Reports I've read indicate that even when numerous innocent people in a day are being hauled aside to get their genitals rubbed and the clerks are commenting about the faulty nature of the tests, they continue to do the tests, and they continue to rub the genitals.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  3. Al Coholic

    Al Coholic Member

    Two words: drug dogs. Houston PD brings them to IAH boarding gates, too, to give cover to TSA. By my count, out of 20 bags, 3 alerts, zero positives.
  4. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    Another point that I would like to make on this subject is:
    I believe this part of the "Super Sekreet Inanity" so-called "SOP" is detested by those (very few) screeners who do not feel comfortable rubbing the crotches of strangers with the front of their gloved hands, and this is why they try their damndest to get everyone to go through the Nekid-O-Scopes. Even if an "anomoly" is found in the "crotch area," the ETD swab of the gloves is not performed which eliminates the possibility of a "private room" (read "Passenger's Privates") search :td: .
    Well, that's my theory, anyway.:rolleyes:
  5. RB

    RB Founding Member

    If conducting a test using a cloth sampling patch would it not be wise to verify the patch is not contaminated before testing a person for contamination?

    Nothing about TSA's testing criteria makes any sense. ETD testing adds nothing of value to the screening process other than, as natchnebel points out, an almost guarenteed way for TSA to put their hands in your crotch.

Share This Page