What’s your opinion?
Since 9/11 traveling has become much more difficult and time consuming. Our government has assumed new responsibilities as we travel. I am thankful for the diligence of people involved in keeping us safe. Their work should never be taken for granted.
The most active story on my radar this week, however, has been that of the new TSA restrictions on travel. (You can read a Senate hearing transcript about them HERE.) Apparently if you travel airlines in the future you will go through an Xray type machine that shows your body plainly on a screen to ensure you have no hidden weapons or contraband. According to some, you will be basically naked in front of TSA officials. I’ve read that the new body scanners give viewers a pretty good idea of what you look like without your clothes on. If you refuse, in order to fly, you’ll be subject to an extremely thorough pat down by a TSA official of the same sex. My friend Ed Stetzer is advising you to resist these machines, even if you have to face the pat downs. (Read his post HERE.) Another friend Michael Hyatt is addressing the issue with a somewhat different take on his blog. (Read that post HERE.)
I was in Florence, SC recently and a random female passenger was pulled aside and subject to the new style of pat-down search. Honestly, it was very personal…I would have been very intimidated to have the male counterpart.
So here are my questions:
Has the TSA gone too far or is this just being safe? Are we running scared or just being cautious?
Have our rights been violated or is this part of living in a country as large as ours?
Are we overreacting to fear or are we being proactive?
What do you think?
How will you respond to the new regulations?
I realize I'm a little late to the conversation; I do have something to add. On 9/11, we were attacked! We were caught off guard by people who sat in a place very far from here and thought a great deal about what they were going to do and how they were going to do it; what they needed and the time to do it in was not that hard for them to get, and we realized this! It frightened us more than we knew how to be, so we began to set up a very reactive defense. At this point, the enemy that attacked us in such a heinous way won! In a John Wayne movie (Angel and The Badman) The Duke referred to what he was doing to an enemy; he said that the threat "would cause him to sleep with one eye open. His food won't taste right for the rest of his life. Always looking over his shoulder, waiting for me; He knows that one day or other, I'll show up……." This may not have been what OUR enemy had in mind when they made their attack, but it has had the same effect! They have been winning ever since. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have a heightened sense of security, just that we need to acknowledge that the direction we are going is not necessarily the correct one and learn from others who have progressed.
Just a thought.
Great thoughts Bryan. thank you
Thanks Dave. Good comment.
I think one of the reasons TSA's new procedures are so resented is because everyone knows that we are just playing a game with airport security. Last time I flew through Sacramento they had a photo sheet of the 20 most wanted terrorists as you entered security and – surprise! – they all had something in common. Even a child could recognize a similarity in ethnic descent, a common religion, a general age and gender. But in fear of being caught "profiling" TSA continues to act like there are no distinctions between people. A WW2 vet, a pregnant mom with kids in tow, my grandmother, a 20-year old coed – they are all just as likely to be a terrorist in the eyes of TSA as young middle eastern man on a passport. And because they are all just as likely to be criminals, they are all treated like potential criminals by TSA. Apparently all TSA learned from the "shoe" bomber and the "underpants" bomber was that shoes and underpants can be dangerous. Well yes, but those two bombers (and the vast, vast majority of terrorists targeting the U.S.) had something in common far more important and obvious then the shoes and underwear they wore. So yes, I deeply resent the screening because it is being applied in the context of a nation that continues, in the name of "tolerance", to lie to itself about where the most likely threat of terrorism will come from.
I think one of the reasons TSA's new procedures are so resented is because everyone knows that we are just playing a game with airport security. Last time I flew through Sacramento they had a photo sheet of the 20 most wanted terrorists as you entered security and – surprise! – they all had something in common. Even a child could recognize a similarity in ethnic descent, a common religion, a general age and gender. But in fear of being caught "profiling" TSA continues to act like there are no distinctions between people. A WW2 vet, a pregnant mom with kids in tow, my grandmother, a 20-year old coed – they are all just as likely to be a terrorist in the eyes of TSA as young middle eastern man on a passport. And because they are all just as likely to be criminals, they are all treated like potential criminals by TSA. Apparently all TSA learned from the "shoe" bomber and the "underpants" bomber was that shoes and underpants can be dangerous. Well yes, but those two bombers (and the vast, vast majority of terrorists targeting the U.S.) had something in common far more important and obvious then the shoes and underwear they wore. So yes, I deeply resent the screening because it is being applied in the context of a nation that continues, in the name of "tolerance", to lie to itself about where the most likely threat of terrorism will come from.
