Confessions of an ex-TSA agent

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-confession-102912_full.html

by dsr12 • 12 years ago

819 192 12 years ago

rosser7• 12 years ago

“I’m not trying to tread upon your First Amendment rights,” she said. “All I’m saying is: Couldn’t you have run those First Amendment rights past the legal department first?”

Welcome to modern America.

MBCook2• 12 years ago

That was the most Orwellian sentence I've read in years.

mbreese2• 12 years ago

You have a First Amendment right to speech. You don't have a right to a government job. It's hardly Orwellian.

If you self-identify as a government employee, then it is reasonable to assume that someone might take what you say as government policy. Had he not said he was a TSA employee first, there would have been no issue at all.

maxcan• 12 years ago

guess you don't read much

ptbello• 12 years ago

It cites a "legal department", which is probably enough to make it pretty Kafkian as well

baddox• 12 years ago

It's hardly even a modern phenomenon.

anigbrowl7• 12 years ago

As usual, the issue is quite a bit more complex than presented here. In modern America, government employees' free-speech rights are broader than they used to be, not narrower. The underlying principle here is that when you identify yourself as a government employee, you are in some sense speaking on behalf of the government, and as your employer the government has an interest in regulating the speech of its officers, not least to ensure an accurate reflection of its legal position. The author would [edit: probably - I haven't checked] have been perfectly at liberty to express the same viewpoint without self-identifying as a TSA official. A century ago this would have been an open-and-shut case...in favor of the government.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publice...

sliverstorm4• 12 years ago

Right, this is in the same bucket as the disclaimers on TV, e.g. the following in no way represents the viewpoints of this station. You as a person have more free speech than you as a representative of your employer.

ama729• 12 years ago

It's not even specific to America, my very European government ask the same of its employees. It just make sense honestly.

jarrett3• 12 years ago

I tend to think Pickering v Board of Education makes the speech protected even if the speaker identifies himself/herself as a government employee. At least, I would argue that such self-identification is so crucial to the speaker's message and so valuable to the public as to be protected.

I suspect that Garcetti v. Ceballos doesn't invalidate this position. In Garcetti, the issue was statements made pursuant to professional duties. I don't believe a letter to the editor criticizing your employer could be considered an action taken pursuant to your duties.

I'm just speculating, though. I can't be sure a given court would agree with me. So any government employees reading this shouldn't take my word for it.

jff2• 12 years ago

As another poster pointed out, it's different when you work for the government. If you have a clearance, you need to be careful about reading the news at work lest you open one of Snowden's classified slides on an unclassified workstation.

tn132• 12 years ago

She clearly has a point there. When a person identifies himself as TSA employee he is using TSA brand to say something that is his personal opinion. I dont think TSA can prevent him expressing his own opinion, they have all the right to prevent him from using the word TSA whenever he speaks.

seanhandley• 12 years ago

You understand a person's message from all of the words they use, not just individual words. And if you think it's acceptable to prevent someone from using an individua word, you don't really understand why we have the concept of "free speech".

It's clear and in context that his account is reflective of his experience and his values. Asking him not to say "TSA" would nullify the very reason for him wishing to speak out and give rise to either a toothless account or one which obviously implicated the TSA because nobody else handles airport security in the US.

Silhouette3• 12 years ago

I dont think TSA can prevent him expressing his own opinion, they have all the right to prevent him from using the word TSA whenever he speaks.

So he can speak, just as long as he doesn't provide any verifiable credentials that might actually make him credible?

There is a difference between speaking for the TSA, or any other employer, and merely speaking personally as someone with personal experience of the TSA, or any other employer. It's reasonable to prohibit anyone from falsely claiming to represent someone else when expressing a personal view. As a general rule, I don't think it's reasonable to prevent them from making factually accurate claims about employment that support their own authenticity when speaking personally.

There probably needs to be an exception to that if there really is a genuine reason to avoid identifying an individual as part of a certain organisation for security reasons. However, given the tendency of governments to exaggerate "national security" and similar arguments, it would have to be a pretty compelling case and I would suggest that employees should have to be notified of it in advance so it could be properly challenged. In any case, it's hard to see how any of this would apply to a typical front-line TSA employee.

