Do you 'av your papers? Vhere are your papers?
November 30, 2004 7:19 PM   Subscribe

I feel like she's leaving something out. It was obviously an awful experience, but maybe she's over dramatizing?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:24 PM on November 30, 2004 [1 favorite]

I'd say the whole ordeal of airport "security" is over dramatic . . .
posted by Boydrop at 7:28 PM on November 30, 2004

If her account is accurate, there are grounds for a lawsuit.

And boy, is TSA in need of lawsuits. In fact, I can hardly think of a better way to keep a massive newly formed federal agency honest than a constant stream of lawsuits.
posted by azazello at 7:45 PM on November 30, 2004

Honestly, I'm just waiting for the day this happens to me. I almost feel like my carefully-honed traveling skills would work against me by making me look "suspiciously casual." I frequently pack as light and efficiently as possible, but I, like the author, often hide a $100 in the lining of a hat or a glove, exactly for emergencies. I often have two or three tea bags pocketed away in my jacket, which I'm sure any drug-sniffing dogs would absolutely love, but which I can't bear to leave at home lest I be stuck for hours on layover with an uncorrectable headache. And yet, no matter how smoothly I dress or how little I bring with me to the airport, I am, either due to dumb luck or being singled out, repeatedly searched more thoroughly than others, I'm asked more questions, and my bag gets extra scrutiny.

I try to promise myself that I will not become irate when the day comes where the suspicious stares lead to more than just shifty eyes, but I don't know if I'll be able to keep that promise.

What infuriates me most of all about the prospect, is that I, as a person who should have nothing to fear, as a pacifist myself, am now more nervous about the incompetency of the security staff than I ever have been before. I see right through the holes in their approach, and I see people needlessly detained along with me, missing their flights, being split from family members, and for what? What have we accomplished?
posted by odinsdream at 7:46 PM on November 30, 2004

As of last month, the TSA has instituted more aggressive "pat-down" searches of passengers selected on the basis of visual judgement on the part of screeners or passenger profiling (e.g. one-way tickets, cash purchase). This is a new policy instituted after the two airplane bombings in Russia, allegedly caused by Chechen women who boarded while wearing plastic explosives that don't trigger metal detector wands.

Airport pat-downs trouble both sides.

Groped for safety? No way.

Screenings confound men, too.

These searches often take place in public, but passengers are entitled to request privacy (many don't know this). Passengers may request same-sex screeners when available (many don't know this). Pat-downs must use the "back of the hand" in sensitive areas such as the crotch or cleavage, but frequently don't.

A lot of pax didn't know about this new policy for the big Thanksgiving weekend, and TSA sure didn't do a great job letting people know beforehand. (Internally, yes.) Tom Ridge -- don't let the door bang your ass on the way out.
posted by dhartung at 7:47 PM on November 30, 2004

What have we accomplished?

Fear.
posted by MikeKD at 7:50 PM on November 30, 2004

I don't know if she's being overly dramatic or not, most people do embellish their stories including government agents. I've met some decent, even apologetic TSA agents and I've met others who were complete rectal orifices. Remember that until 9/11 and these guys hit the jackpot and became federal employees they were for the most part near minimum-wage slaves. They have some rudimentary training and no screening based on analytical reasoning abilities that I can tell.

Some people, and maybe this woman is one of them, react to stress by freaking out. If you've got a bunch of ill-trained people that perceived her tears as a sign that something nefarious might be afoot her fear and anger would only further fuel their suspicions.

Regardless it doesn't excuse the treatment to the extent that it wasn't embellished. The government has relied on a cowardly populace to weaken about 220 years of civil liberties. A few thousand people died so the rights earned by the spilled blood of anywhere between hundreds of thousands to over a million Americans (depending on which wars you consider essential to preserving America and her liberties) are reduced.
posted by substrate at 7:56 PM on November 30, 2004

It sounded to me like she was already crying as she approached the checkpoint, which might have set them off. But then again, it might have been that her tears were the product of a public display of lesbian affection that set off some intolerant TSA personnel. It's not immediately clear from her story whether or not she has an androgynous appearance, although one commenter to her entry said this had posed a ID verification problem for her as well, so that might also explain why she was flagged. Nothing, however, can explain or excuse sniggering at an upset woman who has just been subjected to a body cavity search.
posted by amber_dale at 8:01 PM on November 30, 2004

ThePinkSuperhero: I feel like she's leaving something out. It was obviously an awful experience, but maybe she's over dramatizing?

From the writing style it definitely seems like she's the type to dramatize: the repeated use of "my beloved", "threatened vague and sinister outcomes", "People touched me. Like an item, like a rag." This is probably not the person you want to go to for a fair and impartial description after a difficult experience.

That said, we definitely don't have all the info. She didn't say what the "discrepancy" with the ID was. She doesn't even remember saying "Please don't touch me", so who knows what else she said or did as she was being led away to possibly create further concern. Perhaps the things she leaves out are the things that made her a target of suspicion.

Also: was I the only one that was really annoyed at the line: "there's no reason, in America, to seize the identification of a young, alert-looking woman dressed like everyone else. No, my hair wasn't even covered." Oh, wonderful, nothing bad should happen to YOU but if someone doesn't look like you do then they should be taken aside and harassed? Sorry, lady, you pretty much lost my sympathy right there.
posted by Fontbone at 8:07 PM on November 30, 2004

Sounds like an awful experience, and I don't want to diminish that in any way. No one should have to go throught that. But something she said worried me: "There's no reason, in America, to seize the identification of a young, alert-looking woman dressed like everyone else. No, my hair wasn't even covered."

Was she serious?

Does she think that only men, or only Arabic women, should be detained and searched? Does her age have something to do with it? If she thinks that searches should be based on sex or head coverings, she's advocating for gender or religion-based profiling.

Such profiling is problematic for a few reasons:
1) It doesn't work. Even if terrorists did all fit one description, they'd get smart pretty quickly and hire young women to do their dirty work for them, if such people could slide through security without any problems.
2) It fosters hatred among the very populations we should foster communication with. If we subject all Muslims (for example) to intrusive searches but wave Christians through security, how many Muslims will want to work with the authorities to catch terrorists? If terrorists are indeed coming from Muslim populations (which Timothy McVeigh and the British shoe bomber call into question), then let's reach out to Muslims who can tell us more about their community instead of alienating them.
3) Our constitution provides equal protection to folks. Subjecting one particular group to harassing treatment is unfair and unlawful.

I don't think anyone should be cruelly interrogated, of course. However, if we're going to treat some people that way in the name of security, let's treat all people (or at least randomly selected people) that way.
posted by equipoise at 8:10 PM on November 30, 2004

Agreed. She's not terribly sympathetic, but why does she have to be in order for us to be alarmed that anyone can be treated like this?

What is the proper attitude one should adopt in order to get through TSA checkpoints unmolested? Can someone please post guidelines for acceptable airport comportment? My usual policy of mouthing off sarcastically does not serve me well anymore when I travel, and now I always have to leave my clocks and wires collection at home.
posted by butternut at 8:12 PM on November 30, 2004

Hey, Fontbone, great minds think alike! You posted between when I hit preview and when I hit post.

On a personal note, I'm a fairly standard-looking young Caucasian woman, and I'm singled out for extra security checks fairly frequently. As I stand in line between Arabic and African-American men, I wonder if the guards picked me so that they could claim to be screening people impartially. If so, I wish they'd make more than a token effort to pick people fairly...but I never mind being in that line. The people in front and behind me didn't do anything more than I did to "deserve" it--we all live under the threat of airline violence.
posted by equipoise at 8:14 PM on November 30, 2004

It's nice to note that racial profiling is a bad idea, but it's also useful to recognise that it does exist. Whether her comment about the head covering was compassionate or not doesn't have anything to do with the fact that she was unnecessarily detained and treated poorly.

Or maybe I should take the fact that the plane she was going to board didn't explode as evidence that the security screeners are doing a Good Job(tm). Fact is, TSA employees do use racial profiling, you're kidding yourself if you don't believe this.
posted by odinsdream at 8:22 PM on November 30, 2004

I'm not saying that racial profiling doesn't exist--I'm saying that it's lame. As is her outrage that this happened to a "decent young woman" instead of a "nasty old Arabic man."
posted by equipoise at 8:28 PM on November 30, 2004

I got the full patdown at airport security the other day when I flew out of Dulles. I'd forgotten that I had put my new mini screwdriver kit in my carry-on. It was tiny. the size of a credit card. They took it and threw it into a mysterious container. I asked what was going to happen to it and they told me that everything gets melted down and sold to the county at low, low prices.

