I’ve been in a film photography sub on Reddit lately and the TSA comes up frequently. They can’t even follow their own rules on film, telling people it has to be scanned (it doesn’t), scanning is safe up 3800 ISO (that’s not a speed), etc.
I’m not surprised they can’t get something important right.
What if someone had to fly for necessary medical treatment? What if the device had been something even more important, like a pacemaker or artificial heart like Cheney had?
Yea I once had a TSA individual take my 85mm f1.2 RF series Canon lens out of its case and hold it up to the light to "inspect it."
I said, "can you please be careful with that? It's a $3,000 lens..."
The person cut me off and flatly stated: "Excuse me sir, I know what I'm doing..."
The great thing is that if the person had dropped it, they would've faced zero consequences and I would be out a lens which was central to my need to travel.
Every photographer with expensive equipment that I know has insurance for their equipment. Sometimes it is included with homeowner, sometimes a separate rider, and sometimes part of their commercial insurance. So it would be covered.
However, that wouldn't help OP if they needed the lens for their trip, suddenly need to find another one, and needed to float the cash until insurance pays out.
For instance, Many insurers offer something akin to 'Valuable Property Insurance' (At least that's what mine is called) and for personal use it covers drop/breaks as well as theft.
You typically need proof of ownership; my insurer lets me upload that, so I usually make a point to upload a copy of the invoice/receipt as well as the camera/lens and closeup of the serial number (even better if the invoice has the S/N present!). That's more important for high dollar items typically.
-HOWEVER-
That's for personal use. A while back I actually hit a coverage threshold where my insurer sent me a letter basically saying "Hey, just so you know, you are not covered for business use". (I don't use for business, I just figured it was a cheaper hobby than a boat)
Edited to add:
FWIW the VPP policy is separate from a homeowners policy, however insurers may or may not (depending on state law etc) be able to use a claim on a different policy to impact rates/etc.
Your house insurance will generally cover it. However they then mark you as a increased risk for claims and so your rates go up. Thus it probably isn't worth making a claim for something that is "only" a few thousand dollars. Insurance is a great idea for rare things so expensive that you couldn't handle the loss on your own, but for smaller value losses self-insure is likely a better idea in the long run.
Of course you would need an accountant to run the real numbers for each case. Most people would find a $3000 lens breakage something they cannot easially cover out of pocket, which is why many will even if in the long run it isn't the best use of money.
Depends on the numbers/specifics. Some homeowners policies may exclude high dollar items or limit the coverage to items in the premises (i.e. if it was stolen off the shelf in the house, that could be covered, but not necessarily other scenarios.)
A specific policy can still be cheap however; mine comes in at about 311$ of replacement value per dollar of premium a month, if you're traveling a lot or shooting at places where stuff can come up missing it's not the worst peace of mind.
I had TSA swab the front of my Sigma 100-400 because it purportedly came up hot. Will at least give that guy credit, he was gentler handling it than I ever am.
That said, yeah you would have been hosed for that lens, but I'm pretty sure they could still face consequences and you'd at least eventually get some reimbursement (less the time dealing with the process)
I always make sure to consider there are 2 sides to the story and details and nuance make all the difference in how the actual situation unfolded - but it's really, really, difficult to imagine a scenario in which something like this would be understandable.
There's no consistency in procedure from TSA agents. They're undertrained, unaccountable, and some combination of bored, disinterested, and high on petty authority. I don't think any amount of training or official guidance could improve the situation, though. The essential problem is the authority plus unaccountability or oversight. That will always go poorly for anyone subjected to that authority sooner or later.
Perhaps once AI destroys all the livelihoods of educated and disciplined white collar workers, it'll be easier for the TSA to find people who can follow basic instructions and show a normal amount of empathy.
You have to deal with pissed people all day who don’t listen at all. And if you make the tiniest mistake you could be the person who failed to stop the next 9/11.
Doing the same three or four things screening people all day long has got to be mind numbingly boring. Unless you’re at an airport that isn’t constantly busy where instead you get to stand around doing nothing, which can be worse.
It honestly sounds like a terrible job to have. Aren’t they paid pretty bad too? I can see why a lot of people would want to move out of it, leaving only those who are stuck or like the power.
None of this is excuse what happened in the article.
I'm one of those weirdos who opts out of the scanners because I'd rather avoid having people casually look inside of my body.
Last time I flew out of Laguardia I opted out and while I was being patted down another TSA agent about twenty feet away kept making kissy faces at me. Very much felt like intimidation.
I do that too. My reason is I don't want unneeded radiation. My experience is they make it as difficult as possible. They first ignore you couple of times, pretend they don't know what you are asking for, and finally they make you wait a long time, just standing there waiting for someone to show up to do the pat down. But I know their antics now and show up with plenty of time to spare.
Cool tech, but I don't want it scanning my junk especially, no thanks. I'll just apply Betteridge's law of headlines to the article "You Asked: Are Airport Body Scanners Safe?" at https://time.com/4909615/airport-body-scanners-safe/ and go on my merry way.
The TSA definitely seems to intentionally make me wait unnecessarily long for my patdowns to commence.
The attitude among some TSA employees can be truly confrontational when I'm nothing but polite.
One of them literally shoved their hand so fast and so far up my leg, it stung my private area for a good little while after. Now, whenever their script comes to the point where they ask if there is anything they should know, I have to ask them to not do that please, since it has happened before.
