> The TSA released a statement Sunday defending its agents’ actions at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport. > > “While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,” the federal agency said. “We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.” I’ll say it again. It’s not the TSA agents. It’s the fact that the leadership of the TSA considers this stuff “proper procedure” that scares the heck out of me.

If we had rogue agents abusing the system, that would be a problem, to be sure. But it would be an easy problem to fix. This issue is embedded in the very core of TSA’s founding principles. The only way to solve this is to disband the agency altogether. Or at least rethink it from the ground up.

We need law enforcement that knows the good guys from the bad. The TSA clearly doesn’t.

> An officer who conducted a pat-down of a 6-year-old girl in the New Orleans airport last week “followed proper current screening procedures,” the Transportation Security Administration said Tuesday. This is actually the problem. It’s the “proper current screening procedures” that are broken.

I’m not saying that a 6-year old should never be patted down. But you should have a legitimate reason to do so. Not just because she was randomly selected.

We have a system built on keeping up appearances, instead of identifying real threats. We use random searches instead of targeted searches, because they make people feel better. But that leads us to a situation where we’re safe from 6-year olds, but vulnerable to underwear bombers.

How many more of these videos are we going to have to watch before someone at TSA wises up and just copies the Israeli system?

> In Tuesday’s demonstration, Transportation Security staffers walked into one of the newly configured machines and stopped with their arms raised, as passenger being scanned are asked to do. A small video monitor near the unit’s exit displayed the results for both the passenger and the security officer operating the machine. > > Those who deliberately carried objects were detected and portrayed as generic human outlines, with regions of their body highlighted by a box indicating additional security attention was warranted. > > Those who carried no questionable objects saw a screen that was green with “OK” in the middle. > > Pistole acknowledged Transportation Security workers will no longer be able to see the shape and size of the questionable objects that are detected by the machines. > > “That’s one of the things we’ll be assessing in our pilot testing at the three airports,” he said. “How do the security officers engage the passenger based on what they’re seeing, and is there any diminution of efficiency in terms of what we’re doing?” The TSA is banking on this software upgrade quieting criticisms of the full-body scanners. And it does help, as far as privacy concerns go. But there are still at least two remaining reasons why the scanners need to be eliminated altogether. First, there are medical questions about the radiation exposure that have not been completely addressed, especially for frequent travelers and airline staff. And second, there’s still the notion of an “illegal search” to be considered. We do have a right not to be treated as criminals without suspicion in this country, people.

Does the Tea Party have its head so far up it’s ass on the Second Amendment that it’s forgotten about the Fourth? Where’s the protest on this one?

And the most important reason of all, of course, is that these expensive contraptions DON’T MAKE ANYONE SAFER. They just make lobbyists richer.

> But Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, cautioned against any knee-jerk reaction. > > “We need to have a commonsense approach to this,” he said. “There’s no point deploying huge extra layers of security and checkpoints for people to go through. > > “We have to recognize the fact that most airports are not only points of arrival and departure for passengers flying by air. They are also retail complexes, food courts, businesses that are trying to attract people in from the outside.” > > Baum argues that rather than installing more x-ray machines and metal detectors, airports need to introduce behavioral profiling. > > “Passenger profiling is the only proven method of countering the threat to aviation,” he said, calling on airports to be on the lookout “for people that don’t fit in, that seem to be out of place.” Horrible tragedy in Moscow. But here we have a security expert suggesting that adding layers of x-ray scanners might not be the best reaction to this event. Hard to believe. If this bombing had happened in the U.S., that guy would have been strung up by the media already for making such a suggestion.

Never mind that he’s right.

What this incident proves, once again, is that whatever you do to counter terrorism, the terrorists just work around it. They find another loophole and exploit it. You need to go after the root causes of this behavior, and the PEOPLE performing these acts, hopefully before they even get to the airport.

> Passengers aboard a Turkish Airlines flight from Oslo overpowered a man who tried to hijack their flight to Istanbul on Wednesday. > > Police said the man was a Turk who had demanded that the plane return to Norway. Once again, we see that security measures are never 100% full-proof, but it doesn’t matter, because passengers are now prepared to defend themselves.

Now can we all please stop having to take our shoes off?

