Though I believe that pat-downs of folks during security screenings should be kept to a minimum, and while there have been some cases (or at least allegations) of improper conduct during such pat-downs, I find by the same token I have very little sympathy for those folks who take offense at the very concept of a pat-down, or at the thought that they might be considered a possible threat and be patted down during secondary screening.
“I was really patted down everywhere,” Ginzkey said about her recent flight to Denver. “You do feel like your privacy is being invaded.”
[…] “I was told to spread my arms and legs, and they patted down every inch of me. I found it offensive,” Imansepahi said. “I’m offended by a perfect stranger placing a hand between my breasts and under my breast.”
[…] “I don’t think they should touch you. It’s a little gross,” Rague said.
Grow up, people.
That all said, the new technologies (hand-held explosive sniffers) and policies (skipping pat-downs in cases of form-fitting clothing) being considered should reduce the number of searches needed. And, yes, that’s a good thing.
But I’d rather run a little risk of being offended than of having someone smuggle explosives onto a plane because they counted on offense-avoidance protecting them.
I don’t think this is just a matter of “growing up”. I think there are real reasons to be concerned about the way the country is attempting to increase travel security, including the potential for abuse of the powers given to the TSA and the reduced public sensitivity to things that infringe on our freedom through desensitization.
The last few TSA screeners I dealt with were far too quick to abuse their power in my opinion, and I’ve heard that there are a fairly large number of thefts from opened luggage. In my case, the screeners were asked to lock my bag when they were done, but did not do so. The heirloom items in the suitcase could have been stolen, and even if I got an insurance settlement I would never be able to replace those things. In my dad’s case, the TSA tried to prevent him from getting on a plane with a pair of bicycle pedals in his carryon on the grounds that they could be used as a weapon.
The more indifferent the travelling public is about pat-down searches and other intrusive measures, the farther the TSA will be able to push it, in the name of increasing security (random body-cavity searches anyone?). In addition, when the TSA holds you for those searches, my rather-poorly-informed opinion is that it is an open question whether or not this violates the unreasonable searches clause of the constitution.
There’s also the question of whether or not the TSA is actually increasing security. I’m not convinced. I still hear of cases where people get on planes with pocketknives (or corkscrews). I still hear of cases where people get past security with weapons and when the concourse is evacuated they are never found. I hear of the TSA giving the intensive security screening to little old ladies. I think TSA is spending so much time harassing honest passengers that I doubt they’re really doing the right things to catch the dishonest ones.
Ok, so I’m starting to sound like a crank. Maybe I’m becoming a crank. If so, I’ll revel in my crankiness: I have no love for the TSA, and I’m more sympathetic to those who object to the TSA’s methods than I am to the TSA.
I wanted to give this some thought and time before replying. The points you raise up are all good ones, even though I don’t know that I fundamentally agree.
The last few TSA screeners I dealt with were far too quick to abuse their power in my opinion, and I’ve heard that there are a fairly large number of thefts from opened luggage. In my case, the screeners were asked to lock my bag when they were done, but did not do so.
Certainly abuse of power, including carelessness with it, are concerns (and ones that I at least hint at above). The issue of what gets locked, relocked, and the preexisting issues of luggage theft, are all matters for ongoing concern.
As a general rule, I’d advise against shipping anything of significant value in check-in luggage. I’d probably have advised against that even pre-9/11, but it’s a greater concern now because of the security holes opened up (ironically) by TSA unlocking or leaving luggage unlocked. If it’s of value, either ship it by FedEx, or carry it on.
I have had a jacket stolen from my luggage since TSA inspections began. And I’ve known people with “TSA-approved locks” who had stuff stolen from their suitcases.
These seem to be, by the way, distinct differences in quality of TSA personnel. I, in general, find TSA at Denver to be very good, very professional and polite. TSA at LAX, on the other hand, is usually gruff-to-rude and inefficient.
The more indifferent the travelling public is about pat-down searches and other intrusive measures, the farther the TSA will be able to push it, in the name of increasing security (random body-cavity searches anyone?).
Certainly a slippery slope any time security is increased. And while it’s tempting to say that Extreme Measure X would never be taken, that’s usually not that wise to rely upon.