If there is a list of people to be first in line for UBI instead of whatever they do now, I'm okay if it's everybody at the TSA, and I'm guessing that they would be cool with that, too.
It's been a while since I've flown, but it always seemed to help to not stand completely out of the way lest they forget about you. A bunch of people will ask if you if you're waiting to use the scanner, or even start queuing up behind you until the thugs direct them to go around you. But all this keeps the incentives aligned much better.
Same. I have never gone through a microwave scanner on principle- I shouldn’t be strip searched for the crime of showing up to the airport.
I always get there plenty early and request a pat down, because they always make you wait 10-15 minutes in the hope that you’re desperate to get to your gate.
" I shouldn’t be strip searched for the crime of showing up to the airport."
People have forgotten that the TSA got caught lying about the machines not taking pictures (its just a cartoon!) and their employees laughing at people's bodies.
If the TSA wants to disrobe me they're going to have to do it the honest, old fashioned way. Not some sterilized make believe.
Not shocking they seem to have pretty low professional standards. I recently had a friend travelling from the US back to Canada get suddenly thoroughly frisked without warning after the scanners showed some object near her thighs. She didn't have anything but clothes on her body on below the waist. The TSA agent spent time groping around, convinced there was something, then after there couldn't possibly have been an object under her clothes, accepted that (paraphrasing) "there must have been an issue with the scanner".
She called her partner (who I was with at the time) afterwards, upset and shaken by the experience. @TSA in one of the NYC airports: If you're not going to get consent to grope girls, at least let them know that you're about to do it.
Yeah, IME they recite a script (I’ve heard it many times) where they explain why they are doing it, what it will involve, and how you can refuse (in that case, it would probably mean not flying that day). And offer to do it in private.
Mostly to make a point; more people are likely to care about it not being okay if it's phrased that way. (Something, something, toxic masculinity, "suck it up tough guy, can't handle a little pat-down?")
The fact that the TSA agent a woman doesn't automatically make someone else comfortable with whatever liberties the agent feels like taking. It's still likely worse if it's a man doing it, but sharing a gender isn't an excuse for the agent to do whatever they want.
Whenever these situations come up, the solution is always "more train."
I suspect "MOAR PAIN" would have a better outcome. People check out, during training; especially the type of training that is designed to shield the organization from lawsuits, and are given by uninspired, bored speakers.
Some high-profile object lessons are more likely to have an effect.
I brought a $14k oscilloscope through TSA once. They flagged the unit and proceeded to inspect it, lifting it by the edges of the plastic front cover and trying to remove it while held in mid-air. I kind of freaked out and said "stop" because the oscilloscope was about to take a free-fall. They were not happy that I spoke up, but luckily it averted a crisis.
Atlanta TSA are the absolute worst. I've lived in Atlanta for a while and used ATL quite a bit. They're easily the most aggressive, arrogant, stupid, obnoxious and self-righteous of all the TSA Ive used.
Ive even had an altercation with them that ended up having to file a complaint (never heard back) and got to speak to a manager only because I started, loudly, whistling the anthem.
It feels like there's different restrictions pushed by different groups. Gen Z is pretty prudish and seems to be the most in support of some of the adult content or internet censorship, while anti-LGBT/bathroom policing/etc seems to be more of the older generations.
There was a pretty much instantaneous shift on a certain Tuesday morning in September of 2001. I haven't noticed much of a change since then. The whole national mood has been "better safe than sorry" for anything vaguely terrorism-adjacent ever since.
I do think there's an advantage to third-party security, but they need to be properly trained -- airline-managed security has perverse incentives because of their profit motive.
Perverse profit motive like them not losing a big expensive aircraft, or having a massive loss of confidence in the airline to keep customers safe that causes them to go bankrupt?
If the only risk they care about is a hull loss or reputation, then yes, that's an example of a perverse profit motive, because there are other threats to life and limb that exist.
TSA was never necessary, it was all theater to begin with. The median number of terrorism deaths per year in the U.S. for all years between 1970-2017 was 4 [1]. You have always been about 10x more likely to die from being struck by lightning than by being killed by a terrorist.
That, and the knowledge that hijackers are going to kill you, so you need to fight back. 9/11 only worked because the passengers on three of the planes "knew" that being compliant was their best chance of survival in a hijacking. When passengers on the fourth plane discovered this was no longer the case, they foiled the attack.
What is the smallest level of additional security such that, if you assumed that the TSA only provides that much additional security over the alternative of not having them, you would regard it as worth it?
And, is the actual amount of security provided greater than that amount?
I say this as somebody who regularly travels around EMEA and the US: there is airport security at the same or higher level all around the World, and yet fewer people travelling in those countries seems to have the same level of problems.
My hot take is that its almost certainly a recruitment and training issue: there seem to be just enough bad apples getting through and not having poor behaviours trained out of them to mean the self-reported "these guys are idiots" numbers are higher than in other parts of the World.
Yeah, it is security theater, but other countries are way more relaxed than the US, especially small airports with few international flights.
When i was ~17, i had a friend with a false leg, with metal in it. We were late to our plane at a Moroccan airport (Agadir i think), we burst through the scanner gate that started beeping. He looked at the agent, tapped his leg, the agent made a "you can go" sign and we managed to get to the plane without any issue. I have seen very similar scene at Porto, it might be the mediterranean temper but i really think it has more to do with airport size (Lisbon airport agents seems more thorough)
Judging by how every single TSA agent is horrifically trained and doesn't have a drop of care in the world, abolishing the TSA would be a step up from having it.
