Artist protests TSA “theater” with hidden carry-on messages

Very smart way to protest. You do it without being obstrusive. You do it without causing the travelers in line behind you a problem. Yet you are able to get your message across.

Frank: “HIS antics are causing “Theater Screening” to the agents who are just trying to do their jobs. The same agents who have NO SAY SO in policy and procedures. And, to anyone who became an unwilling participant in line BEHIND him.”

Your persistent loyalty to the TSA is in some ways commendable: just as 22% of voters continue to support the worst president in American history, someone has to defend an agency that most travelers regard as worse than useless (and that government audits consistently report as ineffective). But I think you’ve unintentionally identified the important point of this “artistic” stunt.

The screeners, as you note, have no say in policy and procedures. Nor do we. But the people who do have a say in it hide themselves in undisclosed locations wrap themselves in the flag. They don’t care what we have to say, and respond to any questions or criticism (constructive and otherwise) with condescending mumbo-jumbo about “national security,” “robust intelligence,” and “trust us.” Like you, they want us to passively and unquestioningly accept everything they do, preferably with the appropriate mixture of fear and gratitude.

I think this is a clever and innocuous way to protest (although if the template actually looks like a weapon or explosive on the x-ray, the screeners are justified in shunting the perpetrator into aside for the appropriate humiliation). Other than that, I think it’s a reassuring sign that the freedoms the administration and the TSA claim to be protecting remain alive to some extent, even though you and the administration you defend see it as wrong or evil.

Yes, the screeners are “just trying to do their jobs.” But they’re the intrusive and reviled face of an unresponsive (and demonstrably incompetent) bureaucracy. Other than not flying, what else can we reasonably do to express our discontent with the way they’re doing their jobs?

The screeners, as you note, have no say in policy and procedures. Nor do we. But the people who do have a say in it hide themselves in undisclosed locations wrap themselves in the flag. They don’t care what we have to say, and respond to any questions or criticism (constructive and otherwise) with condescending mumbo-jumbo about “national security,” “robust intelligence,” and “trust us.” Like you, they want us to passively and unquestioningly accept everything they do, preferably with the appropriate mixture of fear and gratitude.
======================================================

I think policies and procedure are taken into consideration when they implement them for the AMERICAN traveling public. For the airlines to remain in business, they know they can NOT institute a “security system” that’s too timely and/or invasive. Would you show up for security say, 2 to 3 hours prior to flight time for a domestic flight. Require a pat down? I’ve been through both in other countries! Civil Liberty people would be all over this. Apparently, the FLYING PUBLIC knows what makes them safe. And, when they dont agree with it, they’re highly inconvenienced.
I seem to always hear whining/complaining in the security line. I, once had a business man look at me and complain, “what do they think I am, a terrorist? Do I look like a terrorist?”…………….I replied back, “Did Timothy McVeigh?” He got it.
Maybe it’s just me, but how hard is it to place your carry-on’s into the table, push it into the machine, show the TSA your liquid bag, remove shoes, metal items and walk through the metal detector? I’ve done it THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of times!
This is NOT a clever way to protest. It’s idiotic. It’s only a matter of time before his antics send him to jail, not the humiliation you suggest. I only hope he’s read the numerous signs at security: SECURITY IS NO JOKING MATTER.

Frank: “This is NOT a clever way to protest. It’s idiotic. It’s only a matter of time before his antics send him to jail, not the humiliation you suggest. I only hope he’s read the numerous signs at security: SECURITY IS NO JOKING MATTER.”

And assuming that the template doesn’t resemble a gun, a bomb, or something dangerous, what law or regulation does it actually violate? Or does he need to go to jail just because he’s failing to demonstrate the proper respectful and deferential demeanor toward Uniformed Security Officials that the TSA and the administration believe is the obligatory duty of loyal citizens?

As for security being no joking matter, that presumably applies only to passengers. The entire “security theatre” that the TSA perpetrates would be high comedy if it weren’t such a tragic show of incompetence, waste, and intrusive hassle.

Regarding the new technology, I’ll bet you anything the TSA will drag its feet in deploying it. Budget will be the official reason, but I think they prefer to make passengers go through the “3-1-1 Victory Baggie” routine because an intrusive hassle appears more “thorough” and effective to the passengers they’re trying to impress.