> Kudos to the T.S.A. if it anticipated the rush and had more staff on duty (why can’t it always be that way?). But it could also have also been that air travel volumes were lighter than anticipated — perhaps because passengers were perturbed by the new procedures and were traveling by other means (or staying at home.) It would be hard to regard the new procedures as a success if that were the case, particularly given that more people bypassing air travel for road travel means [more fatalities on American highways](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/the-hidden-costs-of-extra-airport-security/). > > We eventually will get some idea about this, since the Department of Transportation keeps [relatively detailed statistics](http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1) about passenger volumes. But it only comes after a lag of several months. In the meantime, we’ll have to keep in mind that if airports were less busy than expected, it may simply have meant that fewer people were flying. I love that Nate Silver is so passionate about getting to the bottom of the actual numbers. He doesn’t assume that the TSA set up a vast conspiracy to make last week’s opt-out day seem like a big flop; but at the same time, he doesn’t assume that the TSA is telling the whole truth, either. In fact, he points out that there’s a clear lack of good numbers to support a full conclusion so far.

This is the sort of journalism we need more of in this country. Every time I read a story that quotes some poll, or hear a pundit throw numbers out there as if they were hard facts, I always shout in my head “What was the question?” “Were there follow up questions to clarify the respondent’s position?” “Who ran the poll, and whom did they ask?”

We are way too lazy nowadays to question the numbers people throw at us on a regular basis. And even the top respected journalists are guilty of it. I hear guests get away with throwing questionable statistics into discussions on This Week or Meet the Press all the time, and the hosts never follow up to ask where those numbers come from. They have fact checkers that you can go look up online after the show sometimes, but they know almost no one does that.

When you hear that the majority of Americans disapprove of the recent Health Care reforms, for instance, what is the next logical question in your head? Pundits, even liberal ones, have been using that statistic to suggest that people didn’t want health care reform, that it was a mistake for Obama to pursue it. The first question I want answered, but that no one ever asks, is “why didn’t they approve it?” “What was it they didn’t approve?” Was it because the bill went too far towards some grand Socialist takeover, or was it because the reforms were far too weak, and most of us wanted more? Knowing the answer to that question, it would seem to me, would have a significant impact on how we interpret that number.

My guess is that while some people were duped into thinking Health Care reform was tantamount to communism, far more of us disapproved because the reforms didn’t do nearly enough. (It was, after all, merely a watered-down version of the bills the Republicans used to propose in the 80s. Hardly what most would consider socialist.) And Obama was elected by a pretty big margin while promising big health care reform just a few years ago. But when you lump everyone who disapproves into one large group without asking why, you can paint whatever picture you like with it.

We liked health care the way it was, they want us to believe. Did we? Then why did we elect a president who promised to change it?

This method of painting any number to suit your political agenda is one of the primary instruments being used by our political parties to justify policies that are not serving the majority of people. As long as a poorly interpreted poll result suggests that most people want this or that, leaders can enact policies to suit their own interests, or those of their donors, while convincing us that it’s what “most” people want. Meanwhile, those of us paying attention are becoming more and more detached, because we are vastly under-represented. Which leads to fewer people voting, which actually helps them get even further away from our own best interests. The fewer people they have to convince, the easier it is for them to get more extreme.

We need to start demanding more accurate interpretations of polls. We need to start making journalists accountable for the opinions they present as facts. Otherwise, we’re just going to keep getting duped into thinking that any of our politicians actually care what we really think and are acting in our best interests.

> There are two different philosophies. The Israeli view is that one looks for the perpetrator, not the tool or weapon. All passengers about to board a flight are interviewed. Many in this country erroneously describe the process as “profiling,” but I think a better description would be “triage.” The Israeli view is that one does not waste time and resources on passengers who do not pose any threat to safety and security. > > [How Israelis do air security](http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/11/yeffet.air.security.israel/index.html?iref=allsearch) > > Those doing the interviews are generally college graduates who have completed their military service and have had significant additional training. The key point is that they are trusted to use their discretion on how much to investigate any given passenger. This system clearly catches those dressed in a T-shirt, with no checked baggage who have bought a one-way ticket for travel to Detroit, Michigan, in midwinter! > > The Transportation Security Administration system in the United States relies on searching for the tool or weapon. Those doing the screening have no discretion and follow a ritual ordained from above. We have now reached the point where this method is unworkable. The main thrust of Rez’s argument, other than that the Israelis do security better, is that even if the small bombs that the scanners are meant to detect were to get onto a plane, setting them off would only cause maybe one or two casualties, and not take down the whole plane. Any bomb that you can hide on your person in this fashion is not powerful enough.

