Pilot Stands Up To TSA And Refuses Full Body Scan

http://www.expressjetpilots.com/the-pipe/showthread.php?39523-Well-today-was-the-day

by yread • 16 years ago

188 170 16 years ago

jacquesm9• 16 years ago

Wow, what a story and what a composure that pilot has. If it were me you would have been able to see steam coming from my ears.

There was a cartoon a couple of years ago that showed nude people in line for a pat-down as the only way to get on board an airplane. We're not there just yet but we're getting there. I really wonder how long all this security theater is going to continue. And I also hope that this brave man will not lose his job for standing up to this abusive behavior, and if he does that all his colleagues will walk out with him.

michael_dorfman7• 16 years ago

Forgive my being dense, but where was the abusive behavior, exactly?

They asked him to take a full body scan. He declined. They offered him an "alternative option"-- to get frisked. He declined. The security folks refused to let him board the plane without either a) or b) above. At the end of this impasse, they asked him a few questions to file an incident report.

Pain in the ass? Sure. Abuse? I don't see it.

jacquesm9• 16 years ago

The abusive behavior is in insulting a man that on a daily basis carries the responsibility for the lives of a few hundred people with having to comply with idiotic rules like these.

If you do not consider it abusive that's fine with me but I can fully understand his position.

All he needs to do damage are his hands and his head, and he doesn't even have to take off for that, all he has to do is not brake on the pad in line for takeoff. Are you going to read his mind to make sure he has no bad plans?

What's next ? Are we going to strip-search busdrivers ? Captains of ocean liners ?

I used to visit the US on a very regular basis, a few years ago I decided I'd had enough of the insults and the power trips these TSA types go through, I'm very happy that someone with some visibility finally has enough of it and steps up.

What bugs me a lot more is all the people that stand by and let it happen. That's being complicit to some extent.

That war on terror was won long ago. But not by who you think.

michael_dorfman7• 16 years ago

The complicating factor here is not that he not only refused a Full Body Scan, but that he refused to be frisked as well:

On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had “opted out” of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined.

rbanffy4• 16 years ago

The man is a pilot. If he ever intends to kidnap or blow up a plane, no amount of frisking will stop him.

What's the next step? Functional MRI?

michael_dorfman7• 16 years ago

So, anyone holding a pilot's ID card should get waived through security?

jacquesm9• 16 years ago

All he'd have to do to create considerable trouble is to comply with all this nonsense and then fly the plane in to the first target of opportunity.

Really, this stuff is not effective against those that you will have to trust eventually anyway.

Devilboy2• 16 years ago

You don't search pilots, they're gonna be getting into the cockpit to fly the plane! They are uniformed, they carry clear identification badges that can be verified easily, and they probably know half the people working in the airport. You can't expect them to be groped several times a day for no good reason just to do their jobs.

jgrahamc5• 16 years ago

So what do you do about a deadheading pilot in uniform with ID who's decided to crash the plane? Sorry, you should search everyone (or search totally randomly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_705

IgorPartola• 16 years ago

Soon to get on a plane we'll have to get naked and be sedated. The airlines will just stack people along with the cargo and revive them at the destination.

rbanffy4• 16 years ago

Doesn't sound that worse than the last time I flew couch...

hackoder• 16 years ago

Looking at this 'from the outside' (US), some of this stuff is absolutely shocking. How scared is the average person to continue tolerating stuff like this? And when/where does it stop?

The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your liberties back."?

jacquesm9• 16 years ago

> The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is this: Will there every come a point where the government will say "Ok, the world is safe again, we're giving you your liberties back."?

I think I know the answer to that one but you will not like it one bit.

What's the last time a country repealed a law that limited citizens rights somehow without there being a confrontation about it?

tomjen33• 16 years ago

Define confrontation.

Because I would argue that the end of the legal limits on the price you could charge on things in most of Europe was just such an event.

philwelch4• 16 years ago

Confrontations happen with every political change. The real question is whether it's feasible to repeal laws that limit citizens rights; the US presents numerous examples that suggest it is.

In 1972 the draft ended. In 1996 export of strong cryptography from the US was legalized. Since the 1990's, 18 states have either decriminalized marijuana or legalized medicinal marijuana. A couple states during that time span legalized assisted suicide. Judicial rulings in the past ten years alone have overturned laws banning firearms and sodomy, and in five states, same sex marriage was legalized.

psyklic3• 16 years ago

I can see it from both perspectives. It is shocking, but the government isn't just doing full body scans for kicks. Airlines are ridiculously hard to secure - if terrorists use another one as a bomb after the US has spent so much money already protecting them, then we're in big trouble. Not only would more terrorists try to hijack planes, but we would lose some standing with other countries because of "insecure" transit systems.

