You Have Been 'Randomly' Selected? 1160
dpbsmith asks: "One thing I've noticed is that the people who are told by the TSA that they have been 'randomly' selected for baggage inspection have a tendency not to believe it. I know one couple whose wife has been 'randomly' selected four times, while the husband never has been. The wife believes that it is because each of those times, she was traveling by herself, without checked baggage, (whereas she has never been inspected when traveling with her husband with checked baggage). In 'Uncommon Carriers', John McPhee accompanied a truck driver to write about the experience, and bought a trucker's cap to blend in. He says 'I would pay for my freedom at the Seattle-Tacoma airport when, with a one-way ticket bought the previous day, I would arrive to check in my baggage.' His baggage was 'randomly' selected for inspection, and later he was 'once again "randomly selected" for a shoes-off, belt-rolled, head-to-toe frisk.' So, what about it? Is the TSA simply flat-out lying when they tell you that you have been 'randomly selected?'" The better question to ask is: "Are random searches effective in keeping everyone safe?"
Random? (Score:0, Interesting)
Seriously though, I would assume that security would "randomly" select the people they think are most likely to cause trouble - this tends to be a fairly personal opinion, however.
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Interesting)
Other factors include travel / purchasing habits etc...
At at least 2 airlines I've flown, you will see them write one "S" on your ticket for each flag you set off, which increases your likelihood of being "randomly" selected. The whole random thing is a complete misnomer. You're being profiled - not necessarily racially, but you're definitely being profiled.
My experience... (Score:5, Interesting)
I got "randomly" selected three times out of these six flights. In addition to this, my (checked-in) bag was "accidentally" delayed before being loaded onto the plane, and the flight attendant had to come and ensure that I was onboard before the "delayed" bag was brought onboard, just before landing (which was delayed due to my bag).
I'm mid-20s, with an Arab-sounding name, not married, travel a lot (including Eastern Europe), didn't carry a lot of baggage (I was only visiting for a couple of days).
Every time they told me they "randomly" selected me for inspection, I smiled and let them do their thing.
"Random" selection is profiling under a PC name. Of course they profile people. And of course they won't tell you that they do. Before travelling to the US, I was thinking about how suspicious I may appear and how many times they would search me, dig through my luggage and ask me questions. Surprise, surprise, they did it. Three times.
Not so random for me (Score:4, Interesting)
Random my ass (Score:5, Interesting)
My point is, I expect it. But random? Yeah, right.
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Interesting)
On a side note, my wife is in the military and we have to go through "random" security screenings for our cars. Somehow my Saturn gets nailed 10 to 1 over my wife's car every month. There are times when I just want to run the damn guards over.
Randomly selected (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, after the metal detector I was informed that I had been selected for additional screening. I was briefly stopped in a funny looking box with a red sign, less than 30 secs later a guard took me to behind the metal detector lines. My hand luggage, shoes and jacket were carefully inspected, I was checked with a metal detector wand, and then I was on my way. The whole process must have taken about 5 minutes and didn't cause me a single inconvenience.
Even though I'm caucasian, I'm from south america, so I could cry "I was targeted because I come from a third world country". I didn't. I also didn't notice people looking at me like I was doing something wrong. Essentially, this was routine, no different than going through the metal detector itself or the brief questions by the immigrations officer. I guess you'll say "that's how it starts" or that it's a matter of principle, but what's the big deal with this?
I'm ex-TSA... read my previous comments (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't pretend to know how the process works or what the criteria may be, but I can offer some advice:
1. Just go through with it... plan on it. It's about as annoying as a traffic jam.
2. The air carriers have more to do with the "selection" process than the TSA does. (I'm 90% certain of that) So take your bitches and complaints up with the airline... they just might put you on a white list somewhere if you threaten to give your money to another "almost bankrupt carrier." They can't afford to lose your business... none of them can.
To expound upon that, if "the people" want all this crap to get better, start complaining where the money moves, not with congress, not with the president and not with the TSA. (True, there's money there, but the influencial money starts with the air carriers.) If people start complaining enough and changing airlines, they'll listen.
