TSA Agent about to scan pilot's daughter: "Heads up, got a cutie for you."

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1147497-tso-saying-heads-up-got-cutie-you.html

by jarin • 16 years ago

105 29 16 years ago

flyertalk.com

eli• 16 years ago

I'm not sure this anonymous anecdote advances the debate about airport security in any meaningful way.

protomyth2• 16 years ago

Anonymous anecdotes and writings have a long history of relevance in US.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

natrius3• 16 years ago

The Federalist Papers were not anecdotes. They were philosophy. Anecdotes must be true to be of any consequence, so the identity of the author helps to verify the anecdote. Philosophy just has to be correct, which makes the identity of the writer unimportant.

ezy• 16 years ago

I think in aggregate, it helps. And it's hard to not be anonymous when you can be put on a black list.

It's not like you're converting anecdotes to data in the typical sense. It's more that it illustrates the kind of abuse that can happen, and why people are so concerned.

In some ways, it beats harping on ideals of privacy when you're dealing with organizations who are concerned with nothing but pure pragmatism. You can draw connections from these incidents to the ideals to show that these aren't isolated incidents, but a pattern that emerges when we ignore some ideals to pursue others.

It's similar to the "bad apples" excuse applied to other disciplines -- yeah, you can say that a majority of police officers or investment bankers aren't total douchebags, but enough are that you have to look into why and what you should do about the problem. And the only way that happens is by pointing out particular incidents as they happen, over and over and over again.

sliverstorm• 16 years ago

Wait... why are we having people do this anyway? Backscatter scans would be perfect if it wasn't for the privacy problem, so why aren't we using image processing software to look for objectionable objects etc instead of people?

trafficlight• 16 years ago

Because that doesn't create jobs. And every politician will tell you that we need to be creating jobs in these horrible times.

makmanalp• 16 years ago

Maybe it's easier to blame people than software? Or maybe we don't have enough samples of bomb carrying people to train software with?

chc• 16 years ago

People distrust technology. Even in cases where it's more reliable than a human (and I'm not sure this would be one), there's an inherent mistrust of machines making decisions.

DevX101• 16 years ago

Because you haven't done it yet.

Do it, prove that it works, get a political or corporate sponsor for your product to roll it out, and help to solve this growing war between personal liberty and government security.

pjscott• 16 years ago

Let's follow this line of reasoning. Suppose your image recognition software noticed something it thought was suspicious. What are you going to do about it? Have a human look at the backscatter picture? Do a pat-down? Either way, you're cutting down on the privacy invasion, but not eliminating it.

That's probably worthwhile, but I doubt it'll make people feel much better about the machines, and it'll piss off the people who will see it as backing down on airport security.

callahad• 16 years ago

> Backscatter scans would be perfect if it wasn't for the privacy problem

What about the safety problem? A few academics at UCSF drafted an open letter regarding the safety backscatter scanners, available at http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

Reading it firmly shifted my objection from one based on privacy to one based on safety. Therac-25 wasn't that long ago, after all. And, of course, let's not forget shoe fitting fluoroscopes.

burgerbrain2• 16 years ago

And were it not for the human rights and false accusation issues, simply arresting EVERYBODY would be perfect!

The privacy issues with backscatter scans are not incidental. Even with software processing they would still very much be present.

amichail• 16 years ago

Why can't they use better tech to make the images less objectionable without compromising security?

hyperbovine5• 16 years ago

There are many objections; the nature of the images is only one. These procedures are also objectionable philosophically, medically, and ethically. Better tech isn't going to solve any of those problems.

krackpot• 16 years ago

Also relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCHSGvNwRY

burgerbrain2• 16 years ago

[from the video] "come up with some sort of game with the child"

Isn't that what most child molesters do?

xpaulbettsx2• 16 years ago

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this situation is not the backscatter machine, but the punitive "enhanced pat-down". There has to be more reasonable ways to both ensure flight safety, without resorting to touching genitals.

hyperbovine5• 16 years ago

> There has to be more reasonable ways to both ensure flight safety, without resorting to touching genitals.

Maybe there are not. If the plot were executed correctly, the crotch bomber would have blown up the plane, and it doesn't sound like anything in the X-ray / metal detector system was set up to handle that.

The point is, there is no such thing as "ensuring" flight safety. Along with the benefit of increased flight safety, to each added screening procedure is associated a cost of loss of personal freedom and privacy. The traditional debate has vastly overstated the former, and completely ignored the latter.

People who are up in arms about the groping are calling for a fairer accounting. Terrorism is a very concentrated, visual form of evil, so the knee jerk reaction is that it must be stopped at all costs. Loss of freedom is, by contrast, diffuse and widespread, and people are less apt to become emotional over it. It's inherently difficult to balance the two, and yet it must be done.

marze• 16 years ago

Even if this anonymous post is completely fictional, I am certain this exact scenario plays out every single day at various US airports. Why would it not?

A simple improvement would be to have separate scanning machines for males and females with a same sex screener.

Also, a collection of x-ray scanner pictures of passengers of all ages and genders should be posted by the security line so everyone in line can make up their own mind if they want to be scanned or would prefer to opt out for manual screening.

hyperbovine5• 16 years ago

What if you are gay?

All the hoopla about "same-sex screeners" is so 1950s. The real solution is to dispense with screening procedures which are so invasive that sexualization becomes an issue.

natrius3• 16 years ago

The other solution is to lose the irrational fear of others seeing one's body. It would make me uncomfortable too, but that doesn't mean it's rational. The backscatter machines seem like less of an inconvenience than taking off your shoes and putting them back on every time you walk into an airport. If they actually do make things safer and don't cause any health issues, I don't see a problem with them.

chopsueyar• 16 years ago

Did anyone else read further into the thread where a fellow has been monitoring the TSA agents using a yeasu vx6r HT and recording the conversations with a digital audio recorder?

He would then burn the inappropriate conversations to CD and send them to the TSA's office.

Live streaming online would be great.

TSA Agent about to scan pilot's daughter: "Heads up, got a cutie for you."

Related Stories