Sounds like a freakin' racket to me. I want my screwdriver kit back. The patdown wasn't so bad though. I like being touched by strangers.
posted by TheGoldenOne at 8:31 PM on November 30, 2004

Sweet, my first simul-post. I feel all tingly. :)

butternut: a) If she was treated unacceptably, then no, she doesn't have to be likable to be a stimulus for alarm. But we don't have any evidence that she WAS treated unacceptably, all we have is her declaration of such, which was obviously posted in order to garner sympathy, not to relate the facts appropriately.

b) I've always found that acting in a helpful, understanding manner got me through the line quickly. I get stopped every once in awhile (geeky-lookin' white kid with a goatee, not your traditional terrorist, but I do wear a trenchcoat in appropriate weather, which possibly implies psycho), and find that if I act reasonably, without mouthing off, without freaking out and telling people to stop touching me, and act helpfully and with the understanding that these people are doing a job and are not in fact targetting me as an individual, it goes smoothly and quickly and I go on my way.

c) I'd be interested in seeing your clocks and wires collection. Mail it to me in a plain box wrapped in brown paper and tied with twine, would you?

d) More seriously, the times that I've had anything even slightly questionable (I actually did have to carry a couple of old-fashioned alarm clocks once, amusingly enough) all I had to do was point it out ahead of time, they checked it out, and I was moved through with no problem.

So I guess the simple answer is: don't act like a jackass and if you're not a terrorist you'll be okay. If you're not treated acceptably and you didn't give cause for it, then you'll have cause to complain.
posted by Fontbone at 8:32 PM on November 30, 2004

At least in other countries the security staff are apologetic about the hoops they make you jump through before getting on a flight to the US.

TSA/BNS, however, more than make up for that with the mandatory fingerprinting/mugshots at the other end.

I'm another member of the "randomly selected 100% of the time" club. It's a good incentive to leave the dirty underwear at the top of your bag on those return flights :-P
posted by blender at 8:38 PM on November 30, 2004

INS + BCIS = BNS. Time for more caffeine.
posted by blender at 8:42 PM on November 30, 2004

At least the Women's Wall Street lady will be happy.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:44 PM on November 30, 2004

Fontbone OTM.

I feel bad for this woman because she had a horrible experience and is very unhappy. And I don't think TSA screeners should be crazy, rude, etc. But increased security is just a reality, and learning to deal with it efficiently and calmly as a traveller is also a skill people need to acquire. Freaking out when people touch you is going to be a problem, since there is a pretty good probabilitiy that people will touch you these days when you go through security. Making sure you have your passport / driver's license / boarding pass handy and organized is a good idea, since there's a high probability that you will be asked to present it and it will be inspected. Etc. etc. etc. Freaking out, I think understandably, freaks out the inspectors.

And *most* people seem to be part of the 'randomly selected club,' if you ask them--I get screened (it seems to me) all the time, though I really doubt that it happens more often for me than for other people. On my most recent trip to the airport I got screened, along with my cousin and cute old grandma. Such is life.
posted by josh at 8:45 PM on November 30, 2004

Do any other swarthy types feel more anger over TSA pulling random WASPs out of line along with you in a transparent attempt to seem ethnically impartial than the act of profiling itself? Tear through my unkempt baggage if you will, but don't insult my intelligence in the process.
posted by bunnytricks at 8:51 PM on November 30, 2004

Flying isn't worth it anymore. By the time I get through screening, I am holding my shoes, my laptop, my laptop bag, my cell phone, my ID, my tickets, and for good measure, my pants because my belt is now off and draped across my shoulder. I feel like I am in the middle of some kind of kinky business strip tease show.
posted by UseyurBrain at 8:57 PM on November 30, 2004

I feel bad for her (I think that's the point), but there's something major missing. They stop her for "inconsistencies with [her] identification," the TSA claims "It's [her] own fault, really," and then she ends her post by saying she learned "The government knows exactly who you are."

I certainly think the TSA could spend a lot less on awards banquets, and a lot more on sensitivity and civil rights (not that you retain many when you agree to fly) training. But if she was flying with fake ID... sorry, that's the deal.
posted by cosmonaught at 9:00 PM on November 30, 2004

She didn't say what the "discrepancy" with the ID was.

There probably wasn't any. It's a common technique that screeners (or police, etc.) use: they tell you that your paperwork is out of order and then watch your reaction.
posted by mstefan at 9:03 PM on November 30, 2004

By the time I get through screening, I am holding my shoes, my laptop, my laptop bag, my cell phone, my ID, my tickets, and for good measure, my pants because my belt is now off and draped across my shoulder.

I flew this morning (no joke), and after coming through screening, with my laptop out of my backpack, my dog out of her carrying case, my hard-to-get-on boots in my hands, and my two sweaters draped all around me, I heard the announcement, "This is Final Boarding Call for Your Flight; we are shutting the door in one minute." So cruel.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:06 PM on November 30, 2004 [1 favorite]

Fontbone, we have far less evidence that she was either 1) acting like a jackass, or 2) a terrorist, than we do that she was treated acceptably. You have to admit, it's highly likely that even if she is overreaching with her descriptions, something abnormal happened, and apparently for no reason.

It's easy to lay blame on other people while trying your best to be as accomidating as possible for the screeners. I have a tendency to do this myself, to say in my head "well, they Must have done something to get picked. I sure didn't do anything, so they won't pick me."

But, the facts are against this position. I frequently get picked, and for no reason. I mean this literally, because I know I'm not a terrorist, as a result, there is no reason to single me out.

The TSA screeners I've come into contact with are literally the worst people possible for the job. They're nervous, inattentive, unproofessional, suspicious, poorly trained, underfunded, ill-equipped, and impolite. I don't know what their hiring policies are, but they are apparently casting a very large net, dredging the bottom of the barrel quite well.

The new screening methods are, as far as I can tell, highly ineffective at plugging existing security holes. Not only have I made it through security carring knives that I wasn't aware I had, but I've seen a large number of physical security problems at airports around the country, from high-security doors being propped open to alarms being ignored because they go off too frequently to be diagnosed. It's a disgrace, and I've never felt less safe when I travel.
posted by odinsdream at 9:12 PM on November 30, 2004

There probably wasn't any. It's a common technique that screeners (or police, etc.) use: they tell you that your paperwork is out of order and then watch your reaction.

Sure, but then she says "What have I learned today? The government knows exactly who you are..."

It seems unlikely that is something you would learn by using proper identification.
TSA: "Yes, that is you, we know exactly who you are."

The only scenario that makes sense to me is her using identification which is improper in some way.
TSA: "No, that is not you, we know exactly who you are."

I don't like TSA screeners as much as the next guy, I think they're (often) rude and unprofessional. But this is the first case of "I was just minding my own business when all of a sudden they gave me a body cavity search" I've heard of, and the story that leaves quite a bit of important information up in the air.
posted by cosmonaught at 9:23 PM on November 30, 2004

A friend who works in airport security mentioned to me that the extra 'hoops' actually make their job harder. Insert enough stressful, error-prone, frustrating, confusing steps to the security check process and all travellers begin to get nervous and display the body language signs that well-trained screeners used to use to sniff out threats.

This means increased reliance on technology, less creedence given to the (human) screeners' sense of what's what. This in turn leads to increased on-the-job frustration for screeners, who sometimes cannot help but take it out on their 'customers'. Eep.
posted by onshi at 9:23 PM on November 30, 2004

It is quite obvious why she was singled out: "She" has a "fiancee" (Google definition: "a woman who is engaged to be married ").
Who knows what other unamerican activities she's up to?
posted by sour cream at 9:35 PM on November 30, 2004

I fly a round-trip every other week on average, sometimes more. I have only been pulled aside once for additional screening was when I bought a one-way ticket on an airline that I rarely fly. Then again, I'm not kidding myself - I do not fit the "hey do extra screening on that terroristesque lady" kind of profile. I also fly corporate discounted fares on the same airline almost every single time. That said, I find that cooperating with the TSA staff and remaining calm even if they ask you to do something seemingly ridiculous can avoid escalating the situation.

However, in this case, I still think the TSA overstepped their bounds - from her (admittedly dramatic) description, they did a cavity search on her. That is just freakin' appalling if the only issue was that her ID looked a little funny.