The BIGGEST QUESTION for me is: Will there ever come a point where our airlines WILL be safe again? If there is ever a lapse in our security, will someone new try to embarrass us using the same attack? Will the world ever be safe?

Vivtek5• 16 years ago

The government isn't just doing full body scans for kicks - they're doing it for kickbacks.

younata• 16 years ago

I have a friend who regularly talks about how easy it would be to 'destroy' (kill power grid, poison water supply bomb pretty much anything) NYC (he's from up there) without using the airlines.

Even before 9/11, it was by far much easier to 'destroy' a city than it is to hijack an airplane to do whatever.

maushu• 16 years ago

You forget the "if it's working, let's not fix it" thinking.

jgrahamc5• 16 years ago

It's interesting that people like this story because what I see is a pilot who first refused the body scanner and then refused the alternative (a pat down) and was refused entry to the airport. I don't see this as a big deal. He wasn't arrested and appears to have been dealt with politely by all concerned. The "stands up to the TSA" in the headline makes it sound like he's frikkin' Gandhi standing up the British. And I'm probably going to burn karma for saying this but, welcome to Reddit.

bad_user• 16 years ago

Considering he's a pilot that flies the airplane, do you think he would need to conceal objects from security scanning to crash that airplane into a building?

Boy, those Sep 11 attacks where like a needle straight to the heart ;)

jgrahamc5• 16 years ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1802972

aberkowitz• 16 years ago

What it comes down to is that there is no system in place for TSA to determine whether a pilot is actually a pilot. See this essay [1] for a clear argument.

[1] http://www.schneier.com/essay-130.html

lionhearted4• 16 years ago

Agreed. I'm actually a supporter of the scanning technology, because I think it will reduce time spent in line at airports. The shoes taking off thing still seems kind of unnecessary and it's gross that everyone walks through the screening area in only their socks.

On a side note, I fly a lot, and it seems like TSA and Homeland Security have gotten much more organized, fast, and polite over the last few years. It was pretty bad 3+ years ago, but the last few flights I took in the USA they were polite and calm and prompt. This piece seems like much ado about nothing - there's legitimate problems in the USA right now, but this event doesn't seem like one of them.

lionhearted4• 16 years ago

Hey, hold on guys. I'm writing that:

-I'm in favor of scanners because I think they'll speed things up.

-Taking shoes off seems unnecessary and counterproductive

-I fly a lot, and anecdotally it seems like TSA has improved in etiquitte and service quality

-In my opinion, this doesn't seem like an area worthy of much concern

People who disagree are welcome to express their disagreement, ideally with a reasoned, unemotional argument instead of flicking the button because you disagree with someone's reasoned point of view.

Rhapso• 16 years ago

Read to the end before you downvote.

It really is a matter of your goals. If your goal is to use the airport for its intended use and you do not really care about your civil rights or you trust the government wholeheartedly then the above makes sense.

I think airport security exists more for the government to save face then anything else. It allows them to take an environment made unsafe in the perception of the public and make it 'safe'. Similar to stationing a squad of police officers at a shady part of town and having them harass everybody. In the short term everybody get harassed, but they have to admit in the long run the police officers 'fixed' the problem. This is also a medium of communicating this type of message that the government has practice and established methods of doing.

It boils down to: They are doing their best. Yes, it is infringing on our rights. The only solution is a drastic change in the american people. All the fear and drama surrounding airports now, is the victory terrorists had in 9/11. It was their goals to make us afraid as a nation, and they succeeded.

icefox5• 16 years ago

You don't get the choice of metal detector or scanner, you get to do both or metal + pad down. I fail to see how this could speed things up.

bambax7• 16 years ago

A pilot does not need concealed weapons to crash a plane...?!? He pilots the damn machine.

You strip search him, find nothing, let him go, and then he takes command of the plane and can crash it anywhere, any time. How obvious is this??

The link you posted below, to the "FedEx Express Flight 705" incident is completely irrelevant since Mr. Calloway was not in charge of steering that plane. Had he been, he would not have tried to kill the crew.

loewenskind• 16 years ago

Not to mention there is a big axe in the cockpit.

borism15• 16 years ago

Did you notice there are at least two people in the cockpit?

tallanvor2• 16 years ago

First, I don't agree with the use of full body scanners.

To be fair, the TSA doesn't know that the guy is a pilot - only that he has the uniform and some sort of identification that says he is - both of which could be faked.