AutoCorrect• 12 years ago

wow, that just totally blows me away. His stating of his job helps validate that what he says is not just some Joe Schmoe blowing smoke. It's critical to the conversation. And our government has no right to prevent us from using ANY word whenever we speak.

benched2• 12 years ago

And how eager are those responding to this comment to use their analytic understanding of the world to apologize for and rationalize the position of government or other heavyweight institutions? Cookies all around for being so smart - while you give away your power to institutions that don't give one fuck about you. All I can imagine are a line of poindexters pushing their glasses up on their nose, saying, "Well, actually, an informed reading of the constitution reveals that you are a peon, which is actually as it should be..."

smsm422• 12 years ago

At least in US they are still scared of the First Amendment. In UK, for example, they just say "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."

ck2• 12 years ago

It's interesting how they mostly got a pass this past holiday travel season.

Barely saw anything about them. So even the media is looking the other way now.

jonknee• 12 years ago

Why would it be a big story? It has been a dozen years.

silencio• 12 years ago

I feel like TSA is relaxing some of the security measures, just a bit - perhaps so there is no major media outrage so people will still trust them. Here and there there have been times my fiancé has not been made to take everything off and get a patdown. Scanners feel like they're decreasing in number so you can at least try to pick the metal detector lines again.

That might just be me with my TSA PreCheck and recent international non-US-destined flying talking though. Protip: fly business/first class or be part of PreCheck and revel in the pre-9/11 style of security. You know, the one where I wore all my jewelry, a sweater, and my boots through the metal detector, set it off, and the TSA agent just waved me through with a smile. Where I also didn't empty my water bottle or unpack anything at all - in fact, told not to even think about unpacking. Oh I feel so safe!

jonhohle• 12 years ago

My typical airports have completely eliminated metal detector only lines except for Pre✓™.

Pre✓™ seems like extortion - I have a passport, DHS has my fingerprints (for unrelated reasons). Why should I jump through additional hoops, and give them more money for something that they've already collected from me? If they really wanted to know if I was a flight risk, wouldn't they have already used all of the information they already know about me? If not, why!?

jff2• 12 years ago

It may just be profiling since I'm a middle-class white male, but I've been waved into the pre-check line several times despite flying coach and not signing up for anything special. Shoes on, drop your stuff on the conveyor belt and move along. It was great. That's how security should be all the time.

It might not be solely profiling, because my girlfriend, who is clearly Indian, has also been sent into the precheck line when flying alone.

Even in the regular lines, I can't think of the last time it took more than 15 minutes to get through security, and I usually opt out every time too.

Consultant324522• 12 years ago

I traveled in mid-December (between the holiday peaks) and I was able to enjoy a new "expedited security process we're testing" that was essentially the old metal detector only screening.

ksherlock• 12 years ago

The TSA removed the backscatter machines as of June 2013. There are millimeter wave machines in use but I've only seen x-ray machines lately. (And not one terrorist incident on any of those flights...)

Some of their rules are dumb but that was my biggest complaint.

malandrew4• 12 years ago

I really wish more people in government had the gumption that this agent has to speak out about how public trust is being abused.

On a different not, I'm certain that I'm not the only one who read the Selectee Passport List in the voice of Yakko, Wakko and Dot.

rmchugh• 12 years ago

new hero! and his book seems like it will be good: http://playbooknovel.com/

gavinpc• 12 years ago

A bad job is never wasted on a good writer.

thorntonbf• 12 years ago

This quote has had me thinking all morning:

"The thought nagged at me that I was enabling the same government-sanctioned bigotry my father had fought so hard to escape."

nostromo• 12 years ago

On The Media has been running an initiative to get lawmakers to answer basic questions about TSA and DHS policy. The agency has been stonewalling reporters so they've asked that citizens call lawmakers directly and ask a series of questions.

http://project.wnyc.org/otm-detain/

tptacek• 12 years ago

Cool! Has anyone here done this?

larrys4• 12 years ago

I'm normally not a fan of that type of thing. To me it's like a ddos attack on the phone system.