The comment that the government knows "exactly who you are" may be referring to her sexual orientation - she may be trying to imply that they searched her because she is gay and/or because she has an androgynous appearance. If this is true, the screeners' actions are doubly appalling and I think she should consult an attorney.

On preview: what sour cream said.
posted by bedhead at 9:40 PM on November 30, 2004

Oh, and she posted a follow-up.
posted by bedhead at 9:45 PM on November 30, 2004

That makes sense. After all, if you're gay, you must hate America. Welcome to Jesusland, enjoy your flight.
posted by mstefan at 9:45 PM on November 30, 2004

I fly a lot and often on one way tickets bought within 24 hours. I ALWAYS get the extra special screening with jimmies on top. And lately, it has really really sucked.
I know the drill - wear slip off mules and a bra without the underwire. Have the laptop in an easy to remove place. I do everything I can to speed the process. I usually go in trying to be pleasant and cooperative. But several times now, I have been majorly groped and these people are so unprofessional that when I start glaring at them and making huffy annoyed noises, they get more physical as if to punish me or show they have this power over me.
What really pisses me off, aside from the groping, is how MORONIC it is. What, terrorists don't buy round trip tickets? They don't plan ahead and book weeks in advance? Gimme a break.

Has one person been caught by the TSA with a bomb in the last three years?
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:00 PM on November 30, 2004

Oh and the screener looking at the Xray machine as bags went by yesterday at JFK? She was making googly eyes at a colleague and completely ignoring the screen as bag after bag went by. But I have to get my ass grabbed.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:04 PM on November 30, 2004

That's what amazes me. Granted, we need to do our best with airport security, but with all the other opportunities (penetrable power plants, exposed public water systems, etc.), why the hell would someone hellbent on wreaking havoc on all of us do the exact same thing that their pallies did just a few years back, given that it's probably a lot harder to do now?

Ok, I'll bite on my own question: they wouldn't. It's too much work!

They're laughing their asses off now because we've built a culture of fear, and that in itself is a win for them. It's just a little ridic at this point to think that some terrorist is going try to beat the system...by figuring out how to put an undetected firecracker in his fucking shoe, knowing it's just that much harder now.

Thanks George, you freaking won. We all feel a lot safer now. Please please please tuck me into bed tonight George because I'm scared. Ughhhhh.
posted by diastematic at 10:14 PM on November 30, 2004

If the TSA makes people uncomfortable with their impractical screening, and someone manages to hijack/explode a plane, then it simply proves how resourceful and clever the terrorists are (and just how much they "hate our freedom").

If the TSA doesn't make people uncomfortable and someone manages to hijack/explode a plane, then it's obvious that the government was asleep at the wheel. If only they'd impounded those nail clippers, none of this would have happened!

Theatre trumps reality every time.
posted by blender at 10:14 PM on November 30, 2004

Her repeated protestations that "it's legal" aren't necessarily true. The South remained segregated for years after Brown v. Board made it illegal. To the posts themselves, I don't have too much of a response, I'll just wait for them to try it on me.
posted by kavasa at 10:15 PM on November 30, 2004

From the follow-up bedhead posted: "I am objecting to the flavour of mockery, sexism and homophobia which the experience carried". Mockery, possibly (see below). And if so, that's wrong. The screeners should've done their job with a much more professional attitude, if what she said was true.

But sexist? Homophobic?

She didn't relate in either post even ONE statement or action made by the screeners that could be construed, with the greatest degree of leniency, as either sexist or homophobic. If I'm missing it, please, point it out.

On the other hand, she says that they said it was because of ID discrepancy. Then, later, she says that "they examined the photographs in my purse, they scrutinised my debit card and my license and my food handler's certification card." To me, that implies that THERE WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING WRONG WITH HER ID, not that they hate her for being a lesbian. Why else would they go over her cards so carefully? If it was, in fact, an ID problem, then yes, a cavity search was over the line--detaining her for a time while the ID problem is sorted out was probably about as far as they needed to go, perhaps a more thorough search of her belongings while she was waiting--and I personally believe she should sue TSA for going too far for that particular problem.

Also, when I read the two accounts more carefully, I don't see anything that suggests they treated her mockingly except where she says "in between all of it I registered that they were making fun of me, that they thought my situation was funny." But she doesn't give any specific statements or actions or gestures or ANYTHING that actually shows mockery or triggered that registration (i.e., not something she imagined or made up due to the stress of the situation). You'd think, again, that if there was anything to be mentioned she'd've mentioned it.

I'm sorry, but when it comes right down to it without more information I can't find it in myself to feel much sympathy for her. From the facts as she presents them, she's someone who is overly sensitive, uncooperative in difficult situations, and racist and/or religiously bigoted herself, more so than the people doing the screening ("accost the dark men and the covered women, not me").
posted by Fontbone at 10:20 PM on November 30, 2004

Also: was I the only one that was really annoyed at the line: "there's no reason, in America, to seize the identification of a young, alert-looking woman dressed like everyone else. No, my hair wasn't even covered."

No, you weren't. But it's an all-too-common thought in America these days, which is largely responsible for all the bullshit going on: "I'm white and American, so why the hell are they searching me? We're blameless and perfect!"
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:23 PM on November 30, 2004

Can someone explain what your protections against "unreasonable search and seizure" are in this situation?

Here's a 1998 case in which a woman won $450,000 for being "held for 22 hours, strip searched and forced to take laxatives by customs agents during a futile search for drugs."

At what point does being fingered by HomeSec agents cross into this type of liability?

P.S. Civil rights apply to everyone, even traumatized lesbians prone to anti-Arab bigotry.
posted by inksyndicate at 10:41 PM on November 30, 2004

I think there is something that a lot of people are missing when they discuss incidents like this, namely that they (the incidents) are about people just trying to get from one fucking place to another. They don't *have to* look presentable, they *don't have* to be nice. They've paid for their ticket, and they deserve to be delivered to the place they want without hassle. Yes, there was once a terrorist that had a bomb in his shoe, but guess what, ALL other people wear shoes too. But just because someone has shoes on does not mean he is planning to blow up the plane. What if someone sticks a hand grenade up their ass? Are they going to cavity search everybody?
What happened to that whole innocent until proven guilty thing? Why do I have to go our of my way to behave a certain way that pleases (or does not alarm) the god damn high school drop out airport monkeys just so that I can get to where I want to go without getting arrested?
posted by c13 at 10:46 PM on November 30, 2004

I dread the day this type of thing happens to me.
I'm not the type of guy to take things quietly, and made a fuss a time or two pre-9/11. I've warned my wife several times that we ought to find a good lawyer before we fly for the holidays.

However, the other, wiser, more cowardly?, side of me says "Just shut up and take it, you idiot. You're a green card holder and who knows what kind of byzantine legal hell you'd end up in if you made a fuss over the TSA.
Let some citizen fight the good fight, at least they can't be deported. "
Unfortunately, other than Gilmore there doesn't seem to much of a stink about the whole process. And he's not even fighting the TSA so much as the ID "requirement".
posted by madajb at 10:48 PM on November 30, 2004

What happened to that whole innocent until proven guilty thing? Why do I have to go our of my way to behave a certain way that pleases (or does not alarm) the god damn high school drop out airport monkeys just so that I can get to where I want to go without getting arrested?

Because it's easier than getting the intelligence services to do their job competently.
posted by inksyndicate at 11:03 PM on November 30, 2004

I'm with you, UseyurBrain. The last time I tried to get on a plane I felt like I damn near had to disassemble myself just to make it through the checkpoint. That said, I believe she was made to feel insecure and vulnerable, this being the point of these random checks. We're exerting our force! If you feel uncomfortable, imagine how the terrorists must feel! I do find a sort of overdramatic, "The fiends!" type of tone in her post, but then I'm sure I would come across the same way.