Unfortunately nothing is likely to change until it's not isolated incidents of people refusing to go through the full body scanners but rather 10% or more of the flying public. --I'm estimating, of course, but can you imagine the backlogs if just 10% of passengers refused every day and forced the TSA to spend time frisking them?

taloft• 16 years ago

What's more is that for some time they allowed pilots to carry handguns in the cockpit (federal flight deck officers). I always found it amusing when one of the pilots got waved through carrying a firearm while the other had to go through secondary screening.

joezydeco• 16 years ago

How much do you wanna bet that pilot's uniform he was wearing got him a calmer treatment than, say, a shaggy kid carrying a backpack?

The backpacker would have been tasered and thrown in jail after the first "no".

davidw5• 16 years ago

This is one of those stories that looks like it's designed to get you hot and bothered about a topic that is not very related to tech and startups. In other words, I think there are other sites that are better choices for long, far ranging discussions about things like civil liberties, terrorism, and so on and so forth.

borism15• 16 years ago

Absolutely!

Everyone interested in relevant discussion can go to airliners.net where this is top story for few days now:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/re...

Another relevant site is pprune.org:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/430970-pilot-challenges-t...

Those are the places where real pilots and aviation professionals discuss the issue. One excellent quote from PPRune:

"What you have here is an idiot with an agenda. Fortunately he's likely so early in his career, he may not have thrown that much away, but he did make good inroads at getting stuck on TSA's watch list."

Totally irrelevant to HN.

shill• 16 years ago

This story is relevant to HN because 80% of the posts here are about building businesses and this often requires air-travel. Refusing to be X-raped by the TSA could have negative long term repercussions on your ability to travel efficiently.

davidw5• 16 years ago

By that measure, 100% of businesses here are run by people who breathe air and drink water, so articles about environmentalism are pertinent too. Likewise, most of us are human beings with sexual and emotional needs, which, if not met, might lead to frustrations that could damage businesses, so "how to score with hot chicks" is on-topic too.

I call that game "7 degrees of hacker news".

maxklein• 16 years ago

Am I the only one who actually thinks that searches should be more thorough? Airplanes are instruments that people like to target, and I'd not be comfortable flying unless people are properly screened. It's scary enough with the possibility that the plane could drop out of the sky, but adding an additional threat of someone blowing up the plane would make it a terrible experience.

You are a nice person, your friends probably, but there are a lot of crazy people out there that would hijack or bomb planes, given the chance.

jacquesm9• 16 years ago

How will you ever know if you can trust the pilot? Are you going to dissect their brain before take-off?

Udo• 16 years ago

You can't, you can never completely trust people. A few years ago there was an incident where an Egyptian airline pilot suddenly screamed "Allahwakbar!" and put the plane in a nose dive. Everybody died.

But that's not the point. The point is, there will never be complete safety. It's physically impossible. However, that answer is considered heretical. And while we're at it: the security measures at the airports do exactly nothing to make us any safer either. They're not even designed to do that. They are designed to impress politicians. All that gestapo compliance crap is just a nasty side effect.

As far as this guy is concerned, it's just another variant of "rage quit", because he essentially did this to quit his job. There is no way in hell he didn't know exactly what would happen. After years and years of going through all the motions of Security Theater he chose to do all the things that get you red-flagged. His point was of course to demonstrate that we don't live in a free society anymore. But we knew that for some time now.

philk• 16 years ago

The guy is a pilot. There's no point whatsoever in searching him more thoroughly before he flies a plane because he already has control over it.

borism15• 16 years ago

> he already has control over it

so does co-pilot and auxiliary crew

alextgordon• 16 years ago

Why only search passengers on planes then? I don't have this kind of hassle whenever I get on a train or a bus.

The relative infrequency of terrorism incidents in insecure places leads me to believe that either a) our intelligence services are extraordinarily effective, or b) the number of "crazy people" wiling and able to do such a thing is extraordinarily small.

jrockway• 16 years ago

That's because dying in a plane is much scarier than dying in a bus. I mean, think about it, you're trapped up there... if the plane blows up, you blow up with it. If you're on a bus... oh wait, you also die in a fire. But on the news the plane crash looks scarier -- more people can see it, and more people are irrationally afraid of flying.

Think about how Americans handle risk; the risk of dying in a plane hijacking is very low. The risk of dying of heart disease if you don't eat well is very high. So we spend a ton of time, effort, and money on preventing plane hijackings, but we eat tons and tons of unhealthy food. You'd think that the reason we have security is to prevent ourselves from dying, but if that's the case, we're doing it very wrong. The reason we have airport security is so that some bureaucrat can get a promotion; armed guards with high-tech tools make people feel like their government loves them. (Except for people with a brain, who think it's a little scary to have to show the cops your charlie browns every time you board a plane.)

