Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder
<http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB110661076703534640,00.html> The Wall Street Journal January 25, 2005 THE MIDDLE SEAT By SCOTT MCCARTNEY Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder More Travelers Are Stopped For 'Secondary' Checks; A Missed Flight to Atlanta January 25, 2005 The frequency of secondary security screening at airports has increased, and complaints are soaring. Roughly one in every seven passengers is now tagged for "secondary screening" -- a special search in which an airport screener runs a metal-detecting wand around a traveler's body, then pats down the passenger and searches through bags -- according to the Transportation Security Administration. Currently, 10% to 15% of passengers are picked randomly before boarding passes are issued, the TSA says. An additional number -- the TSA won't say how many -- are selected by the government's generic profiling system, where buying a one-way ticket, paying cash or other factors can earn you extra screening. And more travelers are picked by TSA screeners who spot suspicious bulges or shapes under clothing. "It's fair to say the frequency of secondary screening has gone up," says TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter. "Screeners have greater discretion." That may explain why passenger complaints about screening have roughly doubled every month since August. According to numbers compiled by the TSA and reported to the Department of Transportation, 83 travelers complained about screening in August, then 150 in September and 385 in October. By November, the last month reported, complaints had skyrocketed to 652. To be sure, increased use of pat-down procedures in late September after terrorists smuggled bombs aboard two planes in Russia undoubtedly boosted those numbers, though many of those complaints were categorized as "courtesy" issues, not "screening," in the data TSA reports to the DOT. There were 115 courtesy complaints filed with the DOT in September, then 690 in October. By November, the number of courtesy complaints receded to 218. Yet the increased traveler anger at secondary screening hasn't receded. Road warriors complain bitterly about the arbitrary nature of the screening -- many get singled out for one leg of a trip, but not another. For Douglas Downing, a secondary-screening problem resulted in a canceled trip. Mr. Downing was flying from Seattle to Atlanta last fall. He went through security routinely and sat at the gate an hour ahead of his flight's departure. As he boarded, a Delta Air Lines employee noticed that his boarding pass, marked with SSSS, hadn't been cleared by the TSA. He was sent back to the security checkpoint. By the time he got screened and returned to the gate, the flight had departed. Delta offered a later flight, but his schedule was so tight he had to cancel the trip. Delta did refund the ticket, even though the airline said it was the TSA's mistake not to catch the screening code. TSA officials blamed Delta. TSA screeners often blame airlines, according to frequent travelers. Ask a screener why you got picked for screening, and they often say the airline does the selection and questions should be directed to the airline. But airlines say they shouldn't be blamed, since they are only running the TSA's programs, and the TSA's Ms. von Walter concurs. "I wouldn't go so far as to say we're blaming them," she said. "Perhaps some screeners are misinformed in those cases." She also says the TSA isn't sure why screening complaints have risen so sharply since August, although the agency says it may be the result of greater TSA advertising of its "contact center" (e-mail TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov or call 1-866-289-9673). If you do get picked, here is how it happened. The TSA requires airlines to pick 10% to 15% of travelers at random. Airlines can "de-select" a passenger picked at random, such as a child, officials say. In addition, the government's current passenger-profiling system, called Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS, picks out passengers. The system, which resides in or communicates with each airline's reservation computers, gives you a score based largely on how you bought your ticket. Airline officials say the TSA has changed the different weightings given various factors, and certain markets may have higher programmed rates for selectees. Passenger lists also are checked against the TSA's list of suspicious names, which has included rather common names and even names of U.S. senators. Interestingly, airline gate agents who see suspicious-looking passengers can no longer flag them for security. Some ticket-counter agents did flag several hijackers for extra security on Sept. 11, 2001, and were praised for their work in the 9/11 Commission's final report. At the time, all that meant was the airline took precautions with the hijackers' checked luggage. But because of racial-discrimination concerns, airline officials aren't allowed to single out passengers for scrutiny; only TSA screeners can do that. If picked in advance by the computer system, your boarding pass gets marked some way to identify your "selectee" status. Some airlines print "SSSS" in a corner. When you show up at the checkpoint, you should be picked out as a selectee. The TSA counts on contractors checking boarding passes and driver's licenses to steer you to the selectee line, but that is also why screeners make travelers display boarding passes several times through the gauntlet. At some airports, the TSA also does one final check of boarding passes when you leave the security area -- to check again for selectees. Once checked, the TSA marks your boarding pass so that flight attendants or airline gate agents boarding planes know you got a thorough poking and prodding. The TSA says it hopes the frequency of secondary screening will decline when it gets its new profiling system in place. "Secure Flight" will use passenger records from airlines to, it is hoped, sniff out terrorists. The system will focus on the passenger and not simply how the ticket was bought. The TSA is testing comparing airline bookings against other commercially available information as well as government databases, which has raised privacy concerns. Current testing using historical airline data is supposed to end this month. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
More indications of an emerging 'Brazil' scenario, as opposed to a hyper-intelligent super-fascist state. -TD
From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com> To: cryptography@metzdowd.com, cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net, osint@yahoogroups.com Subject: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:19:25 -0500
<http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB110661076703534640,00.html>
The Wall Street Journal
January 25, 2005
THE MIDDLE SEAT By SCOTT MCCARTNEY
Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder More Travelers Are Stopped For 'Secondary' Checks; A Missed Flight to Atlanta January 25, 2005
The frequency of secondary security screening at airports has increased, and complaints are soaring.