Reinforced flight deck doors are sufficient. See: the rest of the world. TSA is a jobs program and to soothe the irrational and those poor at risk management.
> But TSA itself has filed in court documents that they’ve been unaware of actual threats to aviation that they’re guarding against, and they haven’t stopped any actual terrorists (nor with past failure rates at detecting threats were they deterring any, either).
But even if you want to keep security/scrutiny as it is now, that doesn't mean you need TSA. We had airport security before there was a TSA. We currently have airport security without TSA in some airports, such as SFO.
So just get rid of TSA and have no security? They find hundreds of guns in carry on baggage every year, but that should be no big deal right?
They didn't force this person through the scanner, they could have asked for a supervisor and discussed the situation. Don't trust the people at the bottom of any organization if you have a concern.
"In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as passengers were able get weapons past TSA agents in 67 out of 70 tests — a 95 percent failure rate, according to agency officials."
They're not mutually exclusive things. Red-teamers often have quite a bit of expertise and are smarter than your average threat. And the point of these exercises is precisely to continually improve in response to the findings. But alas, most of the people who bring guns on to planes aren't threats anyway (at least not in the typical sense), they're idiots who forgot their CCW in their bag.
Have you noticed that in 25 years they have never managed to catch a single terrorist? Do you think they would’ve been quiet if they did? No way.
Random citizens on planes have. At least once.
We’ve had lots of stories about them missing weapons. Lots of stories about them making up ridiculous rules. Lots of stories about them sexually harassing people. Lots of stories about random agents going mad with power.
They have never accomplished anything that wasn’t accomplished by the much simpler and less invasive security we had before 9/11.
Nobody said that. Go back to pre-2001 airport security, together with locked cockpit doors and the widespread understanding that it isn't safe to cooperate with hijackers.
No one suggested that. What do you think we did 30 years ago (look it up if you have to)? That, and locked cockpit doors: what value-add is TSA over procedures from 30 years ago?
Airlines could have locked cockpit doors and prohibited passengers from bringing box cutters on their airplanes 30 years ago, but they didn't, even though hijackings regularly happened.
When there is no coordination between airlines, none of them wants to be the one who implements tough security and pisses off their customer base.
> Airlines could have locked cockpit doors and prohibited passengers from bringing box cutters on their airplanes 30 years ago, but they didn't, even though hijackings regularly happened.
Yes, because in most cases the hijackers would demand you land, negotiate, and either get some sort of asylum deal or get shot. Big inconvenience, but usually not much bloodshed.
9/11 changed the math for the people on the plane a lot, from "sit down, be quiet, and you'll probably be fine" to "you are about to be flown into a building". Reinforced cockpit doors are one of the little bits of legitimate security improvement made since then.
Yeah, exactly, the security posture was simply to accept the risk because it was presumed to be small. A hijacking is an archetypal security failure, but airlines chose not to add friction to their operations to prevent them.
It's the Ford Pinto cost-benefit analysis scandal of the sky.
Maybe in the 70s, but that pretty much stopped with advent of metal detectors. And the hijackers had guns, not knives. Before 9/11 I carried a pocket knife on every flight I took.
Regardless, they’re doing it now, so I fail to see your point.
Before 9/11, my dad and I used to carry our fishing tackle boxes onto the plane because we didn't trust them to go through baggage handling. One time my dad brought a 10-inch fish gutting knife on a flight and didn't realize it until we got to our destination. Sailed right through the metal detectors and x-ray machines.
>They didn't force this person through the scanner
"Despite the woman's request for a pat-down search, a TSA agent told her that her only option was to pass through the AIT device."
>they could have asked for a supervisor and discussed the situation
"Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant."
They did, in fact, summon a supervisor, who lied to her.
*I am of the opinion that, since 9/11, passengers should be encouraged to have knives rather than discouraged. Knives won't get through the cockpit door; no one will open the cockpit doors for a hostage anymore.
So we're supposed to trust people at the bottom of this organization to detect and safely confiscate a terrorist's firearm, but not to follow their own policies about alternative search procedures?
While I agree that TSA should be done away with, I'm afraid that it wouldn't actually change what airport security looks like in most places. At this point, since people have gotten used to it, my guess is that if Airports took over their own security again (or went back to however it worked pre-TSA), they would maintain about the same standards and procedures in an effort to avoid blame in the case that something happened. Regardless of government involvement, it is extremely hard to work back these ratchets on security theater.
On the contrary, I think airports would desperately like to do better. Airports are hated; improving the experience of airport security is extremely important to them.
I could legit see an airport in a major metro advertise "Fly through PDQ instead of SRX - you'll save an hour of your time and nobody will ask to touch your genitals"
Blame/lawsuit avoidance is a powerful motivation to keep things the same. But there's also a very strong drive to reduce costs, and this would be a very enticing cost center, for better or worse.
The actual screening would probably be the same. But the customer service side of it might improve when airports can compete on how nice the experience is. I don't imagine these scanners are ever going away, but loudly clueless workers don't have to be part of the experience.
Indeed, Heathrow security is the rudest I have experienced. They get aggressive if you so much as ask a question. Furthermore, I have on numerous occasions had them argue with me to go against the medical advice from both doctors and medical advice manufacturers. Last time going as far as claiming that a scanner does not emit electromagnetic radiation.