Augh. I'm going through my own thoughts, and I find a big fat zero sum. I agree that the security standards for flight are getting more draconian with every new "terrorism event," but this case is in no way presented impartially enough for me to take her words as unembellished truth. Discrediting her makes me feel callous and heartless, but it is the way I see it. Mostly, I just miss the old days, when one could get on a damn plane without feeling like the guillotine was about to come down. And I'm only twenty goddamn years old.
posted by jenovus at 11:12 PM on November 30, 2004

Fontbone, the author describes kissing her fiancee goodbye and then joining the TSA queue, which I read as saying she kissed her in sight of the guards. If you bear in mind that this is a LiveJournal entry intended for people who already know the backstory, the homophobia angle becomes quite plausible.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:39 PM on November 30, 2004

Fontbone, I misconstrued your question. Oops.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:44 PM on November 30, 2004

If this kind of shit happened to me, I'd probably opt to stay in the country, then wait for the offending officers to get off duty, follow them home and beat the ever living shit out of them. Then I'd set their home on fire and do a little dance and yell "In Soviet America, the customer FUCKS YOU asshole!"

Well, no, I probably wouldn't. But that's what I'd feel like doing.

The airlines can crash and burn, says I.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:53 PM on November 30, 2004

I agree that the security standards for flight are getting more draconian with every new "terrorism event"

What "security standards" and what "terrorism event"? I'm not arguing with you jenovus, but obviously, for sake of discussion, there are no security standards any more than there have been "terrorism events". The only events which have taken place are those of conventional perception.

Air travel is no safer nor more dangerous than it was pre 9/11.

The Big One is still supposed to devastate Southern California.

The ice caps have been melting for some time.

Dolphins are about to thank us for all the fish.

Think of a transparency detailing the endocrine system in an overlay of the pulmonary system detailing the outline of a man. We've just been overlayed.
posted by crasspastor at 12:00 AM on December 1, 2004

The comment about her hair not being covered had nothing to do with some kind of outrage that this happened to a "decent young woman" instead of a "nasty old Arabic man." If you read more of her journal, you might have seen that she is covering her hair these days, and perhaps feels it makes her stand out more. (You might also note the icon she uses.) From an earlier entry:

I am a secularised, modern, educated career woman.

I want to get married and have kids. I'm covering my hair.

What is with me?

Trust me, I've been in enough arguments about racism and bigotry to understand your reaction, but it is generally a good idea to make sure you understand what a person is saying before accusing them of saying things which they have not said (ie. "nasty Arabic men" as opposed to "decent young [white?] women)
posted by MightyNez at 12:03 AM on December 1, 2004

Similar to what MightyNez said, a lot of people are questioning the validity of statements like "I am objecting to the flavour of mockery, sexism and homophobia which the experience carried." Though she may indeed be hypersensitive, remember this is a livejournal entry, probably intended for a very small group of people. Because she doesn't make the front page of metafilter often, she's probably not really preoccupied with providing substantive evidence..

On another note, as someone who flies very infrequently, merely going to an airport (pre-9/11 included) makes me jittery. It's a completely sterile atmosphere where everyone's tense and in a hurry (come to think of it, the mall before Xmas makes me feel the same way). If airport security accused me of ID-suspiciousness, I'd get mighty nervous-acting, mighty fast, despite my ID really being legit.
posted by soviet sleepover at 12:34 AM on December 1, 2004

Has anyone tried getting on a commercial flight in nothing but a speedo, and documented the experience? If it hasn't been done yet, it would be an interesting project for an adventureous person.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:39 AM on December 1, 2004

If terrorists are indeed coming from Muslim populations (which Timothy McVeigh and the British shoe bomber call into question)

The British shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was from the Muslim population, although he was a late convert to Islam. Of course, that doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists any more than it means all terrorists are Muslims. Just thought it was worth pointing out.

Kwanstar: Next time I fly mate. Next time I fly...
posted by MrMustard at 1:55 AM on December 1, 2004

Does she think that only men, or only Arabic women, should be detained and searched?

Well there's the whole problem of terrorists coming out of Chechnya, because generally Chechens are pale skinned and caucasian looking, and as mentioned above you have Chechen women involved in recent terrorist actions.
posted by bobo123 at 2:11 AM on December 1, 2004

Has anyone tried getting on a commercial flight in nothing but a speedo.......

I was just thinking of something similar- Like an outfit That looks just like pants and a shirt, but is really a one-piece coverall fastened by velcro. Just a quick pull down the middle, and one could be standing in a pair of speedos in just a few seconds. That would be soooooo sweet.

I fucking cannot stand all of this TSA theater bullshit. It just trains people to be better sheep as the noose draws ever so slowly tighter.

I fly every two weeks to be with my mother who is dying. Since there is no way to know how long I will be with her (due to her ever-shifting symptoms), I have to buy one-way tickets. It hadn't occurred to me that that was why I was getting the fondling treatment (duh).

Home of the brave? What a bunch of terrified little pussies this country is filled with. Go ahead give up our noble ideals for a sad little safety fairy tale. Real brave. What patriots! This country was not founded on safety......

Now- don't get me wrong: I think that patriotism is fucking evil. I just think that the people who yell the loudest about patriotism are the first to shit all over everything that is actually good about some of the notions that this country was ideally founded upon. Flag-waving sellout "patriots" are often the first to happily bend over for the red white and blue anal probe.
posted by eener at 2:21 AM on December 1, 2004

Reading the posts and this thread, I start to wonder if perhaps this girl's trans -- maybe she used to be a he? In the process, she might've pursued a name change that would've led to discrepancies among various forms of ID. Total unsubstantiated speculation here, but that might've been what made the ID problem. Seems more plausible to me than having the TSA guys see a girl-on-girl kiss and think, "Burn the lez!", y'know?

For what it's worth, I'm a diminutive, very fair Caucasian with blue eyes and Irish first, middle and last names, and I've gotten the full search (shoes, carry-on, luggage, body, mild-to-moderate questioning) every time I've flown since 9/11. Maybe it's my nose ring?
posted by fricative at 2:36 AM on December 1, 2004

Flying London-Miami tomorrow morning. Shouldn't have read this far...

(ThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshineThinkOfSunshine)
posted by i_cola at 3:05 AM on December 1, 2004

Here I am thinking we should just fly naked and get over this whole modesty trip. Throw in a bunch of free booze, a bunch of naked people, and we've got a party going on 5 miles off the deck. That or a flying vomitorium.

Heh, I've got nothing to do. Someone want to buy me a ticket? And a couple of lawyers? Me naked or mostly naked, all hoary and hairy me is all kinds of retribution and punishment for all involved. Talk about giving them what for!

You want security? Check out my pasty white hairy bum, you unrelenting fucktards! Take that! How 'bout some hairy beergut!? HAH! You haven't even looked at my hobbit feet yet! How do like THESE shiny red apples! HA-HA!

Oh, bother. I've probably just finally crossed the line over into terrorology. At least I'll be comfy in my underoos.
posted by loquacious at 5:18 AM on December 1, 2004

I fly very infrequently, probably only a few times since 9/11. But I've not been singled out. I actually haven't seen many people get singled out, either. It probably makes a difference where you're flying to/from.

I'm curious about something else, though. Whenever I read something like this I'm almost always not-very-sympathetic. I wasn't that sympathetic in this case. Yet, I'm at least as outraged at the erosion of civil liberties and the simple stupidity of all this as anyone else. And I agree that we should fight it.

Except I guess I don't agree that there's any point to "fighting it" in person actually at the airport.

There's something about the outrage when it happens to someone personally that rubs me the wrong way. I know this stuff is happening. I know that it could happen to ne the next time I fly. I could be treated badly, miss my flight, whatever. Hell, I could be picked up by the cops and beat up for something I didn't do. I have no illusions about whether I am subject to bad luck or failures to respect my liberties and rights. If and when something like this happens, and things do from time to time, I'll just think, "well, bad luck for me today".

I guess what I don't understand is why people, when confronted by people and institutions and systems they personally and practically have absolutely no protection from, don't just become deeply pragmatic to try to get through the situation as unscathed as possible. There's something about how I think and feel about things that is annoyed that she's so shocked that this could happen to her, and annoyed that she obviously handled it badly and made it worse than it otherwise would have been.

And I suspect there's something very uncharitable and perhaps irrational about this reaction of mine. I don't completely understand it. Because the pricinple of the thing matters as much to me as anyone. Maybe more. But I don't take it personally? I dunno.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:27 AM on December 1, 2004

The government knows exactly who you are, and there's nothing you can do, and they can do anything they want, and you know what? It's legal.
When did the above become a new idea or is this the key to her harassment?
she might've pursued a name change that would've led to discrepancies among various forms of ID
My comment’s first quote may points to this.
posted by thomcatspike at 5:32 AM on December 1, 2004

Hate flying anyway, haven't even done so recently. But was appalled to hear that my sister, a 59-year-old Caucasian (racist to mention that?) on a Thanksgiving trip to see her grandkids got the Ever-Friendlier Skies Grope.
I know Al Gore and Ted Kennedy(?) have been singled out in airport lines by some smarmy little prick who did it just because they could. But I look forward to hearing about the first time this Very Special Treatment happens to the Bush Twins. (Or do they, like their Stepford Mama, not have to fly commercial?)