I'm all for profiling (Score:1, Interesting)
The biggest terrorists in the world are the ones who profit from it. Been going on since the dark ages. Follow the money. War is a racket. Eisenhower on the day he got to retire warned you, explicitly, with no ambiguity who the terrorists were then, and who they would always be. You failed to heed that warning, so continue to put up with that shit at the airport, morons.
Behavioral profiling is better than searches (Score:3, Interesting)
This of course, requires training and to do it well an IQ above room temperature - you could probably train front line supervisors to be on guard and have them flag persons for further review - much as some countries already do.
Who says they're random? (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a very frequent flyer (2-3 trips per month). Whenever I purchace same-day, one-way tickets, I always get the SSSS printed my ticket. When I purchase round trip tickets with advance notice, I rarely get the SSSS. The TSA sometimes ignores the SSSS and just lets you though normally, I've never had them screen me without the SSSS.
Every time I do get the extra screening, the TSA always gives the same spiel: "You have been selected by your airline for additional screening...."
"Selected by your airline" not "randomly selected". No claims of randomness about it.
As a funny aside, a few weeks ago I was at my local airport (Ontario International [which is in California not Canada]) about to go through the metal detector. I standing at "the line" fumbling to get my bording pass back out since I know you have to hand it to the TSA agent as you go through. Before I got the ticket out, TSA agent waved me through and called me by name! I didn't know her, I wasn't wearing a name badge, my ticket with my name wasn't out yet, and Ontario California is not exactly a small town airport. Aparently I fly so much that some of the TSA agents recognize me!
Re: profile selections (Score:3, Interesting)
It can, however, be a valid cultural tag. A very, very simplistic one & not a guarantee, but...
However, religion doesn't necessarily leave any detectable marks.
Telling the exact truth to an infidel (or machine) would need to be more important to the subject than their current mission & I know that some beliefs give suicide-missioneers serious indulgences on the job.
What would you do about a suicidal/homicidal Atheist? I was involved (many years ago) in a FIDO chat with Madalyn Murray O'Hair's grand-daughter Robin when she suddenly stopped posting. It turned out later that she'd been murdered (along with Madalyn) by David Roland Waters, an Atheist working for American Atheists as an office manager and typesetter. He evidently did it in order to be able to steal some gold coins. What if he'd wanted to blow up an airplane instead?
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, and it was used incorrectly from the start to describe any actions by the enemy, and the enemy themselves, rather than simply (and correctly) the tactic. The bombing of the marines, as much as it sucked, was an attack on a military target. The attack on the world trade center (the first time and the second) were terrorist attacks because it is a civilian target. The attack on the pentagon is borderline, since it was a military target, but since it used a civilian airliner overall I would say it is terrorism.
Any time civilians are purposefully targeted with the use of violence for political effect it is terrorism. The identity of the doer does not decide whether it is terrorism or not.
a moot question (Score:1, Interesting)
random my ass. (Score:1, Interesting)
But hey, if you're against it, you're for the terrorists, right?
Top secret FACT! Screening uses health history DB! (Score:1, Interesting)
These databases were purchased from most of the US health insurance providers and HMOs and contain nothing in them except 3 things :
Name, Address at time of health care incident, and SSN (if held).
Thats it!
Thats CAPPS 2!
Nothing else.
If you have no health history, or a health history taht does not match your geographic history, you are selected for 'random' searches.
These databases were bought for hundreds of millions of dollars, and violate no ones rights because they are so stripped down.
I believe ChoicePoint is the 3rd party intermediary and hosts the DB records offshore for even more deniability.
I can't believe No ONE here ever spilled the beans on this matter.
It is a fact though. If you want to be a terrorist, you need to have a backdated health history with insurance.
This revelation is easy to prove... no US citizen lacking a health history evades 'random' selection for more security screening.
posted anon for obvious reasons.
Of course they're not "random" (Score:4, Interesting)
The guy does so, then looks at me and offers to move me to a window seat. I say, "Sounds good" and hand back the boarding pass I've already received. Sure enough, the one I get back has a bunch of S's drawn on it. I get the VIP treatment at security, of course.