The question becomes is there a difference between being accepting of a reasonable measure and being indifferent to unwarrented intrusion, and how do we reach consensus on that. In my experience, pat-downs have not been intrusive or unreasonable, and my impression of those who complained about them in the article was that the individuals were being overly-sensitive about it.
In addition, when the TSA holds you for those searches, my rather-poorly-informed opinion is that it is an open question whether or not this violates the unreasonable searches clause of the constitution.
I suspect this has already been tested, but I’d suggest it’s not unreasonable for the following (also rather-poorly-informed) reasons:
– Travel by air is not a right, but a privilege. Certain restrictions of other civil liberties are permitted because you are voluntarily choosing to put yourself under a more secured situation. Similarly, I cannot bear arms, speak about bombing, or carry a ceremonial athame with me through a security check point, even though such matters might be very different if it were a normal city street.
– If there have been cases of people hiding bombing materials in certain locations about the body, it is not “unreasonable” to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.
– Such pat-downs usually occur as part of secondary screening, if there are indicators (a beep from a wand) that indicate possible items that cannot be otherwise confirmed, thus adding more “reason.” That the criteria for secondary screening, or what reasons pat-downs occur, are not transparent may make this rationale less easily defendable in court.
There’s also the question of whether or not the TSA is actually increasing security. I’m not convinced.
I’m not fully convinced either, though the lack of further airline hijackings in the US since 9/11 provides some (modest?) evidence.
I still hear of cases where people get on planes with pocketknives (or corkscrews). I still hear of cases where people get past security with weapons and when the concourse is evacuated they are never found.
Failure of security doesn’t mean that the security isn’t necessary. I still hear cases of people robbing banks, but that doesn’t mean banks ought not have silent alarms and security guards.
Now, the question of whether a pen knife or a corkscrew is, in fact, a significant danger any more is a different matter. (And, now that I think of it, corkscrews are currently on the allowed list, though not if they have a foil-cutting knife blade). I think the TSA’s regs in this area are, in fact, unreasonable.
I hear of the TSA giving the intensive security screening to little old ladies. I think TSA is spending so much time harassing honest passengers that I doubt they’re really doing the right things to catch the dishonest ones.
Problem is, how do you identify an “honest passenger”? Certainly any attempts by the TSA to screen based on criteria that might narrow the field some have been met with loud protest by both privacy groups and (when any sort of ethnic profiling is used) other civil liberties and ethnic protection groups. The result is, in fact, that if you cannot effectively or legally or politically target your enforcement actions, you need to make them include everyone, even when it seems unreasonable on the face of it.
Dave,
Your points are good ones. I’ll just respond to a few things.
If it’s of value, either ship it by FedEx, or carry it on.
I couldn’t carry the items in question on board since they were antique knives from my grandfather’s collection. I think your suggestion is good as a practical matter, but do we really want to make it a defacto national policy that people who are flying cannot expect their belongings to travel safely in checked luggage?
In response to my suggestion that we might end up with random body-cavity searches, you said
Certainly a slippery slope any time security is increased. And while it’s tempting to say that Extreme Measure X would never be taken, that’s usually not that wise to rely upon.
I tried to phrase my point in a way that made it not a slippery slope. Perhaps that’s not possible. At any rate, I’m not trying to say that it’s inevitable that we end up with body-cavity searches or any other extreme measure. I am trying to say that indifference by the flying public will make such transitions much more likely to happen.
You suggested that pat-down searches are not unreasonable since there is reason to conduct them (I think the standard is “probable cause”), including some indication in an earlier stage of screening and the fact that someone, somewhere, has hidden explosive material in a way that could be detected by a pat-down search.
Being kicked to pat-down screening on the basis of another indication (metal detector or whatever) is probably why people think this passes constitutional muster. The question is, how reliable is the initial test? I’m thinking it’s not constitutional if the error rate on the initial testing is more than 50% (I don’t know the legal definition of probable cause, but 50% seems reasonable to me for the word ‘probable’). We definitely don’t want to justify pat-down searches on the grounds that they might have caught a hijacker sometime in the past since that would be analogous to stopping everyone on the road and demanding a blood-alcohol test on the grounds that it would have caught a drunk driver sometime.
Failure of security doesn’t mean that the security isn’t necessary.
Granted. At the same time, since we’re talking about infringing on privacy and liberty, we need to use a higher standard than we would on whether or not we allow banks to install alarm systems, which don’t infringe on the privacy or liberty of the general public.