Frank: “Airport screeners find loaded gun in teddy bear…”

And what does that have to do with the War on Liquids and Toiletries?

Frank: “Please tell me and Mr Kipler, Head of the TSA, how you’re going to safeguard an entire nation against aviation threats? I’m all ears.”

First, Mr. Kip Hawley is the head of the TSA. Second, the answer to your question is that you can’t safeguard the entire nation against aviation threats. At least not through any measures involving mass screening of passengers to enforce absurd rules that belatedly react to past threats.

That said, intelligence that uncovers plots long before they get to the airport would certainly help. As would screening of cargo, the lack of which the GAO singled out last year as the leading threat to aviation. The only “benefit” of airport screening is that it gives the public the misleading impression that the government is doing something visible and tangible (if not effective) to protect aviation. That may well convince the 22% who still support Bush, but anyone with open eyes and half a brain who submits to TSA screening can see for themselves it’s a costly, frustrating joke (notwithstanding the official admonitions to take it Very Seriously and be Very Afraid).

Frank: “And, THEIR METHODS have changed through the years, guns, bombs and liquids.”

Indeed. But the TSA’s approach of adding hassles to checkpoints in belated reaction to method changes is itself a security vulnerability. Terrorists no longer have to kill themselves or anyone else to inflict significant damage to the United States. They merely need to fake or suggest a “method change” that will provoke the TSA’s bureaucracy to react with another bone-headed rule or restriction that will increase the expense and disruption at airports. I wonder how Kippie would react to a plot to smuggle explosives (or contraband lip gloss) in the nether regions of the plotters.

If that seems farfetched, consider the vulnerability the TSA has already created. Checkpoints that create long lines are a much easier target than airplanes. I worry about that whenever I’m stuck in line waiting to be screened. I wonder if Kippie has ever thought of that. I’d bet against it, since he and Michael Chertoff probably travel by government jet and never have to endure the system they created.

I think it’s entirely appropriate to demand that we get something effective and useful for all the expense and hassle the TSA is causing us. But their only response to such demands is “it’s classified… trust us.” The most effective terrorist tactic is to let the enemy smother itself in continually escalating but pointless “security measures.” And the Bush administration seems to be playing right into that tactic.

Frank: “Actually, they have. In alot of airports, they’ve installed barricades in the front of entrance ways.”

And how does a barricade protect a crowd of passengers patiently waiting at a TSA checkpoint from a suicide bomber with an explosive vest? Of all the very visible flaws and deficiencies in the TSA’s approach to “security,” this is the one I genuinely worry about. (That and the lack of screening for the cargo under passengers’ feet, which by itself is ample proof that the “security theater” is a useless charade.)

Having said that, I’ll agree to disagree with you, if you’ll also agree to that.

I lived in Italy in 1975. I remember the first time I got off the bus from the gate to board the plane and there was row after row of baggage on the tarmac. Before I could get on the plane the police required me to point out my luggage and then a baggage handler put it on the plane as I boarded. Would you rather take off your belt, or board the plane off the tarmac?

Surprising the TSA agent, who just works for a living, tells the government nothing it doesn’t already know.

Suppose tomorrow the government put out a survey with just two questions:

1. We want to stop all the screening and just let people walk on the plane. Are you for or against that?

2. If you answered the question FOR, do you have any concerns and if so what means would you prefer we use to make sure you have a safe flight?

Frank: “I thought of YOU, today, when this article showed up in the USAToday.”

The test in Denver caught two false positives. But the authorities define that as a “success,” which means they’re all set to deploy it widely. I guess security officials define “success” differently from anyone else.

Once the device is fielded, airport authorities will have to hire lots of police officers, and set up special areas to detain, interrogate, and (presumably) strip-search all the false positives it will detect. Maybe if they nab enough false positives, they’ll eventually stumble across something genuinely dangerous and be lauded as heroes. Yes, that should make us all feel very safe indeed!

Why does “security” require a complete suspension of all reason?

On October 8th, 2008 at 4:08 pm Hapgood said Frank:
The test in Denver caught two false positives. But the authorities define that as a “success,” which means they’re all set to deploy it widely. I guess security officials define “success” differently from anyone else.
====================================================

Did we read the same article? It’s my understanding that the DEVICE is being TESTED. They questioned individuals and released them. No success story yet.