I don't even want to think about how much healthy food we could buy with the money we spend on full-body imagers.

moeffju• 16 years ago

In Spain, there are metal detectors and x-ray machines at the gates to the train platforms. In Israel, there are metal detectors and x-ray machines at the bus terminals. Security seems to be mostly reactive - people blow up a train (Spain), you get frisked boarding an intercity train. People blow up buses (Israel), you x-ray luggage and pat down people entering the bus terminal.

sp332• 16 years ago

It's awfully hard to crash a train into a building :-)

bambax7• 16 years ago

Interesting.

I don't remember if it's a real quote or if it's from a movie, but an elected official said once (again, a real official or an actor, I'm not sure): "let's have two planes; to get aboard plane A, nobody's searched or even asked a single question; to get aboard plane B you're submitted to the current TSA procedure and more; let's see how many people are willing to fly on plane A".

The answer seems obvious: nobody will ever take plane A (or, only terrorists).

But I'm not so sure. People do very dangerous things all the time. I drive a motor bike in Paris (also when it rains or snows): it's is much more frightening than flying in a commercial airliner, and statistically much more dangerous. But I can't stand the metro, however safe it is.

The point is, there are many motor bikes and bicycles in Paris, so many people make the same trade-off between security and convenience, and prefer convenience.

So, why not try it? You want to be searched and safe, take plane B; make sure to get to the airport 4 hours in advance, though, and to wear clean underpants.

You don't care: take plane A.

gjm11• 16 years ago

It's completely the wrong question, anyway, for two reasons.

1. If some flights have security procedures and some don't, obviously all malefactors will be attacking the ones that don't. So they'll be more dangerous than if no flights had security procedures.

2. No one is really suggesting having no security procedures at all, so far as I know. The question is how much security overhead we're prepared to put up with, and how much benefit in safety we're actually getting.

I might be reluctant to get on flight A. But if the great majority of flights had simpler quicker security procedures only -- say, 1/4 of the way from flight A to flight B -- then I bet I'd be about as safe on them as I am now with all flights being like flight B.

Back of envelope calculation. Suppose I value my life at $10M, and my time at $50/hour. Then I should be prepared to put up with an hour's timewasting if it saves a 1/200,000 chance of death. The actual rate of violent death for aeroplane passengers over the last half-century or so has never been higher than about 1/5,000,000 per flight (in the 1940s and 1960s; it's been much lower since then even counting 2001-09-11; even if you include non-passengers, who of course made up most of the 9-11 deaths, the figure is still lower for the 2000s than for the 1940s and 1960s), meaning that I should be willing to put up with about 2 minutes of security overhead per flight. In practice, reducing the amount of security checking would probably increase the danger somewhat, so the correct figure is probably more than 2 minutes. I doubt it's more than 15.

Vivtek5• 16 years ago

I would be taking plane A. No question about it. I simply don't believe that there are enough terrorists in the world to make flying with them more dangerous than walking across the street - on average. And I still think fellow passengers are more effective against terrorists than all the money the TSA can throw at their BFF vendors.

Anaphylaxis. This whole thing is anaphylaxis.

icefox5• 16 years ago

Everyone would take plane A. The question is already being asked:

A Go through the scanner and be done in two minutes. B Get a pat down and be done in 10-20 minutes.

People just want to get somewhere faster. Many will already take A because it is faster (I know I heard them say it). Plane A would probably be cheaper and faster.

geophile• 16 years ago

Which one has a shorter line?

DanielBMarkham• 16 years ago

I'm a pilot, a libertarian, and somebody who believes that it is a fair trade to temporarily trade freedoms for security, such as when governments institute blackout laws during air-raids when the nation is at war.

But this virtual strip-searching is going too far. Somebody needs to be a grownup and stop abusing the public in return for the promise of a risk-free travel experience.

The problem, from a political perspective, is this is one of those "clean water" issues -- an issue with only one side. Who wants to be in favor of dirty water? Yet the real question facing governments is what kind of trade to make between tax revenue and water treatment plants, what kinds of burdens to put on industry to not pollute (too much), etc. The real question is very nuanced and involves lots of trade-offs and discussions about private property rights and the public good. But the problem is, even though it's a trade-off, there's no upside to taking the other side of the issue.