It seems like TSA could learn a lot from the border patrol that would help the process. At the Mexican border, the border patrol does very thorough checks – on par with what TSA does with every traveler – to a very small percentage of the autos crossing the border. But the border patrol recognizes that there are certain cars, certain types of drivers, certain "profiles" that are far more likely to be carrying illegal aliens or drugs. Because the border patrol "profiles" in this way, the vast majority of us can speed through the border with ease. Is that a bummer for those who fit those profiles but are engaged in perfectly legal activity? Absolutely. But isn't it far better to have a much smaller group face this unneeded scrutiny because of their "profile" rather then subject every traveler to it? So if TSA wants to win the support of the American people, they need to show us that they are willing to really go after true threats rather then bullying and harassing the American people without distinction.
Ok, now I'm freaked out. I got pulled out to go through the new xray machine the last time I flew. I don't know what's worse… a thorough pat down or having your body so exposed!
Really, so you've been through the new machine? I haven't and I travel quite a bit. They must not want to see what I have to offer…Ha! Sorry, probably not a nice comment…
I think it is the wrong question. First we need to seriously analyze the risk. The Wall Street Journal earlier this year estimated that there is about a 1 in 25 million chance of dying in an airline related terrorism incicent in the US. According to the TSA 130 items of concern have been confiscated using the old methods of search since 2001. We have about 50,000 people die every year on our highways. About 25,000 a year by homicide. More than 6000 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afganistan since the original invasion in 2003. But we are literally spending billions of dollars on security systems that are inadequate for the last two airline related terrorism incidents that occurred around the world. The TSA has admitted that these scanners cannot look under the skin so would not have caught the Saudia Arabian bomber and it is unlikely that they would have caught the underwear bomber from last Christmas.
I am not concerned about radiation danger (although the refusal of the TSA to allow independent research on the machines to confirm radiation levels is concerning by itself). I do think that there is a level of decency and wisdom that is lost when we are patting down 3 year olds and 97 year olds in wheel chairs. There is an report of US soldiers on a chartered flight being asked to give up their nail clippers (which regular travelers can now carry) in spite of the fact that they were all flying a chartered flight with only US soldier returning from Afghanistan, and all of the soldiers where carrying their weapons (weapons ranged from pistols to standard issue machine guns to to full heavy machine guns meant to use used on a stand or mount.) There was no danger there of terrorism. It was about the power and authority.
I think that people that have faced sexual assault are very concerned about how they will psychologically deal with the TSA. I also think that people with cancer are told to avoid all amount of radiation (so must receive the pat down line.) A flight attendance that is a breast cancer survivor was forced to remove and show her breast prosthesis to the TSA the last time she flew. This was in violation of TSA rules, but it still occurred. She has filed formal complaint and asked her union to file a complaint.
My issues are basically three. 1) The TSA has a history of bad behavior and over reacting to situations that are not threatening. (A classic law enforcement psychological issue.) 2) The current rules do not deal with current potential, but seriously impact a large number of people. 3) We still are focusing on solving a people problem with technology instead of dealing with people problems through people means. We will never be able to protect against everything, so the very attempt will end at some point in backlash. So refocusing to a reasonable balance, based on actual threat will occur. The question is when.
Thanks for joining the conversation. Obviously I ask the question I think will stir the discussion, but you have obviously studied this issue and have strong, good opinions. Thanks for sharing.
Like most of the other people here, I'm not sure that I have the answer. I suppose if someone wants to look at me on the scanner, well that's their lunch to lose 🙂
But I would definitely not want my wife exposed in that manner or my kids for that matter.
Ha! "lunch to lose" Great comment.
Thanks Jeff for weighing in and for the article link.
I understand that the TSA has a difficult and thankless task to do. I know that we have to give up some bit of personal liberty when we board an airplane to be safe. However, I think there is a balance and in some ways TSA is subjecting travelers to scrutiny that does not increase safety.
Last month I flew from Amsterdam direct to Memphis. At the gate in Amsterdam (after already having gone through security to enter the airport) I had to go through the new body scanner technology and into a secure waiting area before boarding the plane. After deplaning in Memphis, I had to go through the body scanner again before I could go in the main part of the airport to exit to my car. Why go through a second body scan AFTER being on the plane?
If seems if TSA in Memphis didn't trust the screening that was given passengers in Amsterdam, they should not have let the flight enter the US. If they did trust the screening enough to allow the plane to fly and land in the US then why rescreen passengers who had never been out of the secure area?
The TSA needs a serious review of their procedures to make sure that resources are deployed in the area where they can do the greatest good.
Thanks for your thoughts here. I like your illustration.
I fully intend on having an x-ray scanner in my house when my boys are teenagers.
But seriously, I think if better technology existed, they would use it. This is just the best thing we have to use at the moment. Eventually, I'm hoping someone will crack the star-trek style molecular transporter technology and we won't have to worry about any of this anymore. Actually, that would solve a lot of the world's problems. We wouldn't need gas for cars, pollution would decrease, no more car wrecks, plane crashes, etc… We just need to put all of our energy into inventing that transporter. Problems solved.