Roughly one in every seven passengers is now tagged for "secondary screening" -- a special search in which an airport screener runs a metal-detecting wand around a traveler's body, then pats down the passenger and searches through bags -- according to the Transportation Security Administration.
Currently, 10% to 15% of passengers are picked randomly before boarding passes are issued, the TSA says. An additional number -- the TSA won't say how many -- are selected by the government's generic profiling system, where buying a one-way ticket, paying cash or other factors can earn you extra screening. And more travelers are picked by TSA screeners who spot suspicious bulges or shapes under clothing.
"It's fair to say the frequency of secondary screening has gone up," says TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter. "Screeners have greater discretion."
That may explain why passenger complaints about screening have roughly doubled every month since August. According to numbers compiled by the TSA and reported to the Department of Transportation, 83 travelers complained about screening in August, then 150 in September and 385 in October. By November, the last month reported, complaints had skyrocketed to 652.
To be sure, increased use of pat-down procedures in late September after terrorists smuggled bombs aboard two planes in Russia undoubtedly boosted those numbers, though many of those complaints were categorized as "courtesy" issues, not "screening," in the data TSA reports to the DOT. There were 115 courtesy complaints filed with the DOT in September, then 690 in October. By November, the number of courtesy complaints receded to 218.
Yet the increased traveler anger at secondary screening hasn't receded. Road warriors complain bitterly about the arbitrary nature of the screening -- many get singled out for one leg of a trip, but not another.
For Douglas Downing, a secondary-screening problem resulted in a canceled trip. Mr. Downing was flying from Seattle to Atlanta last fall. He went through security routinely and sat at the gate an hour ahead of his flight's departure. As he boarded, a Delta Air Lines employee noticed that his boarding pass, marked with SSSS, hadn't been cleared by the TSA. He was sent back to the security checkpoint.
By the time he got screened and returned to the gate, the flight had departed. Delta offered a later flight, but his schedule was so tight he had to cancel the trip. Delta did refund the ticket, even though the airline said it was the TSA's mistake not to catch the screening code. TSA officials blamed Delta.
TSA screeners often blame airlines, according to frequent travelers. Ask a screener why you got picked for screening, and they often say the airline does the selection and questions should be directed to the airline.
But airlines say they shouldn't be blamed, since they are only running the TSA's programs, and the TSA's Ms. von Walter concurs. "I wouldn't go so far as to say we're blaming them," she said. "Perhaps some screeners are misinformed in those cases."
She also says the TSA isn't sure why screening complaints have risen so sharply since August, although the agency says it may be the result of greater TSA advertising of its "contact center" (e-mail TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov or call 1-866-289-9673).
If you do get picked, here is how it happened.
The TSA requires airlines to pick 10% to 15% of travelers at random. Airlines can "de-select" a passenger picked at random, such as a child, officials say.
In addition, the government's current passenger-profiling system, called Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS, picks out passengers. The system, which resides in or communicates with each airline's reservation computers, gives you a score based largely on how you bought your ticket. Airline officials say the TSA has changed the different weightings given various factors, and certain markets may have higher programmed rates for selectees.
Passenger lists also are checked against the TSA's list of suspicious names, which has included rather common names and even names of U.S. senators.
Interestingly, airline gate agents who see suspicious-looking passengers can no longer flag them for security. Some ticket-counter agents did flag several hijackers for extra security on Sept. 11, 2001, and were praised for their work in the 9/11 Commission's final report. At the time, all that meant was the airline took precautions with the hijackers' checked luggage. But because of racial-discrimination concerns, airline officials aren't allowed to single out passengers for scrutiny; only TSA screeners can do that.