***with ...penetrable power plants, exposed public water systems, etc., why the hell would someone hellbent on wreaking havoc on all of us do the exact same thing that their pallies did .....They're laughing their asses off now because we've built a culture of fear, and that in itself is a win for them.
***Why do I have to go our of my way to behave a certain way that pleases (or does not alarm) the god damn high school drop out airport monkeys just so that I can get to where I want to go without getting arrested?
***I fucking cannot stand all of this TSA theater bullshit. It just trains people to be better sheep as the noose draws ever so slowly tighter.

Ah, at least a few people still see the forest for the trees. Rather than deconstructing one person's story, remember back once upon a time many (three) years ago, when being forced to submit to a public groping by a stranger in order to get on an airplane would have outraged almost everyone.
We all know the many other ways a terror attack could happen next time. Publicly humiliating airline passengers in a variety of increasingly absurd ways, reducing their rights of privacy and liberty, is not making the country any safer. It's merely turning the country into something many of us can't begin to fathom, but which frightens us more than a possible terrorist threat.
By the way, since all the 9/11 terrorists were men, do they grope a guy's package to make sure he's just happy to be flying, not carrying a concealed club?
posted by NorthernLite at 5:46 AM on December 1, 2004

EB, I just had the same conversation w/ my GF, scarily enough.

You pick your battles. Picking a battle in line at the checkpoint - and I'm not saying this was or was not the case here - is not too smart. It's inconsiderate to those around you, those that are waiting to get through the same checkpoint. It's unwise, and totally ineffectual.

AFAIK everyone is still perfectly free to choose to not fly. You can buy a ticket, check in, and go right up to the checkpoint and choose to turn around if you don't like the squinty, all-too-freely roaming eyes of the guards in question, as the case may or may not be. AFAIK, you can still refuse to be searched. You're just not going to make it to your departure gate.

You can walk right out of there and get a Greyhound ticket, hire a cab, rent a car, or - hells bells - you could go buy a bike for about the cost of a plane ticket and ride there as long as it's not across any oceans. But you *could* get a nice dory and some supplies, a radio, and a GPS and row yourself across the ocean if you had the motivation.

And that's one crux-of-the-matter among a few connected to this issue. You don't like it? VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET! Take your business elsewhere and put your money where your mouth is and actually make a sacrifice to support your convictions.

If the majority of air travel suddenly dropped off because of this and airlines starting failing and having to be bailed out of insolvency by the US government, you can be pretty confident that they'd do something to make it more attractive.

Don't tell me you must fly. There are only a few musts in life, in fact, maybe only two. You're born, and you die. You can qualify "I must fly" with, say "to keep my job" or "visit friends/family/location in a timely and affordable manner", but those are choices, and you could equally choose to sacrifice them for any and all convictions you may choose.

It's been less than a hundred years since a jouney across the Atlantic was anything less than a week or three on some stinking, lurching ship, and less than 200 years since a journey across the North American continent was a seriously huge, life-changing struggle and massive risk.

Change and convictions about how to make that change happen never occur without sacrifice, struggle, and even pain.
posted by loquacious at 5:52 AM on December 1, 2004

I don't completely agree with you, loquacious, but what you wrote helps me clarify my thinking on this a bit. I guess my perspective is that this definitely is a screwed-up situation and I strongly object to such travel restrictions and indignities, etc. So, we should do something about it. Complain to our politicians, or, like you said, stop flying. If it's wrong—and it is—and it's outrageous (and it is), then we should do something about it.

But the one thing that makes no sense in terms of "doing something about it" is a) choosing to fly anyway and then, b) being really and upset that it happened to oneself.

I think this is what's annoying me. It's the sense that for many people, it's not a problem, not worth getting outraged about, until it personally affects them. Then they get really, really mad. How dare they be treated like that! But people were treated like that yesterday and will be treated like that tomorrow. One person's little humiliating experience with the TSA doesn't all the sudden change everything and now, by God, something must be done about this out-of-control paranoia.

I mean, how do people not know that this is happening? How can they be so surprised? I'm going to fly in a couple of weeks, and if it happens to me, I won't be surprised. I probably won't like it and will probably be pissed-off, but I won't expect anyone else to give a shit. It happens every day. Just because it happens to me doesn't suddenly make everything different.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:09 AM on December 1, 2004

"This is Final Boarding Call for Your Flight; we are shutting the door in one minute.

Pink, this may be the airline trying to help you. They've taken to announcing door-close early, and often by name. This is to prod the TSA to get you through the line.

I first ran into this at DAY, where, improbably, my sole ID on me dissappeared within a 30 second window. (It was found and mailed back to me. I now carry both my Driver's License and a state ID card, and use the latter. I digress.) This meant I got the whole 9 yard search (and the worst. patdown. ever. Didn't even check the small of my back. You know, where lots of people pack a pistol? Sheesh!)

During this, they call my name on the PA as a "Board Now, or Else." I call my friend as soon as I clear secuirty, and ask him to go to the gate and tell them I'm on the way. He says "I'm already here, and you're cool -- they just did that to get you through."

I'm another member of the "randomly selected 100% of the time" club

Change your name. Seriously. If you normally fly as "John Smith", try "John Q. Smith" or "J. Smith." What's probably happened - yet another lame namespace collision. I know four people who were 100% members of the SSSS club, until they did this. Now, they never get searched.

This is one of the many reasons the TSA is just so horribly wrong.
posted by eriko at 6:20 AM on December 1, 2004

One would have thought back when they made the nursing mother drink her own milk that people might have felt motivated to stop the madness. Has the couch-potato culture made Americans so passive that they simply feel "outraged" ... in text, online, or in their diaries?

Is there yet a way to get off the "no-fly" list? Has anything about that mysterious list been made public? I think most travellers are afraid of questioning screeners, because of the possible massive change of lifestyle.

Taking a boat overseas, while technically possible, does not meet the needs of most people in this day and age. I suppose that's okay, though, as the U.S. seems hell-bent on regressing to a 'pre-modern' condition.

Unfortunately, it would seem that most people do not see how significant these events are until it DOES happen to them... Some people see these things early on, but many choose to continue on as if nothing is happening, perhaps because they don't know what they can do about it. Instead of blaming them when they finally DO see the relevance, why not work together on problem-solving?
posted by MightyNez at 6:42 AM on December 1, 2004

EB, I think people get mad instead of pursuing rational means for changing the situation is because...people aren't always rational. Of course it would be better if people paid attention when others were being abused, but historically, we don't pay attention until we suffer the cost. We react emotionally instead of intellectually. No, it isn't super-constructive, but it's a very common tendency.

And I guess that's part of what's bothering me about her reaction too. MightyNez, thanks for pointing out her backstory--maybe that explains her comment about covering her hair. Maybe she was surprised that she got stopped this time, instead of when she looked like a more obvious target.

However, it still doesn't explain the line, "There's no reason, in America, to seize the identification of a young, alert-looking woman dressed like everyone else." I just can't read that any other way than, "There are reasons to stop people who look different from me, but there's no reason to stop me." It's irrational, as EB points out, and it's insulting to others: the ones who she thinks do have reasons to get searched.

Of course she meant this for her small LiveJournal community, not for dissection on Metafilter. I don't mean to beat her up about it--she had a personal reaction, and she was sharing it with her online community. I'm more alarmed by how widespread the sentiment is...as DrJohnEvans points out, it's reminiscent of the Women's Wall Street lady.
posted by equipoise at 6:44 AM on December 1, 2004

since all the 9/11 terrorists were men, do they grope a guy's package

The reason they are suddenly doing the chest/groin grope on women now is because of the two Chechen women who may have smuggled explosives strapped to their bodies. It's the same reactive bullshit that led them to make everyone take off their shoes after Richard Reid's escapade.