Let's suppose somebody gets elected on the platform to eliminate body scanners. All the scanners get eliminated and the public cheers.

The next month there is a terrible attack -- one that could have been prevented by the use of body scanners.

I know what the logical response is, but what do you think the actual response from the public will be? It's going to be to get rid of that foolish politician who's reckless ways caused so much harm and misery.

And to DavidW's point, yes, I think this is a HN issue, although it is also emotionally-charged. It's a hacker issue because it gets to the heart of all hacking: just because you can do something, should you? If I can create a mind-reading device to stop terrorists, should I? It also addresses the ways people can create organizational systems without balance -- systems that continue growing ad infinitum. I would expect this virtual strip-searching to be only the beginning: as terrorist defeat these (by the use of rectally-planted explosives, as the pilot points out) then government will up the ante and find a way to give rectal exams. They'll have to. It's a one-sided issue.

psyklic3• 16 years ago

It's a one-sided issue which our government has said that they're gonna fix - small cost to attack, enormous cost to defend. The US had no other choice though. If one vulnerability is found, terrorists will just continue to exploit it, and it will erode trust in our transit networks.

Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes? Are alternative scanning methods just as effective? Wouldn't you prefer that everyone else on your flight is scanned, just to make sure you'll be safe? It's a tricky issue.

jokermatt999• 16 years ago

You're assuming that these measures are foolproof though. These will catch the stupid terrorists, but the smart ones will still get through.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2008/11/the-things...

acabal• 16 years ago

> Are you saying we should just let 9/11s happen, and then fix the holes?

Isn't that how TSA already operates? Someone sneaks a bomb into their shoe and TSA makes me take my flip-flops off through the metal detector. Someone tries to blow up a plane with "gels" and TSA bans sealed water bottles. Someone stitches a bomb in their underwear and TSA sets up virtual strip-searches.

Until TSA mandates that everyone be stripped naked, anesthetized, and sealed in blast-proof capsules for the length of the journey, there will always be a way to sneak something deadly onto a plane. As terrorists get more clever, TSA will continue to fix the holes the terrorists find with continually more invasive, illogical, and civil-liberty-stripping mandates in the name of safety.

Quarrelsome2• 16 years ago

> If one vulnerability is found, terrorists will just continue to exploit it, and it will erode trust in our transit networks.

I don't see this. We have had one 9/11. We had one 7/7. Certainly RE: 7/7 that kind of stuff is VERY hard to prevent (no scanning possible) and UK society and public transport has changed _very_ little since this, if not at all. However we are not seeing more 7/7 attacks.

Terrorists are in incredibly limited supply, certainly competent ones (Edinburgh Airport anyone? :D). We should possibly consider that we might see exactly the same number of terrorist attacks even if we had zero security.

It worth considering as opposed to being convinced that the barbarians are _definitely_ at the gates.

davidw5• 16 years ago

> It's a hacker issue because it gets to the heart of all hacking: just because you can do something, should you?

That's much more of a political problem though, and really is so vague as to make most anything you want a 'hacker issue'.

lionhearted4• 16 years ago

A sensible reply, Daniel, but I'm on the other side of the fence. I think hard objects and explosives scanning technology is going to be standard in the future. We've only got primitive and crude versions right now, but I think this sort of scanning technology is the answer to the problem. With good enough technology and alerts system, security at all high risk venues could proceed automatically with a few people monitoring outputs and response teams nearby.

Implemented as well as it could be, this seems like it'll be less intrusive than the current way of lining up for metal detectors. Also, less expensive and less invasive. From the comments, I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm for this kind of technology.

Quarrelsome2• 16 years ago

I'm not sure that I'm convinced that technology is really the answer here. Sure it can work if everyone is scanned and the monitors watched but will that always 100% be the case?

I've worked on scanning systems before for security purposes (festival id tags, I appreciate, a lesser concern) and there are almost always ways around the system, be it accidental or intentional. But if those ways round are abused the technology completely fails to fulfil its intended purpose if that one person is missed.

The issue with airport security and kabooms is can certainly be just that one person who has the kaboom and such an instance would take us right back to square one.

As a brief example might I state that diplomats have immunity from these scanning systems and are allowed to bypass them.

edw5193• 16 years ago

Here's how it works:

  - x-ray machine: 30 seconds
  - full body scan: add 30 seconds
  - pat down: add 5 to 20 minutes

Do I think these policies and procedures are violations of my personal rights? Yes.

Am I willing to risk my job standing up for my beliefs? No.

I'm not even willing to risk being late for dinner. Given a choice, I always opt for the fastest, regardless of what I believe in. Even if I'm right, what do I win by missing my plane?