Problem is, how do you identify an “honest passenger”?
Indeed. I don’t mean to suggest that the TSA should adopt profiling (though I understand that the Israelis have very effective profiling systems), but only to say in a different way that I don’t think their techniques are particularly effective.
if you cannot effectively or legally or politically target your enforcement actions, you need to make them include everyone, even when it seems unreasonable on the face of it.
No, I don’t think so. I think this would clearly be unconstitutional since I think reasonable cause has to be particular to a person, not just general suspicion of large numbers of people.
Perhaps you’re right that the individuals you referenced in the first post need to grow up. It’s certainly possible that some people are reacting to this in a childish way or for childish reasons rather than for good and rational reasons. I might agree that someone who objected to pat-down searches out of some kind of prudery or unreasonable concerns about the motives of the screeners was being childish, depending on the individual concerned. But I think the philosophical and legal issues are real, and we should be careful not to use the childishness of some objections to justify ignoring the phsilosophical and legal concerns.
do we really want to make it a defacto national policy that people who are flying cannot expect their belongings to travel safely in checked luggage?
Business-wise, it already is. Airlines have a limited liability of $2500, and theft from baggage has long been a problem. Antiques have special exemptions, etc.
We definitely don’t want to justify pat-down searches on the grounds that they might have caught a hijacker sometime in the past since that would be analogous to stopping everyone on the road and demanding a blood-alcohol test on the grounds that it would have caught a drunk driver sometime.
No. On the other hand, sobriety checkpoints on roadways have, with some restrictions, passed constitutional muster.
I don’t mean to suggest that the TSA should adopt profiling (though I understand that the Israelis have very effective profiling systems), but only to say in a different way that I don’t think their techniques are particularly effective.
But your original statement had to do with the TSA harassing “honest” passengers. Barring some reasonable (and politically feasible) way of narrowing the field of all passengers down to likely suspects, any security restrictions will harass “honest” passengers.
I think the philosophical and legal issues are real, and we should be careful not to use the childishness of some objections to justify ignoring the phsilosophical and legal concerns.
I agree. My objections to the folks complaining was not that they were arguing that such searches were unnecessary, or unconstitutional, or that airline security could be handled more effectively in a different fashion, or anything like that (at least as quoted, always a major caveat). It was that they were taking personal offense to the searches because they were “gross.”
Ick. If it’s already national policy that checked luggage is “fly at your own risk” or something like that, then I think that’s not good.
Yes, sobriety checkpoints pass muster, but I don’t think they should.
You said
But your original statement had to do with the TSA harassing “honest” passengers. Barring some reasonable (and politically feasible) way of narrowing the field of all passengers down to likely suspects, any security restrictions will harass “honest” passengers.
Yes! We need a constitutionally acceptable way of narrowing down the field of those who are subjected to more intensive scrutiny in order to avoid unconstitutional harrassment of honest passengers. I think the key difference between us is that I’m willing to put up with more risk to my safety to protect my constitutional freedoms than you are. I think the TSA has already gone too far, but you don’t.
Given these last three points, it looks like I am a crank after all, doesn’t it!
If it’s already national policy that checked luggage is “fly at your own risk” or something like that, then I think that’s not good.
That’s not explicit government policy, except insofar as the airlines are allowed such limited liability. For example, take this UAL statement:
For travel wholly between U.S. points, liability for delay, damage or loss to checked baggage, including carry-on baggage if tendered to the carrier’s inflight personnel for storage or otherwise delivered into the custody of the carrier, is limited to a maximum of $2,800 per passenger.
For international travels, including the domestic portions, subject to the Warsaw Convention, the liability limit for delay, damage or loss is approximately $9.07 per pound ($20.00 per kg) for checked baggage and approximately $400 per passenger for unchecked baggage. Where the Montreal Convention applies, the liability of the UA Carrier for the delay, damage or loss to checked and unchecked baggage is limited to 1,000 Special Drawing Rights per passenger.
United is not liable for damage to fragile items, spoilage of perishables, loss/damage/delay of money, jewelry, cameras, electronic/video/photographic equipment, computer equipment, heirlooms, antiques, artwork, silverware, precious metals, negotiable papers/securities, commercial effects, valuable papers, or other irreplaceable items and/or any item where a liability release was signed by the passenger.