Edit: ddos attack on the phone system of the legislators. Nothing wrong with calling. But enabling people to call en masse without even the friction of having to look up a phone number (which is easy for sure) for the purpose of helping the media do their job just doesn't work for me.

Has nothing to do with whether the questions need to be answered or not. But potentially overloading a representatives phone system is not the way I think it should be done. (5 people calling a day is not overloading so of course I'm assuming that this would result in more activity).

Now of course considering how much people don't like spam and junk mail (which are really way less intrusive en masse than the phone ringing) I'm curious why people are disagreeing with my basic point.

jarrett3• 12 years ago

Do government employees enjoy full protection from the First Amendment? It's not a simple yes or no answer. Whether a given utterance is protected depends on a variety of factors, but probably the most important one for low-ranking TSA employees is that the speech must be of public concern to be protected. I suspect that a front-lines TSA officer who writes a letter to the editor about the TSA would be entitled to First Amendment protection, per Pickering v Board of Education.

Here's a bit more info, with summaries of relevant cases:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publice...

anigbrowl7• 12 years ago

Oh snap, I just posted that same link ;)

I do urge participants to look into this, because the 'bill of rights > everything else' viewpoint frequently expressed on HN (and the US internet in general) is both fairly recent and misguided in that it implicitly assumes a two-tier constitution.

EpicEng9• 12 years ago

Why we don't take a page out of the Israeli's book is beyond me. They have been dealing with this for much longer, have made the mistakes we are currently making, and have learned from them.

Their airports don't have long lines and pat downs by ill-trained employees (lines of course exist, but they are shorter and not what we in the US are used to). Instead they hire fewer, educated and skilled persons, many of whom are, behaviorists to determine potential threats. It works; the last successful airport attack in Israel was in 1986, and they have prevented many since.

I remember reading about this in an interview with an ex Israeli defense minister years ago, but I couldn't find that article. This one sums it up though: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/11/yeffet.air.security.is...

chmullig2• 12 years ago

While I think the TSA is largely a sack of shit, Israel's solution is hardly a panacea.

Israel has basically 1 major airport, and 2 minor airports. They further are based heavily on profiling. I don't expect the Israeli model would fit well to the US, which has 19 airports with more traffic than Ben Gurion, and a much more dynamic set of threats.

EpicEng9• 12 years ago

You could be right about that, I'm certainly no expert, it just seemed to make sense to me. Perhaps I was oversimplifying things in my head. However, it's hard to imagine that we wouldn't be more secure hiring educated behaviorists to have a quick chat with passengers before they board a plane.

Consultant324522• 12 years ago

Israeli security is based on profiling, but not racial or religious profiling. They profile primarily on the nations you have passport stamps for. If you've been in a country that is known to harbor and train terrorists, you're gonna get the microscope. I feel like this is healthy profiling.

jfb• 12 years ago

Yeah, the threat models are different, and again, scale.

newman314• 12 years ago

Looks to be more than that.

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

refurb4• 12 years ago

The profiling the Israelis do would never fly in the US.

Plus, all it would take is a few media reports about people missing or not being allowed on a flight and the system would come crashing down.

From what I've read, the Israeli system basically works like this:"if I'm not convinced I'm getting the entire truth, we're going to keep doing this until I do, plane leaving or not".

EpicEng9• 12 years ago

Well, I'm not saying we just copy what they do blindly. The situations are different. That doesn't mean we couldn't employee some of their tactics. Particularly, I've always liked the idea of trained personal (behaviorists) who have a quick chat with every passenger while doing away with much of the security dog and pony show.

lisper• 12 years ago

"if I'm not convinced I'm getting the entire truth, we're going to keep doing this until I do, plane leaving or not"

That's pretty much how it is in the U.S. too.

nowigetit2• 12 years ago

From what I understand, when you get pulled aside for questioning in the US, it works the same way... whether it's supposed to or not.

rickdale• 12 years ago

Too true. I was in Israel just a few years ago visiting family and my cousin that is now out of the army, but still works for the army, told me the safest place in the world is the Israeli airport. Between the cameras the officers and the checkpoints it sure seemed that way.