For your traveling information, people on the regular line don't get patted down unless they set off the machine. The groping is for people who get singled out by the airline: one way ticket holders and people who bought their ticket within the last day or so. I'm sure they have other criteria too. If your boarding pass has SSSS in the corner, prepare to be put through the wringer.
Also, do NOT use hand lotion the day you fly. Some of them have glycerine in them, and the machines read it as nitroglycerine. I had a charming long chat with a TSA oberfuhrer after being pulled into a little room and having my papers taken away when my shoes set off the damn machine. They wanted to know who I was and where I was going and why I was there and what I did for a living and could I prove it and all sorts of fun stuff - meanwhile the minion has vanished with my ID and my plane is leaving. All because I tied my shoelaces with hands nicely moisturized by the little bottle of hotel lotion.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:48 AM on December 1, 2004

When Banjo and I flew to London last year, we opted for the FreedomPlus line because it was faster than the normal security line. Of course, on our return when the nice security guard at Heathrow found a fork in Banjo's bag, it meant that the FreedomPlus line was not only faster, but less secure!

Last week when we flew down to Maryland for Thanksgiving, there was a security breech of some sort at BWI. Some guy's bag (the guy: standard middle aged, slightly overweight balding guy with glasses) tripped something causing not only alarms, but a flight of state troopers all riding freak'n Segways in formation to descend upon the gate.

Segways. Is this what all that extra security money is going for? I don't know about you, but I'd like my security folk to be able to, like, run a mile in pursuit of a terrorist.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:54 AM on December 1, 2004

If you really want to fly without a security line, bag check or tight departure schedule, charter an airplane. Typically run from a satelliite airport you usually just walk right up to the plane. Running late? They'll wait. This is a great way to travel for businessmen or groups who can split the cost.
posted by Osmanthus at 7:01 AM on December 1, 2004

I'm personally still wondering what "alert-looking" could do to make one less suspicious-looking, but I don't expect perfectly expressed sentiments when someone has gone through a traumatic experience.

I don't think it's fair to compare this woman to the Women's Wall Street lady. I don't know why I happened the click on the entry where she mentioned covering her hair, but I did. I also wondered about her reactions to being touched, but then again, considering my past, I might have been the same. However, why is she immediately being scrutinized more than the gropers and the policies which have given rise to the gropings? (It's not like this is an isolated incident.)
posted by MightyNez at 7:18 AM on December 1, 2004

If you think there's a discrepancy in her story (the fake ID thing) why don't you, um, ask her? She has comments turned on, after all. Sure beats ideal speculation.
posted by bobot at 7:19 AM on December 1, 2004

Metafilter: ideal speculation
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:46 AM on December 1, 2004

Has one person been caught by the TSA with a bomb in the last three years?

[between 2/02 and 3/03], TSA screeners confiscated 1.4 million knives, 2.4 million sharp objects, 1,101 guns, 15,666 clubs, more than 125,000 incendiary items and nearly 40,000 box cutters.

Of course I guess their definition of "incendiary items" might include fireworks, incense, etc. but still you have to wonder. 40,000 boxcutters!?!
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:48 AM on December 1, 2004

If you think there's a discrepancy in her story (the fake ID thing) why don't you, um, ask her? She has comments turned on, after all. Sure beats ideal speculation.

I would, but my work filters LiveJournal. I didn't mean to accuse or attack her. Looking back I can see that my comments could have that effect, in which case, sorry (really).

I was just trying to point out that something was missing from her story, not necessarily that she was trying to conceal something. Maybe if I was a regular reader of her LiveJournal it would be clear.
posted by cosmonaught at 7:49 AM on December 1, 2004

Osmanthus, it truly is a great way to fly, and proves these searches to be ridiculous. Trust me, terrorists with funding are -not- going to stand in line for hours at the airport to -maybe- make it through security and then -maybe- blow up a plane or take someone hostage.

Terrorists with funding are going to do exactly what all other efficient people do when they have a plan that cannot fail. They will charter a plane and go wherever they damn well please, whenever they want to, and without any "security" hassles.

Airline travel does NOT have to be this way, people. That's a myth created of late to justify the TSA and make everyone feel safer. Airline travel can be just as safe as using any other mass transportation systems. People whine that there was nothing that could be done about 9/11, that the increased screening is just the inevitable result.

How about this: Lock the fucking cockpit doors, and make them out of steel. See how easy that was? I just -prevented- 9/11 like that. These people had fucking pepper-spray and razor blades, people. Disconnect the cockpit from the cabin and you practically eliminate the hijacking problem (if you properly screen and trust your pilots).

For other problems, you have to prevent bombs getting on board. This is already a huge security hole, and nothing has been done to close it. Cargo is still not screened 100% for explosives, even though it would be simple to fund if you weren't paying so many screeners. I can't say it enough: Airline travel is not safer.

For those saying flying is a choice, and all that. This is not an excuse. If, hypothetically, when you boarded a bus, you had to be cavity-searched, then you could say "well don't ride a bus," but this misses the point that it's STILL A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS even if people ARE choosing to ride the bus. Take that argument further and it just becomes more ridiculous. What use are any civil rights, since all we really need to do is feed ourselves and shit. As long as those rights are protected, everything else is our "choice" and thus, not protectable?

It's an untenable position. People have rights, even when they're doing something by choice, or indulging in a luxury. I have rights no matter what I choose to do, the majority of which do not vanish under any circumstances. There is still such a thing as decency, if we care to remember.
posted by odinsdream at 8:00 AM on December 1, 2004

Groping - read her groping as more. Was she patted down, stripped searched, and or full body cavity searched? The reason I ask, if body cavity searches will be standard, fewer will fly knowing this may be a possibility.

Throw me in the group who is always screened. Last time it was the worse. Was screened 4 times (two connection flights) before arriving at my final destination with the initial two screenings being at the first airport I entered. Plus you would think the initial screening at baggage check in would be sufficient since I & luggage were swabbed for bombs. Add, my pat downs are always pretty light, no groin and have been swabbed for bombs prior to 911.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:06 AM on December 1, 2004

Take your business elsewhere and put your money where your mouth is and actually make a sacrifice to support your convictions.

There is a balance to be struck here. My family lives 800 miles away, or 12 hours by car. On the one hand I have the desire not to pay money into a horribly broken system (the TSA doesn't represent the full extent of the damage, but it's a big part thereof). On the other I have the costs of driving - gasoline, depreciation, loss of time, tenfold increase in the risk of fatality (still negligible, but divide Thanksgiving weekend deaths per passenger mile via roadtrip by deaths per passenger mile via civil air travel and you get NaN (side note: cute link missing here because you can't trick the Google calculator into dividing by zero)).

now, I like driving, so a 24 hour roundtrip behind the wheel is not so much for me to bear, unless I'm trying to head down and back in a two-day weekend. The problem is, for longer trips, international trips, etc., a lot of people won't even make the tradeoff: it's not that driving from Halifax to San Diego will take too long, it's that driving from Halifax to San Diego doesn't even exist within the universe of possibility. Flying becomes equated with travel, and the attitude of reserved accomodation (or worse, enthusiasm for false safety) many people take toward the TSA's security theatre of the absurd has a danger of spilling over into other forms of civil transport.
posted by Vetinari at 8:07 AM on December 1, 2004

Terrific. Another new rule to add to my ever-growing list: no underwire bra, no knitting needles, no metal nail files, no cuticle scissors, no hard to get on and off shoes, no jewelry. Now I have to worry about crying. Great. There was a time a few years back when every single time I was in an airport, I was crying copiously.

Crying? There's no crying in baseball airports!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:10 AM on December 1, 2004

VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET! Take your business elsewhere and put your money where your mouth is and actually make a sacrifice to support your convictions.

Loq: It might appear people are already taking your advice: Southwest and Jet Blue are profitable, and also receive the fewest customer complaints .

I understand there's a difference between airlines and the TSA. But I think a lot of that search-and-destroy behavior also has to do with the cities you're flying from and to.

For instance, a group of us were treated to the full magilla flying from Chicago to Las Vegas; leaving Las Vegas we got barely a look.
posted by CMichaelCook at 8:25 AM on December 1, 2004

I can't link to the website, and I missed it last night! Does anybody have a cache or something so I can read this?
posted by fungible at 8:26 AM on December 1, 2004

"Jesus fracking Christ, who fracking Metafiltered me while I slept?

"With apologies to all who offered genuine comments and advice, that post is now, sadly, locked. I do not need to get put on a no-fly list."
posted by Sir Mildred Pierce at 8:27 AM on December 1, 2004

TSA screeners confiscated 1.4 million knives, 2.4 million sharp objects, 1,101 guns, 15,666 clubs, more than 125,000 incendiary items and nearly 40,000 box cutters.