I'd like to echo Jeff's sentiments above. Israel has been engaged in high-level airport security much longer than the US has. Instead of subjecting our citizens to potentially unsafe radiation and/or physical touch that's well beyond societal norms, why not benchmark off people who are successfully doing what we're aspiring to do?
Good question.
Here's an interesting perspective…
http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2010/11/19/an…
Thanks for sharing
Ron,
Thanks for starting the debate on this. I honesty believe our approach is totally wrong. The government usually lags behind in everything that they do (besides raising taxes, they get that done pretty fast 😉 But, the best approach is not more machines, more strip searches, more invasive measures, the answer is to simply watch people, look them in the eye, and ask the right questions. Body language never lies. Read this article:
"While you're getting groped by the TSA, here is a reminder of how it's done in Israel. High security, little bother" http://www.reddit.com/tb/e6ukr
I completely believe this is the best method. However, we would have to re-train all TSA employees to not be drones or cogs that just process people, images, and bags. They would have to be trained to watch people, have emotional intelligence, engage in conversation, etc. That's the way I see it.
Ron, as a full-time firefighter, part time EMT and a volunteer with my local EMA office, I have spent this entire week in class learning about terrorism. One part of the class dealt with civil aviation, given by the TSA. I agree with Michael Hyatt, their lack of communication has been their downfall. The threat is high, and real. There are many many cases the public never hears about. If they did, they may not resist so much. I believe the TSA is focused on finding and stopping terrorists, not invading privacy. It’s unfortunate that this has become our way of life, but we should ask our selves: would I rather go through this scan, or risk being on a plane where there is an incident? If privacy was of no concern we would prob be seeing strip searches instead of body scanners. Just my opinion.
Good thoughts Chris. Thanks for your sacrifice in public safety!
I just left a comment on Michael Hyatt's posts. I work for an airline. Although I'm no fan of the TSA, they communicate all that they are going to do. And they have communicated this for years and have had test scanners in several airports. I read my industries headlines everyday. I don't think the traveling public cares until they are in the airport.
I don't like the new rules. The enhanced pat downs cross a line and people should take a stand against the pat downs. Scanners don't bother me. I agree with Chris, if they weren't concerned about the privacy they would have done strip searches.
Thanks for weighing in Laurinda. I respect you so much as a leader, so having you in the industry comment is a blessing on this issue.
I think our quiet, slow but steady loss of freedom is a serious issue in this country. Yes I believe the new TSA guidelines are going too far. Especially when most of the security measures are either totally reactionary to events that are obviously not terrorist issues. I believe many "RULES" or laws are put into place despite the wishes of most of the people. So now we are not a government of the people, but a government over the people. Even then it wouldn't feel so bad if they have common sense or logic within them. Seems to me most of the "RULES' do little to make us safer, and are nothing more that smoke and mirrors that give the illusion of safety.
What's next, flying NUDE while knocked out by gas?
Thanks for weighing into this discussion. Great, graphic, end question.
i don't believe, is it fair; is the right question. I believe the right question would be is it legal, moral, or ethical to be touched or exposed in this manner in any circumstance. The safety measures we have had in place up til now have been successful. It is not always the case of the same gender 'patting down' the same gender. There are reports of men patting women down and the women stopping them before they approach their children. There are no guarantees of safety in life. We are each responsible for our personal safety and the safety of our families. Do we live in such fear that we will allow our constitutional rights to be taken away for the illusion of safety? Does God promise safety in this life? Should we subject ourself to pat downs to go to our children's football game? or when we go to our churches? How far will this go? Is it fair?
Thanks James for your comment. Obviously I title to stir discussion and you give some great thoughts here. I agree with the direction you are going here in your thoughts.
I love Michael's wisdom on this and I understand Ed's point of view.
It's hard for me to comment intelligently because I don't have an answer. I don't like to complain about problems unless I have the solution. I don't fly often so it doesn't affect me as much as it does Ed and others.
As far as response to this, I think I would prefer the pat down. I really have a problem with the x-ray search. Especially for women. I don't want the women I travel with to be subject to this kind of exposure.
Thanks Tony. Good response.
Ron,
I follow both Ed Stetzer and you on Twitter, so its nice to see another perspective.
I know my family is traveling this week and it upsets me to think that my mother & sister might be exposed in this nature.
I really do not want another man viewing my wife nearly naked.
As a a youth minister I have had to deal with sexting as the transmission of images of people under 18 is considered child pornography.
Therefore, if a child or adolescent goes through the X-Ray machine the images are illegal; if they get patted down even by a member of the same sex, as a minor it is still molestation.
What do you think?
Thanks Chris. I'm still wrestling through this issue, which is the nature of this post, but I agree with Ed that it's alarming to me. I just don't know what the right response is yet.