I want to know more about the mechanism of damage to a spinal implant from (what I assume is) a millimeter-wave scanner. I would expect millimeter waves to not penetrate very deeply -- Wikipedia says "typically less than 1 mm" (their citation for that is behind a paywall though.) Seems like an implant should be more than 1mm below the surface.
I have type 1 diabetes and have a CGM and insulin pump on me at all times. The manufacturers say you shouldn't take them through the scanners, but me and every diabetic I know has never experienced any issues with the devices, so most of us just go through the scanner and then have to be patted down anyway because it picks up the device.
I dread it every time, because when I've tried to inform TSA agents ahead of time about my medical devices (which all the signs tell you to do!) they either ignore me or just tell me to go through. And then when I don't mention it, I frequently get berated on the other side, while they do the swab test for explosives.
I'm not a particular fan of the TSA but when you work with the public at that scale, stuff happens. It gets a bit tiresome to read articles like this that imply it's normal and frequent. It doesn't seem like it's worthy of discussion on HN: it's neither intellectually interesting nor a new phenomenon.
I've never had a single issue with the TSA. I went through a checkpoint when I had a shoulder injury and could not raise my arms above my head for the backscatter machine. I explained this and I was politely escorted through the alternate scan/metal detector.
My experience is one data point, doesn't mean much by itself, nor does the experience of the unfortunate person in this story.
Based on the article, the plaintiff was told if they wanted to fly they had to go through the scanner. They then voluntarily entered the scanner knowing they had a medical implant and immediately felt pain from this. I don't see much liability for the TSA here as you aren't required to follow their orders in any circumstance.
The word comply does not even appear on that website. It says if you interfere you can be fined. If a TSA agent tells you to do something stupid and you refuse to do it, nothing is going to happen.
> Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant.
The plantiff was coerced through the scanner by immensely incorrectly trained TSA operators. Had she done as you suggested, ignored the agents orders, and just walked through security she surely would have been, at least, trespassed if not outright detained, fined, and worse.
The TSA is authorized to refuse anyone transportation at anytime. I would suggest they do literally anything but walk through the scanner with a medical implant. If the TSA are unwilling to let them fly commercially, I would suggest they seek an alternative method of transportation.
> Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant.
I’ve been in a film photography sub on Reddit lately and the TSA comes up frequently. They can’t even follow their own rules on film, telling people it has to be scanned (it doesn’t), scanning is safe up 3800 ISO (that’s not a speed), etc.
I’m not surprised they can’t get something important right.
What if someone had to fly for necessary medical treatment? What if the device had been something even more important, like a pacemaker or artificial heart like Cheney had?
Yea I once had a TSA individual take my 85mm f1.2 RF series Canon lens out of its case and hold it up to the light to "inspect it."
I said, "can you please be careful with that? It's a $3,000 lens..."
The person cut me off and flatly stated: "Excuse me sir, I know what I'm doing..."
The great thing is that if the person had dropped it, they would've faced zero consequences and I would be out a lens which was central to my need to travel.
I don't intend for this to sound like an excuse. I don't fly often, and almost never with anything expensive.
But I am curious:
Can objects like expensive precision optics be insured against damage from the TSA? Is that a thing that regular people can easily find coverage for?
Every photographer with expensive equipment that I know has insurance for their equipment. Sometimes it is included with homeowner, sometimes a separate rider, and sometimes part of their commercial insurance. So it would be covered.
However, that wouldn't help OP if they needed the lens for their trip, suddenly need to find another one, and needed to float the cash until insurance pays out.
Renting camera equipment is fairly common and their are rental services that do overnight and next day.
Yes, my lens was/is insured.
The problem is, it's not something you can just pick up at Best Buy, so the trip would've been a total loss (it was for business).
It kinda depends.
For instance, Many insurers offer something akin to 'Valuable Property Insurance' (At least that's what mine is called) and for personal use it covers drop/breaks as well as theft.
You typically need proof of ownership; my insurer lets me upload that, so I usually make a point to upload a copy of the invoice/receipt as well as the camera/lens and closeup of the serial number (even better if the invoice has the S/N present!). That's more important for high dollar items typically.
-HOWEVER-
That's for personal use. A while back I actually hit a coverage threshold where my insurer sent me a letter basically saying "Hey, just so you know, you are not covered for business use". (I don't use for business, I just figured it was a cheaper hobby than a boat)
Edited to add:
FWIW the VPP policy is separate from a homeowners policy, however insurers may or may not (depending on state law etc) be able to use a claim on a different policy to impact rates/etc.
Your house insurance will generally cover it. However they then mark you as a increased risk for claims and so your rates go up. Thus it probably isn't worth making a claim for something that is "only" a few thousand dollars. Insurance is a great idea for rare things so expensive that you couldn't handle the loss on your own, but for smaller value losses self-insure is likely a better idea in the long run.
Of course you would need an accountant to run the real numbers for each case. Most people would find a $3000 lens breakage something they cannot easially cover out of pocket, which is why many will even if in the long run it isn't the best use of money.
Depends on the numbers/specifics. Some homeowners policies may exclude high dollar items or limit the coverage to items in the premises (i.e. if it was stolen off the shelf in the house, that could be covered, but not necessarily other scenarios.)
A specific policy can still be cheap however; mine comes in at about 311$ of replacement value per dollar of premium a month, if you're traveling a lot or shooting at places where stuff can come up missing it's not the worst peace of mind.
I had TSA swab the front of my Sigma 100-400 because it purportedly came up hot. Will at least give that guy credit, he was gentler handling it than I ever am.