That's what they're counting on.

tptacek4• 16 years ago

The pat down does not add 5 to 20 minutes. It's exactly the same secondary screening they give you if you set off the metal detector, performed by exactly the same person; if it took 20 minutes, the whole line would bottleneck.

edw5193• 16 years ago

My pat down did take 20 minutes. It was done by another person while the original person kept their original job. There was a backlog of people who refused to go through the "naked machine". And, yes, the whole line did bottleneck.

icefox5• 16 years ago

My pat down and search of everything on me took a good 15 minutes. When standing in line they asked each one of us if we wanted the xrays or patdown (they installed it just days before) and I was horrified when the person in front of me said "Oh I don't care" and the person in front of them simply said "that line looks faster". I couldn't believe they were so willing to take whatever security measure was added. I can only imagine what they are going to do next.

jamesbressi• 16 years ago

My apologies and I wish no ill will or to cause flames, but your comment makes me sad and reminds me of "First they came..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

I only wish to be at least half as noble, brave and bold as some who have come before me.

And, I am grateful that our forefathers of the United States were willing to risk their LIVES (forget dinner or jobs) to stand up for what they believed in to make this country independent. Also, while I never really bought into the notion--rather the ideal, if it weren't for those who lost their lives in WWII we would all be speaking German or possibly be slaves or dead if we didn't fit the ideal of one man or group's belief is the perfect race.

I am just as guilty as I find your comment, as so far I have just sat by (but have at least talked about to whoever listens) as our freedoms are stripped away, but I realize my fault and hope to change it.

edw5193• 16 years ago

My apologies and I wish no ill will or to cause flames, but your comment makes me sad and reminds me of "First they came..."

My comment makes me sad, too. I think my actions and beliefs today would probably disappoint the "10 years ago" instance of myself.

A little background...

The incident in question happened 4 weeks ago, when I had an extra 2 hours before my flight. Sure, I had plenty of time to stand up for what I believe in.

On Friday, I was running late because of traffic and crowds. If I had refused the naked machine, I would have missed my flight, and I would have missed Startup School.

Funny how strongly we believe in something until it's our turn to act. That's when we find out, for better or worse, who we really are.

notahacker• 16 years ago

Sure, but do you honestly think that use of full body scanners before boarding flights is remotely linked to the threat of oppressive rulers targeting unpopular minorities? Or that the levels of bravery involved in missing your flight really compare with the people who died to stop dictators enslaving the human race? You can accept irritation whilst remaining committed to stand up to evil.

I realise that the levels of airport security might be verging on excessive (pilots don't exactly need to be carrying banned sharp items to seriously threaten passenger safety on board an aircraft anyway...), but for some reason I find the equivocation of freedom fighting and moaning about being mildly hassled at an airport more objectionable than the airport officials themselves. Coming across as paranoid and self-righteous* every time law enforcement comes up with any new directive detracts from legitimate criticism of more disturbing trends and behaviour.

If you're really afraid of the power of government then security personnel asking to see your genitals without asking you taking your clothes off ought to be the least of your concerns. A healthy majority of American citizens think the government has the right to take away people's _lives_ (should they be convicted of a capital crime).

*this isn't intended as a direct personal criticism either of you or the pilot; merely an observation of how it potentially appears to a large swathe of the general public. The "boy who cried wolf" analogy sounds more apt than any Godwin's-law-invoking slippery slope arguments.

jcnnghm• 16 years ago

Except that over years of flying I was never patted down, and since the naked scan has started, I've been through that more than the metal detector (6 times v. 2 times in the last two months). This thing was supposed to be used for additional screening, in place of more invasive searches, and now it's used in place of less invasive searches. I find it difficult to tolerate that I'm now expected to show somebody my bean bag in order to travel. In fact, if I were to drop my pants in the middle of the security line, I'd be arrested, but the TSA can drop my pants for me without recourse.

As you say though, fighting it just isn't worth it right now. The last thing I need is one if the geniuses that work security arresting me, even under false pretenses, because I won't consent to a strip search.

pak• 16 years ago

>In fact, if I were to drop my pants in the middle of the security line, I'd be arrested, but the TSA can drop my pants for me without recourse.

There is actually a hilarious idea buried here. An interesting way to protest full-body scans would be to walk through security naked to make the point about what is really happening in the machine. Done en masse, it could probably get some media attention. And to make it legal, you could probably just wear some minimal fleshtoned bits taped over the right parts, which is supposedly all the machine does to make it "legit" for TSA employees to watch.