So, was that question really a big terrorist tipoff or something? Or did I just irritate the guy a bit and he decided to have some fun with me? And either way, am I supposed to feel safer?
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:1, Interesting)
I have worked gate security for the military, and often some of the guards will be jerks about people turning their headlights off while waiting in line for ID.
Saturn's DRL's point up, making the lights seem a lot brighter than other cars, so cars like this get pegged becasue the gaurds was annoyed.
I know this sounds ridiculous, but it's real world experience. The parking brake shuts off the drls, try using it when being ID'd.
Its really like George Carlin says.... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-91328834
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:5, Interesting)
It does, if you assume that past behavior is the sole predictor of future behavior. The problem is that there's no guarantee that future anti-US-aircraft terrorism will also be carried out by Muslims -- in fact, if you go with a Muslim-oriented profiling system, you end up creating a very inviting target for non-Muslim terrorist groups (existing or yet-to-be-created), who know that they will be able to walk right through "security".
To give a computer analogy: if you are adding security to a web site, do you just put in security software that detects last year's virus and stops it, or do you design the site to make it as difficult as possible for any type of virus (present or future) to get through? If you're smart, you'll do the latter, otherwise you'll end up continuously getting sucker-punched from places you didn't expect.
Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score:1, Interesting)
Your definition is close but it need not be a civillian target to be terrorism. The word terrorism was in fact more accurately used in the 70's, 80's and 90's than it is currently thrown around. We don't really know if Al Quaida's attacks are for politically motivated means to change governments, my understanding is that "jihad" is more of a religeous war in that they are doing their holy duty by attacking non-believers. The IRA, PLO - absolutely.
Some real definitions:
- The unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
- The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Random, My shiny metal ass! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:5, Interesting)
And what Assad was able to do within his own country is not something that would work for the US to do to another country. Like the ripples leaving a pebble thrown into a pond, unintended consequences go beyond our capacity to predict, and a nuke ain't no pebble. Simplistic solutions only solve simple problems, and this isn't a remotely simple situation. Strong military response is an important part of the solution, but it simply won't be enough. These are folks who are used to being treated badly by people they consider brothers -- we don't have the stomach to treat them badly enough to really make them fear us, and the world wouldn't tolerate it if we tried. Identifying and killing the worst is a good step, but we can't find them and kill them quickly enough.
Random my ass (Score:3, Interesting)
I travelled through the USA on 6 flights in Jan - Mar 2002. I was randomly selected for special treatment 6/6 times. My bagage and boarding cards get the SSSS every time.
I travelled through the USA on 7 flights in Jul - Aug 2003. I was randomly selected for special treatment 7/7 times. This time was the funniest though. I was travelling with someone although on separate bookings, so I just gave him my carry-on as it was too much of a hassle for me to have it searched every time.
Both times were on round the world tickets, travelling one-way segments, single male, 25-28 years of age.
So to reiterate, random, my ass.
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:3, Interesting)
It might require you to leave TX though, even if just in ideology.
No liquids and no jelly substances allowed on plan (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe next time I fly I'll brink my own smoke machine to help out the agenda of blowing smoke up peoples asses!
Face the facts (Score:2, Interesting)
Take the PC bullshit blue pill all you want, but if you look at who has killed whom over the past 25 years of this jihad; it is Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18 and 30. What good does it for a TSA agent to grope an 85 year old grandmother?? It satisfies your PC opinions but does absolutely zero to stop terrorism. Blather platitudes about equal rights all you want, but remember that they declared war on the West and have started killing us.
It is time to stop the stupidity. Until then, 'If the shoe fits, wear it.'
wganz
It happens the world over (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:2, Interesting)
Consider for a moment Turkey; the major reason this moslem country is not a member of the EU is the type of disregard for human rights that is often seen around the world [wikipedia.org].
Besides, they didn't become 1.3 bn people overnight - but overnight, they became enemies? That doesn't make any sense. Instead, the US lost an enemy to point at and found a new one. That can happen overnight.