If picked in advance by the computer system, your boarding pass gets marked some way to identify your "selectee" status. Some airlines print "SSSS" in a corner.
When you show up at the checkpoint, you should be picked out as a selectee. The TSA counts on contractors checking boarding passes and driver's licenses to steer you to the selectee line, but that is also why screeners make travelers display boarding passes several times through the gauntlet. At some airports, the TSA also does one final check of boarding passes when you leave the security area -- to check again for selectees.
Once checked, the TSA marks your boarding pass so that flight attendants or airline gate agents boarding planes know you got a thorough poking and prodding.
The TSA says it hopes the frequency of secondary screening will decline when it gets its new profiling system in place. "Secure Flight" will use passenger records from airlines to, it is hoped, sniff out terrorists. The system will focus on the passenger and not simply how the ticket was bought. The TSA is testing comparing airline bookings against other commercially available information as well as government databases, which has raised privacy concerns. Current testing using historical airline data is supposed to end this month.
-- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
--- Tyler Durden <camera_lumina@hotmail.com> wrote: [airport security]
More indications of an emerging 'Brazil' scenario, as opposed to a hyper-intelligent super-fascist state.
As if. There already is a kind of intelligent super-fascist state in place thoughout much of society. My bugbears of the moment are the police and courts, so you get my take on how they are organised so as to be 'intelligent' without seeming so -- which further enables a whole lot of fraud to masqerade as process and incompetence. The super-fascist part comes about because the system avoids public accountability while also somehow evading any sort of reasonable standard of performance. What's the error rate, that is the false arrest, prosecution, and/or conviction rate of a Western countries' judiciary and police divitions? If it's even ten percent, and it's probably much higher, then there is no reason to respect the operation and perpetuation of the system. And consider how the courts deal with error. After all is said and done, the victim is expected to launch appeals at his own expense to force the system to take official notice of judicial "error". We know how dilligent the police are at bringing creativity to their investigations and arrests. Countless examples abound of fraud and abuse of processs. And the population at large carries on as if it doesn't matter. Well in my not so humble fucking opinion, if police and judicial officials in Canada (or the US, or wherever) wish to acquire respect and lend the appearance of legitimacy to their operations, then they should bloody well bring some transparent accountability to their operations and more, should take exacting pains to ensure that they conduct their affairs so as to put their integrety beyond question for anyone who examines their fucking books. And when they *do* err, they should fucking well bend over backwards to correct their god damn mistakes. AND when they catch one of their own abusing his or her position of authority that fucker should be PILLORIED for the least offense. But no, this does not and will not occur because the police and courts have had decades of self-selection in their recruiting processes, and decades of deirected evolution applied to their internal culture and processes. It is considered more proper to rule by fear, than to consider that wageing a de facto war on the civilian population as being even slightly wrong. Since it is considered *normal* for their to be a high error rate, it is only natural for the intelligent special interest groups within the government to exploit the lax standards to crushing competing groups and individuals who might pose a latent threat to the extant corrupt culture. And then there are those nasty writers who won't wedge their ideology into the narrow confines of mass consumer culture, and well there's all sorts of legal ways to deal with *that* kind of trouble-maker. And so on. Petty little tyrants have all sorts of latitude for abuse, but so do real villans like the ones directing your military contractors. State of the art in pulling the strings of government is to view (at different levels, and different levels of abstraction) departments and ministries as black boxes with adjustable inputs. Some "inputs" are more adjustable than others, of course, and there are levels of access to the "inputs", but the approach is sound. I suppose it might take a well-placed CIA agent to subtly adjust CPIC records to suit an RCMP officer's relative's influence peddling, but the nice thing about reciprocal arrangements is that they may be negotiated and traded by fascist and highly placed warmongers. And we don't care because most people are brainwashed into blindly accepting the norm of incompetent ineffiency in all official matters. Indeed, for many it's a game that is only slightly more real than arcade shoot'em-ups but much more sophisticated. Of course no individual is at all required to respect such unnecessary corruption, and I certainly do not. (Why would I, considering the marauding warmongers who have been entirely subverting my ambitions and interests for years, simply because they like the challenge.) And in continuing with the outing, I predict that God was named John by his parents, and has official carte blanche to fuck up the lives of Canadian citizens given to him by his pet dogs in the Canadian government. Gutless weasels. Regards, Steve ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
participants (3)
-
R.A. Hettinga -
Steve Thompson -
Tyler Durden