Now, that would be a tragedy, of course, if a few people died in one of these incidents, but considering how rare it would be for someone to attempt this, and considering how much more likely and easy it would be that someone could set off much more powerful explosives in other public places (subways, concerts, the security line of the airport itself), it makes no sense to go through this much effort in taxpayer money and inconvenience just to try and stop these small bombs from getting onto the airplane.

You have to draw a line of practicality somewhere, in other words. We drive every day, even though the highways are far more likely to kill you, because the need to get around outweighs the need to guarantee that every single car trip is not going to be fatal. The same is true for air travel.

You’re actually more likely to be killed by a mechanical failure, or a bird strike, than you are from one of these bombs when flying. So let’s stop pretending that the scanners are about security, and admit that they are about comforting the irrationally fearful. And then let’s educate those irrationally fearful people. That has to be cheaper and more effective all around.

> It’s kind of creepy, and I wish they didn’t have to do any of > it,” Hanchak, 25, said while advancing in a security line on her > way to New York. “But they have to do what they have to do, even > though it’s an invasion of privacy. This kind of faulty logic is so infuriating to me. They don’t HAVE to do any of this. Worse, doing all of this doesn’t improve our safety at all, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

But fear turns otherwise intelligent people into morons.

> I sympathize with everyone who’s being screened or groped against their will, but there is some irony here. When male bodily autonomy is challenged, it’s a social emergency! A man’s junk is his castle. What did our ancestors fight and die for if not the right of the penis to be left alone? Women are expected to compromise whenever their bodily autonomy conflicts with someone else’s idea of the greater good. I’m thinking of bringing a “Don’t touch my junk!” sign to my next pro-choice protest. Empathy is catching. Allowing pilots to avoid these scans but not flight attendants is obviously sexist and should be remedied. But I doubt this was so much a question of “a man’s junk is his castle” as it was the pilot’s union having more money and influence to throw at a potential lawsuit than the flight attendant’s union did.

I’m following this story closely, as you may imagine, and I’m starting to see a trend of influential women crying foul about how this is a “white male” problem, and that’s the only reason it’s getting all this press. I don’t see the logic in this approach. If your goal is getting the much larger problem of females and minorities being groped and assaulted by authorities on a regular basis into the public view, why wouldn’t you take the opportunity to ally with your newly infuriated white male population? I mean, sure we’re only crying now that it involves us, too, but that’s no reason to call us crybabies. That’s call for celebration.

Alienating the white males who are upset about the TSA gains you what, exactly?

What your argument sounds like to a white male is “shut up, crybaby. We have it much worse,” rather than “I’m glad you’ve finally joined the party. We’ve been putting up with it for years. How about you help us out and we’ll help you out, too?”

Women, children, and minorities are subject to the same TSA rules as white males. It’s a common injustice, for once. So use that opportunity while you have our attention to drive awareness of the greater issue with your clueless male friends.

It never ceases to amaze me when I watch people who are being oppressed turn around and criticize others who are being oppressed, rather than focusing their energy on the oppressor. This is about the rich elite vs. the poor and middle class, not black or white, male or female. It’s about civil liberties.

> In 1986 a pregnant young Irish woman named Anne Marie Murphy was planning on flying to Israel to meet her fiance’s parents. Little did she know the fiance had hidden plastic explosives in her suitcase. Israeli security stopped what would have been a horrific terrorist attack because they did not rely on the profile alone. What Saunders fails to point out in her little example above is that Anne Murphy was stopped from flying not by an X-ray scanner or some other machine, but by trained behavioral experts who ended up finding the bomb in her suitcase after an interrogation.

So yes, profiling by sight alone doesn’t get you your criminal every time. But neither does taking naked pictures of everyone. What Israeli security did with Murphy is exactly what we should be doing here: they asked her some key questions, which then led to more questions, which then led to searching her bags. Not the bags of the 40,000 innocent people flying that day, but just HER bags.