From memory: there was a checkpoint driving up to the airport where my cousin had to tell the guy where he was from, purpose for going to the airport etc, that was brief. Then when I got into the airport there was just sorta a mash of people rather than a line and eventually there were 3 or 4 people taking id, and asking you questions about your visit. Again very brief. From there metal detector and then to the gate.

My fear is that the TSA does do a lot of the same camera stuff and the charade that they put on at the metal detector/body scanner is in fact just a charade.

vacri• 12 years ago

the safest place in the world is the Israeli airport. Between the cameras the officers and the checkpoints it sure seemed that way.

I can't tell if this is an attempt at humour or not.

There are tons of sleepy country villages with zero crime - not even theft, and a part-time law enforcement officer who covers a large area.

BlackDeath33• 12 years ago

It works; the last successful airport attack in Israel was in 1986, and they have prevented many since

I'd be willing to bet that shutting down all airports permanently would prove successful in preventing attacks. The question is, at what cost?

EpicEng9• 12 years ago

Well that seems like a silly leap. I'm not sure what "cost" you're referring to, but you're right in that some of what they do wouldn't fly here. That doesn't mean we couldn't take a hybrid approach. It seems pretty plain that much of what we do now is comical.

carlob• 12 years ago

Funny story: a professor I know was once asked at an Israeli airport whether he spoke any hebrew, when he answered: "no, but I would love to learn", the security officer didn't know what to do for a couple of seconds.

Anyway if what I hear from my friend who is a social worker in the Occupied Territories about security at Israeli airports I sure hope the US doesn't take a page from Israeli's book.

tlb• 12 years ago

As a society, you have to allocate the limited supply of educated and skilled people wisely. I'd rather have them teaching, doing medical research, or starting startups than doing better traveler screening.

epo• 12 years ago

America has a huge number of graduates who are unemployed or working at menial jobs, the supply is far from limited.

jbigelow76• 12 years ago

Among many other reasons, it's partly a question of scale. A quick Wikipedia check[1] shows Israel has 28 airports, the US has a few more than that, as of 2011 it was 19,782.[2] You just can't expect the same level of quality with the same policies with the difference in locations and passenger volume.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_airports

[2] http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...

dredmorbius2• 12 years ago

You're grossly overstating the commercial aviation fields in the US.

TSA applies to commercial aviation. Most of those US fields are general (civilian, private, noncommercial) aviation, and the overwhelming majority are little more than dirt strips (33.3% were paved as of 2006).

For commercial transport, you want to look at the "certified" line of that table, which shows 547 fields. From the footnote: "Certificated airports serve air-carrier operations with aircraft seating more than 9 passengers. As of 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) no longer certificates military airports."

According to Wikipedia's list of US airports, sorted by enplanements (this is apparently a word), there are 87 airports with > 1 million enmplanements/year. At the low end, that's 2740 daily, or about 30 largish flights (100 seats each). CHS, Charleston International Airport (South Carolina) is the 87th on this list.

Another 296 airports are listed with traffic ranging down to 1,124 passenger boardings/year. Of these, 201 have more than 100 boardings/day on average.

Zigurd• 12 years ago

That would increase costs and require higher competency. It won't happen.

What we need is to expand the TSA-Pre procedures to everyone who isn't a suspected terrorist.

guelo• 12 years ago

Behaviorists? That sounds like a mix of bullshit and racism.

EpicEng9• 12 years ago

Not sure I understand what you're getting at... there exist people trained to cue in on the behavior of others. What does race have to do with it? Care to elaborate?

michaelkeenan• 12 years ago

The USA spends about $6.93 per passenger on security. Israel spends about $56.75 per passenger on security.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11...

cheesedawg• 12 years ago

EL AL spends $56.75, not Israel. The in-airport security when not flying EL AL has nothing to do with EL AL so these numbers don't seem that relevant.

justin662• 12 years ago

Why we don't take a page out of the Israeli's book is beyond me. They have been dealing with this for much longer, have made the mistakes we are currently making, and have learned from them.