Yeah I know - the guns is what gets me - but as far as I know, not one of those people was suspected of wanting to hijack a plane.

Tom Ridge resigning yesterday: Can I tell you today that there are x-number of incidents that we were able to thwart or prevent? Cannot."
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:29 AM on December 1, 2004

"Now bang off."

Heh. People always get mad at the way they're talked about here on mefi when they're linked. I think they don't realize that for the most part the assumption is that they're way over there and we're way over here. If we knew that someone was reading about themselves here, we'd be more considerate of their feelings. But, from our perspective, this is one more thing on the big ole' huge web to look at and we talk about it pretty dispassionately (or not), like we'd talk about anything else.

It's not at all like people going over to her LJ comments and saying insensitive or mean stuff. They're saying those things to her. People's comments here were not directed at her. Yet, the impression I get is that she is more offended by what she read here than what anyone said in her comments.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:43 AM on December 1, 2004

Jesus fracking Christ, who fracking Metafiltered me while I slept?

Nope, sorry.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:44 AM on December 1, 2004

I once had a nail clipper in my carry-on by accident. The screening agent pulled it out and I said "Oh well, just keep it then." "No no no, it's just the file, hold on..." And then she struggled for a minute or two to *snap the file off* and then gave the clippers back to me. Thanks, now I need to get new ones anyways.

One time while flying out of London I had packed my bag so carefully that everything *just barely* fit. But after having the contents pulled out and shoved back in *three times*(in the same airport!), it wouldn't zip up. Then the shoulder strap broke. Oy, I was in tears by the time I reached the gate. They were nice about it, let me have a good cry before they searched me again.

These days I put my plush Cthulhu doll right on top so when they open my bags it pops out at them. Hee.
posted by kindle at 9:02 AM on December 1, 2004

crasspastor, you're right. I got a little worked-up myself, I guess. A more accurate way to put it would be that security is tightening incrementally every day; and I do feel that to be true. I was talking out of my ass about "terror events," and I apologize. But isn't that even more discouraging, that there's not even a basis for these escalating measures?
posted by jenovus at 9:40 AM on December 1, 2004

Jesus fracking Christ, who fracking Metafiltered me while I slept?

Come on, say it with me: Fucking. There ya go - not so bad was it?

I really wanted to read her story.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 10:26 AM on December 1, 2004

The measures keep escalating because there is no opposition. Just recently here in NC they evacuated
the Asheville airport because the screener mistook a calculator and two bottles of water for a bomb. But the tone of the AP writeup still implies that the victim is at fault: "The passenger was not arrested and he was allowed to continue his trip." I guess he should count himself lucky, having the nerve to carry water bottles! And the TSA's opinion on the incident: "Our security system is working...It was a good catch." In other words, complete failure of detection and evacuating an entire airport is a success. And the press laps it up and never questions how a system that can't tell a bottle of water from a bomb is protecting us.
posted by bitmage at 10:27 AM on December 1, 2004

on our return when the nice security guard at Heathrow found a fork in Banjo's bag

Would that be banjo_and_the_fork?
posted by Vidiot at 10:45 AM on December 1, 2004

I await the day when a terrorist has surgery to implant several pounds of high-power explosives into his abdominal cavity. No amount of wand-waving, strip-searching, and body-cavity groping is going to reveal its presence.

And then perhaps we'll finally return to sane levels of security checks.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:02 AM on December 1, 2004

She "locked" the story eh? Luckily I'm not an asshole, but I still had the window to the original link open from last night. I wouldn't normally "save page as" for a simple personal blog post, but you know how it is when a collector's item lands in your lap.

You'll be able to find this story for sale on eBay and for free on Craigslist momentarily.

Of course I'm joking!

But she isn't doing much good "locking" a blog entry that has already been read doubtlessly by thousands. For instance, I could simply cut and paste the contents of the entry right now if I wanted to be a dick -- like the assholes who apparently first heard about Selkie's unfortunate account here and then decided to harass her, prompting her to ultimately pull the post.

I am shocked that MeFi lurkers were giving her a hard time. Shocked! There seems to be no relation to those who lurk and thus harass and those who have contributed to this thread. I've seen nothing but sympathy here. Some skepticism to be sure. But still, nothing but sympathy -- if not generalized empathy at what if what happened to Selkie happened to one of us.
posted by crasspastor at 11:59 AM on December 1, 2004

fff, that seems like it might be more problematic than you think it would be. You'd have to have a reliable way to detonate it. It'd need to not be metallic, or at least there'd need to be an explanation for it. I dunno.

But your point in general is correct, of course. I don't think that the TSA can protect us from the few methods that the terrorists have already use and are unlikely to use again, much less the ones that no one else has thought of.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:01 PM on December 1, 2004

Subdermal implant of the triggering device, perhaps paired with the same sort of technology that allows one to externally power pacemakers without breaking the skin. Or a timer. Or a push-button switch in their bellybutton. (Wouldn't that surprise the groping security guy!)

And one wouldn't actually have to reliably detonate it. In fact, it'd probably better to not detonate it, so that everyone gets to learn how tricksy it is. I rather doubt any amount of forensics would successfully determine that the terrorist had implanted the bomb within himself.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:32 PM on December 1, 2004

crasspastor: please do. Not that I want to harass her, I just want to read what she said. I love airport horror stories, and in fact wish I could find more. I've even looked for websites that might collect such a thing, but no luck.
posted by fungible at 12:33 PM on December 1, 2004

Gahd. Imagine the latter case.

Terrorist is implanted with high explosives. The trigger is wired to a subdermal switch that is deliberately made to be found by security. It is also deliberately wired to malfunction and/or the explosive is packed in such a way as to yield a highly directional explosion, so that bystanders are guaranteed to be witnesses to the source of the explosion. Either way, the terrorist is going to die, if not by explosion then by cyanide capsule.

The point is to make it explicitly clear that the bomb was absolutely undetectable by any conventional means.

The US government would go completely snakeshit.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:37 PM on December 1, 2004

The US government would go completely snakeshit.
And there would go the rest of our civil liberties. Just saw a mention on the news of the national ID system & retinal scanning soon to be implemented in Iraq. Guess where it'll be used next?
posted by soviet sleepover at 7:02 PM on December 1, 2004

Jesus fracking Christ, who fracking Metafiltered me while I slept?

I'm sorry, but I find this too funny. Why do people get all uppity when others talk about what they post on their LiveJournals? How did she expect people who don't know anything about her to react?
posted by somethingotherthan at 8:08 PM on December 1, 2004

I'm late to the game here, but feel compelled to agree with those who find the HomeSec game a joke at best. I fly weekly for my job, usually through the same airports. I'm generally friendly, and often get a "where you off to this week?" type comment from the TSA folks who recognize me, but I don't cut them any slack. Here are some of my (un-)funniest stories from the past couple years:

1. I had a knife on my keychain for over a year. It was shaped like a key. I had received it as a gift, and when I started the gig requiring weekly travel I initially forgot about it. A few weeks in, after it had been through about 2 dozen security checkpoints, I noticed it on my keychain. I decided to leave it there to see how long before someone noticed (yeah, I know...Federal Offense...don't try this at home...blah...blah). Like I said, it was in my bag about a year. I rarely use this set of keys, and they're always clipped on the key lanyard in my bag, and several times in that year a TSA person actually had my keys IN THEIR HAND, pulling them aside to check out something else that the X-ray person found questionable (laptop battery overlapping external 2.5" USB drive in a funny way...whatever). After a while, I re-forgot that the knife was there, so when someone finally noticed it one day, I could honely act forgetful. They confiscated it. I didn't sweat it. No biggie.

2. My wife gave me a cool Swiss Army USB pendrive a few months ago, which is now on my keychain. It's their "Traveler" model, which has the USB drive in place of a blade, and it also has a built-in LED light and ink pen. Looks just like a regular little Swiss Army knife. I don't use it much since it's pretty small capacity, but my wife gave it to me, plus it has my initials on it, so it's on the keychain. About every third week I get the "Is this your bag sir? We need to take a look in it," and they ceremoniously pull it out , look at me like I'm a criminal, etc. Usually I'm polite and just explain what it is, and other times I'm in a mood and say something like, "Don't get a hard-on, it's a computer drive". This usually just results in blank stares, so I have to take it out of their hand and show them how the pendrive part folds out. But notice I said that they only detect it about every third week....if it were a real knife I don't think it would look any different on the X-ray machine, and 2/3 of the time would slip by.