TGJ• 16 years ago

If you are not willing to risk anything for your beliefs, you do not deserve the benefit of your beliefs.

camiller• 16 years ago

1776: "Then it's agreed, gentlemen, in order to secure our rights as a free people, we will risk embarrassment, imprisonment, expropriation, bankruptcy, bodily harm, exile and hanging."

2010: "Of course I'll waive my rights. I don't want to miss my connecting flight."

blahblahblah• 16 years ago

What about your increased cancer risk due to daily (assuming you're a pilot) exposure to ionizing radiation? Does that matter to you? Remember that risk is proportional to cumulative radiation dose. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a pilot to refuse to be irradiated daily as a required condition of employment.

steveklabnik• 16 years ago

I'm not really sure if I'm going to be able to effectively fly any more. Every time I go through these lines, I get noticeably and visibly upset. I keep my mouth shut, but the combination of being subversive looking and noticeably agitated means I get picked out for secondary screening a lot. :/

It makes my blood boil every single time. I feel so ashamed that I basically am forced to support this kind of behavior by needing to fly at times, and feel totally helpless about doing anything about it. I'm seriously wondering if I'm going to be able to continue traveling as these shenanigans get worse and worse.

I see a lot of driving in my future. :/

JoelMcCracken• 16 years ago

Take the train, if possible. Its not quite as convenient, but at least it is leisurely.

Vivtek5• 16 years ago

That would work great if America still had a train system.

I always worried about this when we lived in Puerto Rico. Due to the Jones Act, there are no passenger ships to the island - to leave, you have to fly.

stonemetal• 16 years ago

In the US at least going by train is about like walking. Going from Dallas to Austin is about 3-4 hours by car a short enough trip you wouldn't think about flying but long enough that you would like to avoid driving. By train that is 7 hours. Looking at Dallas to Denver a 12-14 hour car trip, something where the few hour flight would be an option. By train that is 48hrs one way. so to visit a friend my options are: 24hours in a car, 4 hours by plane, and 4 days on a train. The train ride would cost about the same amount as the plane ride, and the car ride would be dollars spent cheaper but not by much.

icefox5• 16 years ago

I regularly drive from Boston to Toronto these days. Cheaper, I get real food, I can leave/come back when I want, take more luggage, and door to door it is only about a half hour longer. Crossing the border by car is still sane.

smccune• 16 years ago

I drive anywhere east of (and including) the line from Chicago to St. Louis to New Orleans... just because of the incredible hassle. Plus I like the convenience of being able to overpack (personally or technologically), if necessary... and being able to take side trips on the way there and back again.

jdietrich• 16 years ago

I have absolutely no doubt that the most evil words in the english language are "I'm just doing my job". It speaks of the profoundest moral cowardice, a complete abrogation of personal responsibility.

Zimbardo showed that the inevitable consequence of unchecked authority is abuse. Milgram showed that a large proportion of us will do just about anything to our fellow man because someone with a clipboard says so. Asch showed us that we will swear that black is white if we are surrounded by people who tell us so.

This isn't about emotion or politics, it is about some basic psychological facts. If you give a man a badge and a hat he will start beating people down the moment you turn your back. If you give a man the authority to do "whatever is necessary", that authority will be extended to dominate and control as far as is possible. If you tell a man "You have no other choice, you must go on", he will kill in cold blood.

All preventable deaths are unfortunate, but deaths due to terrorism are incredibly rare. Even in the most violent and chaotic places on earth, road traffic accidents dwarf the death toll due to terrorism. If we cared about the preservation of human life, we would spend the TSA's budget on eliminating malaria, tuberculosis and infant diarrhea. If we cared about saving western lives, we would spend the money on public health education and support, road traffic safety, school meals and so on.

It is clear that we're not acting rationally. In response to an extremely rare risk, we are spending countless billions on largely ineffective responses and sacrificing civil liberties on a grand scale. This isn't just about body-scanners, it's about extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the criminalisation of photography and who the hell knows what else. Whatever argument might be made for the TSA, it is absolutely bogus to suggest that they are in any way a rational or proportional response to risk.