They've also decided that they're okay with alienating to the highest possible degree a huge chunk of their population and most of their neighbors with their security measures. I wonder how different their methods would look if they were adapted to the American situation, and how an already fatigued American populace would react.

NamTaf• 12 years ago

How about you do it like the rest of the developed world does and just not have a whole load of useless security theatre? Everyone's happier and you don't become the laughing stock of the 'free' world.

chimeracoder2• 12 years ago

Israeli security is based heavily on explicit racial profiling that is illegal in the US[0]. Their model is also great if you happen to be white and Jewish, but not so great if you're Arab[1].

In any case, we don't need to speculate. The TSA has actually been trained by former security officers from El Al, which is how we ended up with things like the "Behavioral Detection Officers", who have been accused of relying on race as a primary indicator[2], instead of "microexpressions" (which are themselves a rather suspect idea to begin with).

Perhaps we could hire and train better officers (which would require paying them better wages), but that would be a rather unnecessary expense, given that the TSA itself has admitted that there is "no evidence of terrorist plots against aviation in the US"[3].

[0] That doesn't prevent it from being practiced in the US, but it's illegal.

[1] http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/arabs-say-they-endure-d...

[2] http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/11/15/aclu-calls-fo...

[3] http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/tsa-admits-...

chrismcb• 12 years ago

I don't understand why people bring up Israel whenever there is a TSA discussion. When the obvious answer is to just abolish the TSA, and do way with any security theatre. Why does air travel need so much more protection (an infinite amount more) than pretty much anything else in our lives?

yogo• 12 years ago

Code red alfalfa. Ok that was a little redundant :)

RationPhantoms• 12 years ago

Code red alfalfa hot papa. THAT was the as redundant as full body scanner pat down security check anal probe passport sweep.

siculars• 12 years ago

From the why-anonymity-is-important department.

Truth will out.

Intlrnt• 12 years ago

I wasn't a bit surprised to read any of this. Even the candor with which the author shows himself to actively and tacitly promote and sustain the unprofessional and compromising conduct in which he and his colleagues engaged.

I'm not sure if that transparency is due to his arrogance, or ignorance of how much he contributed to the problems we all deal with. No matter. Business as usual.

Ballsy? Maybe. 'Hey everybody! I'm a self-identified slacker, unqualified to be entrusted with responsibility. Here's my name. Here's my picture.'

Still, very disappointing.

nowigetit2• 12 years ago

Anyone else think "Rapiscan" is a perfect name for those machines?

geophile• 12 years ago

Paging Dr. Funke.

deadfall• 12 years ago

I started questioning all the TSA security after I recently watched a demonstration on how you could make dangerous weapons with items you can purchase after you go through security. It is quite scary. The people that want to cause harm will always find a way.

I have not been outside the US, I am curious on the security around the world. Namely, flights headed towards US airports. Do they have to go through body scanners?

brightsize• 12 years ago

I'm a US citizen and I don't believe that when I flew from Berlin (TXL) back to the States a year ago that I had to go through a body scanner. It was quite relaxed. Likewise, my prior arrival in Frankfurt was like getting off a domestic (US) flight. Go straight to baggage. Stop at customs IF you have anything to declare, then off you go. In contrast, re-entering the States in Seattle was an appalling bit of theater. Crotch-sniffing dogs, long lines waiting to be interrogated and to have my Papiere scrutinized, then re-scanning of checked luggage (I had a connecting flight). I'm traveling again to .de in March and it will be very interesting to see what, if anything, has changed.