That said, yeah you would have been hosed for that lens, but I'm pretty sure they could still face consequences and you'd at least eventually get some reimbursement (less the time dealing with the process)
> What if someone had to fly for necessary medical treatment?
E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/02/disabled-can...
I always make sure to consider there are 2 sides to the story and details and nuance make all the difference in how the actual situation unfolded - but it's really, really, difficult to imagine a scenario in which something like this would be understandable.
Of course there’s an example. Thank you.
There's no consistency in procedure from TSA agents. They're undertrained, unaccountable, and some combination of bored, disinterested, and high on petty authority. I don't think any amount of training or official guidance could improve the situation, though. The essential problem is the authority plus unaccountability or oversight. That will always go poorly for anyone subjected to that authority sooner or later.
Perhaps once AI destroys all the livelihoods of educated and disciplined white collar workers, it'll be easier for the TSA to find people who can follow basic instructions and show a normal amount of empathy.
I think it's the job, not the person. All sorts of people work at the TSA; clearly it's endemic to the TSA, not to the people who work there.
You have to deal with pissed people all day who don’t listen at all. And if you make the tiniest mistake you could be the person who failed to stop the next 9/11.
Doing the same three or four things screening people all day long has got to be mind numbingly boring. Unless you’re at an airport that isn’t constantly busy where instead you get to stand around doing nothing, which can be worse.
It honestly sounds like a terrible job to have. Aren’t they paid pretty bad too? I can see why a lot of people would want to move out of it, leaving only those who are stuck or like the power.
None of this is excuse what happened in the article.
And then the job will drive that empathy right out of them.
I'm one of those weirdos who opts out of the scanners because I'd rather avoid having people casually look inside of my body.
Last time I flew out of Laguardia I opted out and while I was being patted down another TSA agent about twenty feet away kept making kissy faces at me. Very much felt like intimidation.
What a time..
I do that too. My reason is I don't want unneeded radiation. My experience is they make it as difficult as possible. They first ignore you couple of times, pretend they don't know what you are asking for, and finally they make you wait a long time, just standing there waiting for someone to show up to do the pat down. But I know their antics now and show up with plenty of time to spare.
I always opt out, too, also because I don't trust their machines after reading enough stuff like https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/iaurm/cancer_clus... or https://www.propublica.org/article/u-s-government-glossed-ov... and then learning enough about how it was all for theater anyway.
Cool tech, but I don't want it scanning my junk especially, no thanks. I'll just apply Betteridge's law of headlines to the article "You Asked: Are Airport Body Scanners Safe?" at https://time.com/4909615/airport-body-scanners-safe/ and go on my merry way.
The TSA definitely seems to intentionally make me wait unnecessarily long for my patdowns to commence.
The attitude among some TSA employees can be truly confrontational when I'm nothing but polite.
One of them literally shoved their hand so fast and so far up my leg, it stung my private area for a good little while after. Now, whenever their script comes to the point where they ask if there is anything they should know, I have to ask them to not do that please, since it has happened before.
If there is a list of people to be first in line for UBI instead of whatever they do now, I'm okay if it's everybody at the TSA, and I'm guessing that they would be cool with that, too.
Y'all should just get pre-check (or GE) so you can walk through the metal detector instead.
It's been a while since I've flown, but it always seemed to help to not stand completely out of the way lest they forget about you. A bunch of people will ask if you if you're waiting to use the scanner, or even start queuing up behind you until the thugs direct them to go around you. But all this keeps the incentives aligned much better.
Whistling loudly helps too.
Same. I have never gone through a microwave scanner on principle- I shouldn’t be strip searched for the crime of showing up to the airport.
I always get there plenty early and request a pat down, because they always make you wait 10-15 minutes in the hope that you’re desperate to get to your gate.
" I shouldn’t be strip searched for the crime of showing up to the airport."
People have forgotten that the TSA got caught lying about the machines not taking pictures (its just a cartoon!) and their employees laughing at people's bodies.
If the TSA wants to disrobe me they're going to have to do it the honest, old fashioned way. Not some sterilized make believe.
> If the TSA wants to disrobe me they're going to have to do it the honest, old fashioned way. Not some sterilized make believe.
Or at least take me out on a date first
I have never forgotten their lies and abuse with the scanners when they were rolled out. Same boat- you wanna see my body you gotta work for it.
We're not weirdos. The weirdos are the cattle walking into a microwave oven.
They ask me "would you like a private screening?"
Hell no! I need witnesses.
Talk about l'esprit d'escalier. I'd like to think I would have held eye contact and pointed at my own crotch.
Hmm next time they go for a feel I'll tell them not to sexually harass me loud enough for the whole line to hear.
They feed on folks wanting to avoid embarrassment, not wanting to miss their flights, etc.
Also on folks not wanting to have their shit stolen, get beaten up, or get extra-judicially detained for days, weeks, or even months.
They're smart enough to make compliance be the mostly rational decision.
Not shocking they seem to have pretty low professional standards. I recently had a friend travelling from the US back to Canada get suddenly thoroughly frisked without warning after the scanners showed some object near her thighs. She didn't have anything but clothes on her body on below the waist. The TSA agent spent time groping around, convinced there was something, then after there couldn't possibly have been an object under her clothes, accepted that (paraphrasing) "there must have been an issue with the scanner".
She called her partner (who I was with at the time) afterwards, upset and shaken by the experience. @TSA in one of the NYC airports: If you're not going to get consent to grope girls, at least let them know that you're about to do it.