Every dollar that we spend on building scanners or spying on students is a dollar that we can't spend on feeding schoolkids or preventing diabetes or making roads safer. Government spending is finite and every dollar of the TSA's budget is money that could be spent much more effectively and save far more lives.

vic_nyc• 16 years ago

While I agree there is some sort of 'mass psychology' at work here, I believe there are some additional (and more important factors). There is certainly a lot of irrationality in people who accept these things and who have no direct/executive power to change them. But is there irrationality in the people who decided to put these policies into place? I don't believe it. Quite the contrary, I believe the politicians who created and support these laws have other, unacknowledged interests, that are concealed behind the "terrorism prevention" mantra. There are so many other things that can be put into place, why are these guys deciding on these particular ones? A couple of things: money and control. I'm not a journalist, but it would be great if an investigative journalist analyzed the people and the interests behind these regulations. I suspect they would find connections with the companies who provide the screening equipment, and the policy decision makers. As to the 'control' aspect, this is more related to the psychological idea. The people in power crave control, so they will generally tend to favor policies in that direction. Which is why their power must be constantly monitored and kept in checked by us the people. Without that we can't have any long-lasting liberty.

tomjen33• 16 years ago

Those are not the most evil words - "if you have nothing to hide, why are you against..." are. "I am just doing my job" can easily be countered with "Yep, thats what Eichman/other nazi said too; he was hung too" or if you don't care about the person to whom you are speaking "Yep ,thats what Eichman/other nazi said too. I look forward to seing you on the gallows".

run4yourlives2• 16 years ago

You sir, should run for office. Unfortunately we live in a democracy.

RP_Joe• 16 years ago

We don't live in a Democracy. Its suppose to be a Republic. But that died a long time ago. Even Google says so. In fact that's the whole point of the pilots protest.

psyklic3• 16 years ago

Your post only focuses on risk of death, and from that standpoint I agree 100% that it is rational to spend money elsewhere.

However, people are fundamentally irrational and emotional. It would be irrational to stop flying due to 9/11. The risk of an attack on your flight is negligible. Yet, airlines lost a lot of passengers due to 9/11! If a second successful attack occurs, many people would lose their confidence not only in airlines, but in their government to protect them.

The government is really in a lose-lose situation here. Do nothing, and they are perceived as weak on terrorism. Do what people say they want the gov't to do - protect the airlines - and suddenly more invasive searches are required. Either way, they will have a very vocal group against them.

vaksel• 16 years ago

personally I feel like the whole threat of terrorism is overblown. If they were a real threat we'd see more attacks on U.S. soil. There are a ton of soft targets like malls, subways, schools that aren't protected.

Instead the only attacks on the U.S. soil, seem to come from people who think they are joining a movement. It's always some incompetent dumbass, who got brainwashed by the media frenzy, with no actual connections to actual terrorists.

Hell, the reason 911 happened was because everyone in this country was told to just sit down and wait to get rescued. If someone tried to hijack a plane now with box cutters, they'd get their asses kicked by everyone on the plane.

rbanffy4• 16 years ago

9/11 was a game changer. Up to that point, planes were kidnapped for hostages. In that scenario, the best to do is not to confront the highjackers.

bmj• 16 years ago

I wonder if some of this discussion would have trended in a different way if the pilot's post wasn't festooned with the markings of a "tea party-er?"

jules2• 16 years ago

Why do they need to search the pilot in the first place? So that he doesn't hijack the plane? He already controls the plane.

jdp23• 16 years ago

EPIC, along with Bruce Schneier and Chip Pitts, is suing to stop the use of the body scanners

http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_...

you can help out by donating -- they're a 501c3, so it's tax-deductible

arb99• 16 years ago

So they're looking for bomb making things (etc) on him, yet when he's on the plane he's going to be the pilot. I don't think he needs to bring things with him to bring the plane down...

watchandwait• 16 years ago

The privacy group EPIC is leading the litigation against these abusive scanners. You can learn more and support their efforts with donation:

http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/

clr• 16 years ago

I lived in Israel for 6 years. I do not want to have an Israel/Palestine debate, I just want to talk about airport security. I go insane at airports in the US because these people do not know what they are doing. In Israel, they hire the best and the brightest just out of their army service to do airport security. They have their pick of applicants because the jobs are well-paid, and offer fantastic benefits, one of which is the chance to live abroad in the various countries served by El Al. Housing and stipend paid for.

I understand that much of what El Al does for security screening amounts to racial profiling. But surely we can take what they have established and work with them to make it better and conform to US laws and civil rights. I am sad because we don't even try.

Instead, we have underpaid dolts who don't know what a bookmark is (happened to me).

marze• 16 years ago

If everyone refuses the body scan in favor of a "pat down" the TSA would be forced to modify the plan, since that would require 4x as much time or 4x as many agents.

Too many guinea pigs wanting to help answer the question if long term exposure to naked body scanning machine x-rays cause cataracts or worse.

Pilot Stands Up To TSA And Refuses Full Body Scan

Related Stories