ojii• 12 years ago

I fly to the US a few times a year. Until a year ago from Switzerland either direct or London, now from Tokyo. Never seen a full body scanner outside the US. There is a bit of security theater though, which might pale in comparison to the TSA, like a security officer at ZRH giving me a 'old school' (read: no private areas) pat down because, as he told me, "I was the 12th guy in a row". At NRT they check your ID or passport prior to entering the airport and may glance at your bag, due to the troubles when they opened the airport. HND doesn't have that IIRC. TL;DR, this seems mostly limited to the US from my experiences.

eatmyshorts• 12 years ago

I do believe the first deployment of these scanners was at Amsterdam's Schipol airport. They were deployed at the time of the infamous Underwear Bomber that supposedly led to the US deploying them. This is the same Schipol airport where the Underwear Bomber went through security before boarding his flight to the US.

tigerente• 12 years ago

If you're flying from Amsterdam to the US, you do. They have usually blocked off the metal detectors and claim that you have to use the body scanners (you do have the right to opt out, but it's not stated there).

pjakma• 12 years ago

Yeah, you can opt out of the ones at Schiphol. One time I got a security guard give me a talk about how safe they were, and why wouldn't I want to.

They're millimetre wave machines, I think, so they likely are safe (certainly not ionising), but there are some theorised mechanisms by which they could impart greater energy on cellular molecules than is otherwise believed to be the case.

What really annoys me is that if these were medical devices, they would require many years of design approval and safety trials, so that their safety wouldn't be assumed but assured (to a high probability) before they could be deployed. Their maintenance regimes would be heavily regulated. However, when it's for security (or rather for lining the pockets of well-connected vendors and contractors), then none of this needs to be done.

ZoFreX• 12 years ago

I've flown to the USA from the UK twice, once in 2012 and again in 2013. It was notably different from most of my other flying experiences, but only on the US side - UK side was BAU. Both times I had to give fingerprints and answer a bunch of questions which is a lot more than I'm used to. In 2013 I was directed to go through a MW scanner, but it was a very casual thing, everyone was going through them as they had placement similar to metal detectors (i.e. you couldn't really go through security without going through them). They were actually very cool in a way, very small, very fast, very futuristic. It was all such a rush, and with such an assumption that you were going to go through this thing, that it didn't even occur to me to opt-out. I think next time I will, just to see what that is like.

The only other place I've been that was similar at the border was Russia (I haven't flown into Russia, but flying out I went through.. some sort of scanner. They didn't tell me what it was, it was about 10x the size of the US ones, big white metal box, covered in radiation warnings, totally dark on the inside) Actually, the USA reminded me more of Russia than any other country I've been to, with the questioning, the scanners, being given grief if you questioned anything, and of course - the paperwork.

pstack• 12 years ago

All you need to know about those performing the TSA roles can be learned from one trip through a security line, where some fat obnoxious woman screams at paying customers and american citizens like they're children and berate and segregate (for further humiliation or harassment) anyone who dares question anything or do anything but be blindly and unwaveringly obedient.

zachrose• 12 years ago

I didn't think it was necessary to call her fat.

stretchwithme• 12 years ago

Its all been lies all along. What a shock.

Our government does so much propaganda in collusion with the media. Every time anything happens, we are treated to news stories about how security is being beefed up. The reality is that there reality isn't much they can do except show more security on TV and hope you'll conclude "ah, they are on top of things."

dror• 12 years ago

In a funny way I find this reassuring.

After all the worries, posting from various places, TOR, and in the end from home, no one went after him even though he clearly ridiculed the TSA. It's kind of sad that we even have to consider that, but in these days of NSA abuses it's nice to see democracy at work.

lucb1e2• 12 years ago

Thought this was a great website with great content, reading this interesting article without annoying pagination (though the option was there if I had wanted it) at a comfortable font size.

Clicking through to the homepage, it turns out they also feature a call to censor Snowden: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/edward-snowde...

Never mind. This makes me doubt what I just read.

harryh• 12 years ago

Lolz. I really wish I could figure out a way to fit this comment into a #ShitHNSays tweet.

lucb1e2• 12 years ago

Try a blog. They seem to work with posts of more than one sms.

avalaunch• 12 years ago

One of my favorite stories came from one of the linked articles that he wrote while still on the job.

http://takingsenseaway.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/confession-x...