It has been my experience that they would call a female agent when they needed to pat down another female. Has this changed?
It was a female agent, that doesn't mean that it's okay to start groping someone without warning.
Yeah, IME they recite a script (I’ve heard it many times) where they explain why they are doing it, what it will involve, and how you can refuse (in that case, it would probably mean not flying that day). And offer to do it in private.
You phrased it as "If you're not going to get consent to grope girls", so why is it relevant that she is female?
Mostly to make a point; more people are likely to care about it not being okay if it's phrased that way. (Something, something, toxic masculinity, "suck it up tough guy, can't handle a little pat-down?")
The fact that the TSA agent a woman doesn't automatically make someone else comfortable with whatever liberties the agent feels like taking. It's still likely worse if it's a man doing it, but sharing a gender isn't an excuse for the agent to do whatever they want.
So you think that's a toxic attitude, but cater to it anyway? It's like saying "I mention she's whites because racists might not care otherwise".
> "there must have been an issue with the scanner".
That's way better than them asking you twenty times why the scanner went off.
I don't know, I didn't build the fucking thing.
Whenever these situations come up, the solution is always "more train."
I suspect "MOAR PAIN" would have a better outcome. People check out, during training; especially the type of training that is designed to shield the organization from lawsuits, and are given by uninspired, bored speakers.
Some high-profile object lessons are more likely to have an effect.
I brought a $14k oscilloscope through TSA once. They flagged the unit and proceeded to inspect it, lifting it by the edges of the plastic front cover and trying to remove it while held in mid-air. I kind of freaked out and said "stop" because the oscilloscope was about to take a free-fall. They were not happy that I spoke up, but luckily it averted a crisis.
Time for Remy to make another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQJ7E140-SQ
Atlanta TSA are the absolute worst. I've lived in Atlanta for a while and used ATL quite a bit. They're easily the most aggressive, arrogant, stupid, obnoxious and self-righteous of all the TSA Ive used.
Ive even had an altercation with them that ended up having to file a complaint (never heard back) and got to speak to a manager only because I started, loudly, whistling the anthem.
Like other post-9/11 things like DHS and ICE, we need to abolish TSA since it doesn't actually keep anyone safe, and actively harms people.
It's sad that this is getting down voted. What have we become.
There's all kinds of people in the world. It's good to be accepting.
It is fine by me that a person might have a powerful lust for the taste of boot leather. I don't kink shame.
I just wish I didn't have to be a part of it.
There's been a slow shift here over the past decade, from
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
to
"If you don't agree with what I think a nanny state should be doing you're a terrible person"
What I wonder is if this is brought on by a demographic shift or a viewpoint shift among the same demographic.
It feels like there's different restrictions pushed by different groups. Gen Z is pretty prudish and seems to be the most in support of some of the adult content or internet censorship, while anti-LGBT/bathroom policing/etc seems to be more of the older generations.
There was a pretty much instantaneous shift on a certain Tuesday morning in September of 2001. I haven't noticed much of a change since then. The whole national mood has been "better safe than sorry" for anything vaguely terrorism-adjacent ever since.
I do think there's an advantage to third-party security, but they need to be properly trained -- airline-managed security has perverse incentives because of their profit motive.
Perverse profit motive like them not losing a big expensive aircraft, or having a massive loss of confidence in the airline to keep customers safe that causes them to go bankrupt?
If the only risk they care about is a hull loss or reputation, then yes, that's an example of a perverse profit motive, because there are other threats to life and limb that exist.
SFO has its own security, they seem better then TSA
You say abolish TSA. That's a "how"; let me ask you about outcomes to better understand.
Are you suggesting that the level of security at airports be reduced?
Are you suggesting that people and object that get onto planes be given less scrutiny?
TSA was never necessary, it was all theater to begin with. The median number of terrorism deaths per year in the U.S. for all years between 1970-2017 was 4 [1]. You have always been about 10x more likely to die from being struck by lightning than by being killed by a terrorist.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States....
And for 9/11, the only change that actually matters is strengthening the cockpit door and keeping it locked.
That, and the knowledge that hijackers are going to kill you, so you need to fight back. 9/11 only worked because the passengers on three of the planes "knew" that being compliant was their best chance of survival in a hijacking. When passengers on the fourth plane discovered this was no longer the case, they foiled the attack.
Someone in the thread mentioned that in a red team test 95% of the guns were passed undetected under the very noses of your TSA.
That is what you call security?
What is the smallest level of additional security such that, if you assumed that the TSA only provides that much additional security over the alternative of not having them, you would regard it as worth it?
And, is the actual amount of security provided greater than that amount?
I say this as somebody who regularly travels around EMEA and the US: there is airport security at the same or higher level all around the World, and yet fewer people travelling in those countries seems to have the same level of problems.
My hot take is that its almost certainly a recruitment and training issue: there seem to be just enough bad apples getting through and not having poor behaviours trained out of them to mean the self-reported "these guys are idiots" numbers are higher than in other parts of the World.
Yeah, it is security theater, but other countries are way more relaxed than the US, especially small airports with few international flights.
When i was ~17, i had a friend with a false leg, with metal in it. We were late to our plane at a Moroccan airport (Agadir i think), we burst through the scanner gate that started beeping. He looked at the agent, tapped his leg, the agent made a "you can go" sign and we managed to get to the plane without any issue. I have seen very similar scene at Porto, it might be the mediterranean temper but i really think it has more to do with airport size (Lisbon airport agents seems more thorough)
Judging by how every single TSA agent is horrifically trained and doesn't have a drop of care in the world, abolishing the TSA would be a step up from having it.