The plastic explosives in Murphy’s suitcase would have made it onto a plane if she had been in the U.S. instead of Israel. Because, hard as it is to believe, the TSA still doesn’t scan everyone’s checked baggage. Only our carry-ons.

Why? Because in the U.S. we spend all of our money on theater. Scanning luggage happens out of public view, whereas the big X-ray machines are right there in front for all to see.

So no, we’re not a nation of whiners. We’re a nation of sheep like you, Ms. Saunders, who happily trade convenience and our constitutional rights for a fake, illogical feeling of safety.

> For government benefits and a salary that starts at $12.85 an hour, these unarmed officers swallow the irritation of others, apply security methods that intensify by the day, stifle the awkwardness they might have about touching other people — oh, and be on alert for bombs, [liquid containers](http://www.tsa.gov/311/ "TSA Web site.") holding more than 3.4 ounces, sharp objects, explosive ingredients and the next Abdulmutallab. > > “I want them to think Abdulmutallab with every pat-down,” Mr. Burdette said. That’s how much our security is worth, in terms of personnel. $12.85 an hour. That’s what the TSA is willing to pay for the men and women on the front lines of our defense against terrorists.

And we’re supposed to take them seriously as an agency?

In-N-Out Burger pays better than that, in case you were thinking about signing up.

How about you save yourself the million dollars on the X-Ray backscatter machine and bump up the base salary to maybe $15 or $20 an hour. Better yet, make it a salaried position at $90,000 a year. Then spend a little more money training your staff on how to detect HUMAN BEHAVIOR and use judgement to figure out who the terrorists are, rather than having them waste time looking for bombs that are almost never there.

Of course morale is low for these employees. It’s not their fault that they are grossly unqualified for the responsibilities they are given. But we have to face facts. They are unqualified, and that’s not going to change as long as you’re paying $12.85 an hour. Keep tacking on more responsibility, including forcing them to grope people’s privates, and it’s no wonder they have an incredibly high turnaround rate.

Any business major would tell you that the more you look at the TSA, the more you see evidence of incredibly poor management, gross mishandling of basic public relations, and massive inefficiencies in the allocation of money and resources. This company wouldn’t last ten days in the private sector. And we’re supposed to believe that it’s the “most effective” way, as our president put it, of preventing terrorism? We’re supposed to just implicitly trust that they know better than anyone in the world how to keep bombs from airplanes?

> The ABC News poll also suggests that opposition to the measures > is higher among those who fly regularly (a distinction that this > blog had [ > previously anticipated](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/the-full-body-backlash/)). Among Americans who fly at least once > a year, 58 percent support the new x-ray scanners, versus 70 > percent of Americans who fly less often than that. Support for the > new pat-down procedures is at 44 percent among fliers, meanwhile, > versus 52 percent among those who do not fly regularly. I love Nate Silver. Not only is he the king of stats, he always explains what the stats mean and how to put them into perspective.

Why would we care about the opinions of those who almost never fly? If you don’t fly at least once a year, you don’t get to tell the guy who has to fly every week that he needs to be exposed to radiation to make you feel safer as you sit in your recliner at home.

There’s a reason that political polls only care about “likely voters.” The only thing that matters for this poll should be frequent fliers, since they are the ones being sexually assaulted by their government on a regular basis.

It’s also very interesting to me that the numbers have shifted so quickly. 81% to 64% in a few weeks? And all it took were some stories on the Internet, which led to stories on the news, which led to Saturday Night Live and other late night parodies? Clearly, then, this is more a question of educating the public than anything else.

It’s safe to say, in other words, that a lot of people support the scanners only because they have no idea what they are or what they do. And they hear “pat down” and assume that it’s a standard frisk-type thing. Once you show them videos of little boys being stripped down, the mood shifts pretty fast.

Give it three more weeks, and more indications that people are going to fly less often as a result of all this, and you’ll see the airlines start pressuring Obama. Remember, the change only comes when one billionaire inconveniences two or more other billionaires.

As Silver suggests, there will be no official announcement. No admission of wrongdoing. They’ll just let up on the procedure quietly and go about their business.