I recall one time I did a bag check on a man from Detroit, once the auto-making capital of the world. Having been informed by the x-ray operator that there was a bottle of water in the bag, I pulled it out and quickly sensed that something was slightly off. Then, I realized what it was: there was an enormous dildo rubber-banded to it. I then had an epiphany, spreading over me like a sunrise, beautiful and exhilarating: he wanted me to have to deal with the dildo. He did it on purpose. In rubber-banding that dildo to the water bottle he knew we would target, he seemed to say:

“Yes, I have a dildo, federal officer. Even after the horrors of 9/11, I am still alive; full of vitality, love, sex and, later tonight, that large dildo rubber-banded to the water you are about to confiscate from me. That bottle of water, bought with hard-earned American dollars to relinquish my bodily fluids, so as to make me strong and keep the wheels of commerce of this great nation turning. In taking my water, I want you, federal officer, to know that the terrorists have won, and that you are complicit. I want you to see my dildo. To hold it in your hand; to know that I, as well as my fellow passengers and countrymen, are strong and resilient.

That we, the people of this great nation, can, and will, snap back, like that rubber band.”

alistairSH3• 12 years ago

On the way to my bachelor party, my friends snuck a foil-wrapped dildo into my luggage in the hopes of eliciting a TSA response. Thankfully, it didn't work.

pavel_lishin• 12 years ago

How did it fail? Did the TSA not find it, or did it just not elicit a response?

dmourati• 12 years ago

This reads as if the author considers himself in league with Edward Snowden.

beloch• 12 years ago

The bit about racial profiling is spot on, but heavily understated. People who are clearly U.S. citizens are merely inconvenienced and embarrassed by the TSA's shenanigans. If you know somebody from either the middle-east or a country noted for supplying narcotics (e.g. Mexico) who has flown through the U.S., even just to transfer to a connecting flight, ask them what their experience was like. The TSA treats U.S. citizens like Hollywood celebrities by comparison! The stories I've heard frequently cross the line into what any reasonable person would define as outright abuse. Obviously, few victims stand up for themselves.

The terrorists didn't win. The TSA became the terrorists.

smsm422• 12 years ago

I always opt out from the body scanners, and I have yet to see another person do it (which implies very small number do, otherwise by pure chance I'd see somebody do it by now). Looks like most of the Americans just don't care. BTW, never took me excessive time and I've never been harassed or inconvenienced in any unusual (as opposed to usual for TSA) ways for opting out.

Also, from this article, next time TSA employee tries to feel my ass looking for a bomb, it would be interesting to think about him as an aspiring satire writer. I wonder if that would change the experience.

hisabness• 12 years ago

i went through the airport yesterday on my way to watch the Broncos win the super bowl. TSA had a new procedure which required travelers to touch a screen and give up their fingerprints then get their hands swabbed in order to collect DNA. later in the procedure travelers are asked to show their ids, which are then placed under 'infrared' scanners. given all the recent discussion about the pseudo anonymity of our interactions with various software services i found this to be more almost as intrusive as body scans. essentially, the tsa could be doing the following:

1. touch screen so we have a fingerprint 2. touch again if it didn't work the first time so we potentially have 2 fingerprints 3. swab finger for DNA sample that we'll link to step 1 and/or 2 4. place id under scanner which we'll link to steps 1-3 5. triangulate all these data points over many years until the TSA has a complete database with everyone's unique identifying info...

btbuildem• 12 years ago

Really, nobody's gonna say it? Okay, fine. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. You, guy wearing the uniform, you the mindless meat puppet acting out nonsensical policy directives. Without you, there is no system, yet you choose to participate in it, you enable it, you make it real.

I understand some people have no choice, family to support, made bad choices in the past that limit their opportunities now.. but you, good sir? You get no pass whatsoever. Young, male, educated -- one would expect you'd try harder than to settle into a TSA job.

Confessions of an ex-TSA agent

Related Stories