Reinforced flight deck doors are sufficient. See: the rest of the world. TSA is a jobs program and to soothe the irrational and those poor at risk management.
At $10 Billion A Year, TSA Still Fails 90% Of The Time—And Covers It Up - https://viewfromthewing.com/at-10-billion-a-year-tsa-still-f... - January 27th, 2025
TSA Admits New Machines Are Slowing Security To A Crawl—And Says Screening Won’t Improve Until 2040 - https://viewfromthewing.com/tsa-admits-new-machines-are-slow... - August 10th, 2024
> But TSA itself has filed in court documents that they’ve been unaware of actual threats to aviation that they’re guarding against, and they haven’t stopped any actual terrorists (nor with past failure rates at detecting threats were they deterring any, either).
Accidentally Revealed Document Shows TSA Doesn't Think Terrorists Are Plotting To Attack Airplanes - https://www.techdirt.com/2013/10/21/accidentally-revealed-do... - October 21st, 2013
I think the OP's meaning was entirely clear and engaging with your questions could only obscure their message.
I would say yes to both of those.
But even if you want to keep security/scrutiny as it is now, that doesn't mean you need TSA. We had airport security before there was a TSA. We currently have airport security without TSA in some airports, such as SFO.
So every year the TSA wastes about 60,000 man years.
So just get rid of TSA and have no security? They find hundreds of guns in carry on baggage every year, but that should be no big deal right?
They didn't force this person through the scanner, they could have asked for a supervisor and discussed the situation. Don't trust the people at the bottom of any organization if you have a concern.
> They find hundreds of guns in carry on baggage every year…
They don't exactly have a great track record in that regard.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-...
"In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as passengers were able get weapons past TSA agents in 67 out of 70 tests — a 95 percent failure rate, according to agency officials."
(Don't worry, though. They fixed it... by classifing the reports. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noem-dhs-watchdog-feuding-over-...)
They're not mutually exclusive things. Red-teamers often have quite a bit of expertise and are smarter than your average threat. And the point of these exercises is precisely to continually improve in response to the findings. But alas, most of the people who bring guns on to planes aren't threats anyway (at least not in the typical sense), they're idiots who forgot their CCW in their bag.
> Red-teamers often have quite a bit of expertise and are smarter than your average threat.
That is not super comforting.
> And the point of these exercises is precisely to continually improve in response to the findings.
Then they should proudly release some more recent results showing that improvement!
> Most of the people who bring guns on to planes aren't trying to hide anything at all, they're idiots who forgot their CCW in their bag.
Which means they aren't even bothering trying to hide it.
Have you noticed that in 25 years they have never managed to catch a single terrorist? Do you think they would’ve been quiet if they did? No way.
Random citizens on planes have. At least once.
We’ve had lots of stories about them missing weapons. Lots of stories about them making up ridiculous rules. Lots of stories about them sexually harassing people. Lots of stories about random agents going mad with power.
They have never accomplished anything that wasn’t accomplished by the much simpler and less invasive security we had before 9/11.
> So just get rid of TSA and have no security?
Nobody said that. Go back to pre-2001 airport security, together with locked cockpit doors and the widespread understanding that it isn't safe to cooperate with hijackers.
So just get rid of TSA and have no security?
No one suggested that. What do you think we did 30 years ago (look it up if you have to)? That, and locked cockpit doors: what value-add is TSA over procedures from 30 years ago?
It would be nice if there were evidence based requirements for new security features and rollback if subsequent data showed them to be ineffictive.
There is a lot of security theater happening at airports.
Airlines could have locked cockpit doors and prohibited passengers from bringing box cutters on their airplanes 30 years ago, but they didn't, even though hijackings regularly happened.
When there is no coordination between airlines, none of them wants to be the one who implements tough security and pisses off their customer base.
> Airlines could have locked cockpit doors and prohibited passengers from bringing box cutters on their airplanes 30 years ago, but they didn't, even though hijackings regularly happened.
Yes, because in most cases the hijackers would demand you land, negotiate, and either get some sort of asylum deal or get shot. Big inconvenience, but usually not much bloodshed.
9/11 changed the math for the people on the plane a lot, from "sit down, be quiet, and you'll probably be fine" to "you are about to be flown into a building". Reinforced cockpit doors are one of the little bits of legitimate security improvement made since then.
Look how many on the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings end with "no casualties".
Yeah, exactly, the security posture was simply to accept the risk because it was presumed to be small. A hijacking is an archetypal security failure, but airlines chose not to add friction to their operations to prevent them.
It's the Ford Pinto cost-benefit analysis scandal of the sky.
The fairly reasonable concern was that it’d turn relatively peaceful events into massacres.
Too much security can be a problem just like too little can.
…even though hijackings regularly happened
Maybe in the 70s, but that pretty much stopped with advent of metal detectors. And the hijackers had guns, not knives. Before 9/11 I carried a pocket knife on every flight I took.
Regardless, they’re doing it now, so I fail to see your point.
Before 9/11, my dad and I used to carry our fishing tackle boxes onto the plane because we didn't trust them to go through baggage handling. One time my dad brought a 10-inch fish gutting knife on a flight and didn't realize it until we got to our destination. Sailed right through the metal detectors and x-ray machines.