3. I travel in comfortable clothes most of the time (shorts and sandals when it's warm; shorts and tennies when it's colder), and I just ignore them when they say "We recommend you take off your shoes". Sometimes I'll ask "Is that a new regulation, or just a suggestion?", but usually I just walk through. If they insist I take off my shoes, I refuse and state that I prefer to be wanded. Until a few weeks ago, that consisted of the standard "sit down, raise right foot, raise left foot, arms at side, blah blah". So a few weeks ago I'm doing that drill (takes less time than removing and re-donning shoes, I've found) and the guy starts to pat me down, without saying anything. I lower my arms and politely say I'm not in the mood to be groped unless he has a good reason (I'm wearing a t-shirt and cargo shorts--nowhere to hide a gun or other weapon on my upper torso) and he says, "We've been doing this for a while now." "Bullshit," I say, "I fly every week and haven't been patted down for over a year. What's up?" Then he comes clean about it being a new regulation, and I let him proceed, but not without some off-color humor about him scoping travelers for potential dates. So I'll have to start removing the shoes or get used to being groped by strangers, I guess.

4. I carry a small guitar with me everywhere. Makes layovers more relaxing, and I even play it on the plane most weeks when I get 2 seats to myself. I find it strange that TSA has rules prohibiting baseball bats, hockey sticks, and other potential weapons on board, but nobody ever questions this 5-pound chunk of solid maple jammed into my backpack, nor the extra set of strings in the side-pocket that would be capable of choking an attendant, were I so inclined. Does that make anyone feel safer in the air? Are the terrorists not smart enough to know that boxcutters won't work next time? And besides, the cabin door's locked so won't they do something completely different?

5. In Cincinatti a few months ago, there were weather issues and I was forced to overnight at a hotel near the airport, re-booked on a different airline for an early flight home the next AM. The shuttle driver told me to expect a long security line, so I arrived 2 hours before flight time (I usually shave it very close, but trusted his judgement). He was right...the lines were incredible (wrapped around the baggage claim area), and I was in the line for 2 hours and 15 minutes, and therefore missed my flight. The main line wasn't the problem...it was the SSSS line that took up the last 1 hour 30 minutes of my wait. I was in the line because of the itinerary change, of course. So once I determined my flight had left without me, I went back outside of security to try my luck with other airlines, secured a seat right after lunch, and went back through the security line, again with the SSSS on my new boarding pass. When the gal behind me started sobbing that she was going to miss her flight (and mine was 2 hours away), I not only let her in front of me but started negotiating with folks ahead of her, and assisted her in moving steadily up the line. Then I started running into SEVERAL people who were in danger of missing flights, and decided to NOT be a sheeple (Sheep People). I started yelling at the screeners to "move it along, this isn't brain surgery" and other useless silly things to draw attention to our plight. I was getting a lot of finger-pointing from the staff: The airport folks running the lines were saying their responsibility stopped at the scanners, and the TSA folks said their responsibility started once folks reached the scanners. Each group was saying, "It's not my problem." So I got them talking to each other, and helped them realize that a) this process isn't working, and b) if it ain't working, why don't we change it? I had some fun discussions with a suit who claimed to be over all the TSA folks, with me managing to be respectful but to-the-point about the TSA guys yukking it up on the other side of the line, looking as un-busy as any government worker could look, so why not put them to use?. Suddenly they rearranged some tables and staff and re-allocated a 2nd scanner line (out of the 6 or 8 scanners available) to be for SSSS folks. Result: At least 3 dozen people who were going to miss flights due to being in the looong SSSS line got through and made them. After I got through (and they indignantly gave my bag the most thorough search imaginable, while I read a book and looked bored), the same suit approached me and gave me a pamphlet with a 1-800# to complain to his higher-ups. He also said that the opening of the 2nd scanner had "nothing at all to do with a belligerent passenger" (me) yelling, and the timing was just coincidental. I just smiled and asked if he was a used car salesman in a former life. But he also said that he was dealing with staffing shortages, so me calling the TSA to complain could possibly help him out.

What's the point to this diatribe (besides pure venting, and I appreciate the forum)?

Don't be intimidated!!! I don't see it as a question of "rights" as much as simply expecting to be treated respectfully. After successfully helping a bunch of people to NOT miss flights, I was embarassed that I hadn't done something similar earlier in the day when I was standing there like a good sheeple watching the clock tick tick tick past my boarding time, then my departure time, etc. The whole experience emboldened me even more (as if that's possible). It came in handy this past Monday when I didn't think about the fact that it was the Monday after Thanksgiving, got to my small airport 25 minutes before flight time as usual (preprinted boarding pass, no checked bags, etc), and encountered a line that looked like it was going to take 2 hours. I called over a couple of airport staff and asked them about prioritizing the line, explained what I meant, and they started shuffling folks forward based on departure times. There was a flight leaving in only 15 minutes, but when they yelled "Anybody in line for United to Denver?!", 10 people who would have missed their plane got moved up, and my flight was next and lots of people benefitted. The way it was looking when I left, everyone was going to make their plane.

Don't expect more of the TSA folks than they have to give. Why get angry with a goat for smelling like a goat? They are what they are. Work with them, but let them know that you're not going to put up with anything but respectful treatment. Another quickie story: At my home airport a few months back the TSA guy manning the metal detector was standing practically IN the scanner, with his arm extended high to indicate "Wait". Well, I didn't see this because I was busy putting all my items on the conveyor belt. He never said a word, and wasn't watching what he was doing, and neither was I. I turned from the conveyor and started through the scanner while reading my boarding pass, and walked right into his outstretched palm, which hit me right in the eyeglasses on my lowered head. I was startled, and he yelled "Watch where you're going sir!" I softly responded, "Hey, dude, my taxes pay your salary, and I believe it is your job to watch out for my safety, not vice versa. You're a Safety worker, right?" He assumed a threatening chest-out stance while I examined my glasses for damage and goaded him a bit more (never raising my voice...I think that's the key overall), and he actually came over to my side of the metal detector. Finally another TSA guy came over and moved him aside so I could walk through, unmolested. I didn't file a complaint or anything, but I only saw the guy one or two more weeks, so I suspect his combination of inattentiveness and temper got him canned. I hope my being the goading scapegoat accelerated the process.

(On preview: I probably sound like more of an Ass than I actually am. Really. I guess it's that "problem with authority figures" thing, especially when the authority figure is a pretentious TSA drone.)
posted by Bradley at 9:24 PM on December 1, 2004

[between 2/02 and 3/03], TSA screeners confiscated 1.4 million knives, 2.4 million sharp objects, 1,101 guns, 15,666 clubs, more than 125,000 incendiary items and nearly 40,000 box cutters.

Of course I guess their definition of "incendiary items" might include fireworks, incense, etc. but still you have to wonder. 40,000 boxcutters!?!

Have to wonder what? exacto knives and boxcutters are common art supplies & useful tools. Confiscating them does about as much good as breaking off the file of your fingernail clippers. If someone was going to try to hijack a plane today, there is absolutely no possible way that they could do it with boxcutters. Even with guns I don't think they could hijack the plane because people are far too aware of the possible consequences and would behave heroically to avoid allowing a plane to become a smart bomb.

The only thing it makes sense to check for in air security is explosives, and even that's a little unnecessary, because terrorists could do much more damage setting off explosives in the middle of cities or whatever, rather than just blowing up a plane. Still, I guess there's something dramatic about planes - but to imagine that tighter security of this manner has any actual effect on terrorist activity is silly. It really is just silly.
posted by mdn at 10:24 PM on December 1, 2004

Bradley, your story goes to the heart of what annoys me so much about this new system. They are so inefficient and so unable to see obvious fixes that they engender no confidence at all that they are succeeding in protecting anyone. If they can't figure out that they need a second SSSS line, which is so bleeding obvious to everyone waiting, how can we trust them to be smart about weapons? And when you have such little faith in their abilities, it seems all the more galling when they start getting all up in your boobs.

At Heathrow two weeks ago, the screeners were so much more professional. I felt much safer with them - and they don't make you take out your laptop or take off your shoes. Maybe it was that attitude - "we know it's silly" - that made me feel better about them.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:21 AM on December 2, 2004