>They didn't force this person through the scanner
"Despite the woman's request for a pat-down search, a TSA agent told her that her only option was to pass through the AIT device."
>they could have asked for a supervisor and discussed the situation
"Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant."
They miss more guns than they find.
They miss more knives than they find.*
They did, in fact, summon a supervisor, who lied to her.
*I am of the opinion that, since 9/11, passengers should be encouraged to have knives rather than discouraged. Knives won't get through the cockpit door; no one will open the cockpit doors for a hostage anymore.
Given how unruly and belligerent some passengers have become I think flight crews would correctly object to allowing knives.
In the 50's, you could board a plane with a gun and no ID.
So we're supposed to trust people at the bottom of this organization to detect and safely confiscate a terrorist's firearm, but not to follow their own policies about alternative search procedures?
Studies seem to indicate that for every gun they find, they miss at least two more.
You do know there was airport security before the TSA took over, right?
While I agree that TSA should be done away with, I'm afraid that it wouldn't actually change what airport security looks like in most places. At this point, since people have gotten used to it, my guess is that if Airports took over their own security again (or went back to however it worked pre-TSA), they would maintain about the same standards and procedures in an effort to avoid blame in the case that something happened. Regardless of government involvement, it is extremely hard to work back these ratchets on security theater.
On the contrary, I think airports would desperately like to do better. Airports are hated; improving the experience of airport security is extremely important to them.
If you pay enough, you can in fact get a much better experience (in some airports).
This is true, though how much better still has airport security as a major limiting factor.
I could legit see an airport in a major metro advertise "Fly through PDQ instead of SRX - you'll save an hour of your time and nobody will ask to touch your genitals"
Yeah private security at some stuff pretty much already looks like TSA just with a cheaper scanner.
Blame/lawsuit avoidance is a powerful motivation to keep things the same. But there's also a very strong drive to reduce costs, and this would be a very enticing cost center, for better or worse.
Hard to say how things would play out.
The actual screening would probably be the same. But the customer service side of it might improve when airports can compete on how nice the experience is. I don't imagine these scanners are ever going away, but loudly clueless workers don't have to be part of the experience.
I flew to the USA a few years ago and TSA staff were the most gratuitously rude people I've met in airports in my life. Complete brain dead losers.
It's a job program. And mostly theater to dehumanize you. Most VIPs get to skip it all together.
LHR security is just as bad IME
Indeed, Heathrow security is the rudest I have experienced. They get aggressive if you so much as ask a question. Furthermore, I have on numerous occasions had them argue with me to go against the medical advice from both doctors and medical advice manufacturers. Last time going as far as claiming that a scanner does not emit electromagnetic radiation.
Get the fuck outta here.
I want to know more about the mechanism of damage to a spinal implant from (what I assume is) a millimeter-wave scanner. I would expect millimeter waves to not penetrate very deeply -- Wikipedia says "typically less than 1 mm" (their citation for that is behind a paywall though.) Seems like an implant should be more than 1mm below the surface.
I have type 1 diabetes and have a CGM and insulin pump on me at all times. The manufacturers say you shouldn't take them through the scanners, but me and every diabetic I know has never experienced any issues with the devices, so most of us just go through the scanner and then have to be patted down anyway because it picks up the device.
I dread it every time, because when I've tried to inform TSA agents ahead of time about my medical devices (which all the signs tell you to do!) they either ignore me or just tell me to go through. And then when I don't mention it, I frequently get berated on the other side, while they do the swab test for explosives.
TSA would not exist if it wasn't for a certain class of people that likes to blow themselves up in the vicinity of other people.
I'm not a particular fan of the TSA but when you work with the public at that scale, stuff happens. It gets a bit tiresome to read articles like this that imply it's normal and frequent. It doesn't seem like it's worthy of discussion on HN: it's neither intellectually interesting nor a new phenomenon.
I've never had a single issue with the TSA. I went through a checkpoint when I had a shoulder injury and could not raise my arms above my head for the backscatter machine. I explained this and I was politely escorted through the alternate scan/metal detector.
My experience is one data point, doesn't mean much by itself, nor does the experience of the unfortunate person in this story.
Based on the article, the plaintiff was told if they wanted to fly they had to go through the scanner. They then voluntarily entered the scanner knowing they had a medical implant and immediately felt pain from this. I don't see much liability for the TSA here as you aren't required to follow their orders in any circumstance.
> I don't see much liability for the TSA here as you aren't required to follow their orders in any circumstance.
You can be fined thousands of dollars for refusing to comply with a TSA agent: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/disobeying-a...
The word comply does not even appear on that website. It says if you interfere you can be fined. If a TSA agent tells you to do something stupid and you refuse to do it, nothing is going to happen.
> Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant.
The plantiff was coerced through the scanner by immensely incorrectly trained TSA operators. Had she done as you suggested, ignored the agents orders, and just walked through security she surely would have been, at least, trespassed if not outright detained, fined, and worse.
I never suggested she walk through security.
What do you suggest then? Not flying? The TSA had refused her request for a pat-down.
The TSA is authorized to refuse anyone transportation at anytime. I would suggest they do literally anything but walk through the scanner with a medical implant. If the TSA are unwilling to let them fly commercially, I would suggest they seek an alternative method of transportation.
From the article you said you've read:
> Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant.
It was obviously careless of the employee to say this, but anyone in the government is allowed to lie to you at pretty much anytime.