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:3, Interesting)
There are hundreds of non-Muslim countries in the world, and few of them suffer attacks by "Muslim terrorists". Some countries have separatists (Basques, Irish, etc), others are targetted because they're seen as butting in to other countries' affairs. Americans persist in saying "They hate us because we're free!" If you were free in California, Osama wouldn't give a shit. It's when you impose regime change on Middle Eastern countries (eg, Iran, 1953), support corrupt monarchies (Saudi Arabia), and of course Israel that you become a target. Whether any of these interventions is moral or sensible or sustainable (well, Iran didn't work out too well) is not in issue here, but you certainly must be ready to face the consequences of playing the Great Game. But losing perhaps one person to terrorism for every 1000 killed by your troops isn't a bad ratio, surely?
In a word, no. Arguably the opposite. (Score:5, Interesting)
Random searches wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. They used box cutters to threaten lives, but if such searches had been in place they would have used dental floss garrotes or their bare hands for the same purpose. Several times people have successfully defeated the searches just to prove it could be done and do not prevent even untrained citizens from bringing contraband on planes.
Random searches are not effective in keeping us safe. What they are effective at is lulling the public into accepting routine violation of their constitutional rights under the guise of protection. Back in the 80s, during the cold war, the paranoid and abusive treatment of travelers by the USSR due to "national security" concerns was properly seen as proof of a fascist government and held up for scorn and ridicule. How sad it is that we have allowed the destruction of a few buildings and loss of 3030 [vikingphoenix.com] lives to turn us into what we fought against. Something several wars with much higher losses both economic and human failed to do. Many free and democratic nations suffered repeated terrorist violence before 9/11 but did not allow it to warp their societies. In contrast we have sacrificed our rights as citizens and our values as a country in response to a single attack and promote such sacrifices of rights and values by our allies.
The random searches and other intrusive treatment of passengers has not resulted in the conviction of many (any?) terrorists, but it has endoctrinated millions to accepting treatment they would not have tolerated previously. In pursuit of physical safety, we have sacrified liberty. A libertarian might say that the undefined risk of pre-9/11 security was less objectionable than the daily violation of the rights of tens of millions of citizens that takes place under post-9/11 security. It is worth thinking about.
I was "randomly" selected after a booking mishap (Score:2, Interesting)
The easy fix (Score:3, Interesting)
It gets hectic enough around those points that fixing it to light up for one person is VERY hard, so it's likely to be legit.
NOT having such a system just leaves it open for abuse.
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:2, Interesting)
Random? (Score:2, Interesting)
The last time I got told to step out, I was obviously part of a group of three. We were all dressed business casual, with laptop bags, and roughly the same age. Why was I picked and not my two coworkers? It's obvious to me that I wasn't being "singled" out for special treatment. Another time my laptop got picked for the special chemical swab, but it was one of three iBook G4s going through the belt, and the TSA guy had to ask whose it was. You guys need to stop with the paranoia act, because they are NOT out to harass you.
At one airport I was able to observe TSA at work through a glass partition, over the course of an hour while waiting for my flight. The only guy I saw who they deliberately targetted was acting goofy. He would remove a couple of coins from his pocket, the wand would buzz, he would remove a few more coins, the wand would buzz again, he would remove his huge belt bucket, the wand would buzz again, he removed his keys, and the wand would buzz again. So they took him off to the room. He had all the appearances of being a stoner. They stopped him AGAIN when he tried to board the plane with a cup of coffee after being told not five minutes before by the attendant that he couldn't take it on the plane.
TSA RANDOM SEARCHES AREN'T RANDOM (Score:4, Interesting)
Norway (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, Norway should not be on the list, it has had assasinations/terrorist attacks recently. The Mossad gunned down some random immigrant a few years ago. Wan't even the guy they were after, jut had the bad luck to be at the wrong place. IIRC it was the first terrorist incident in modern times on Norwegian soil.
Nor should Sweden be on the list. Sweden has had two political assasinations in as many decades. Going back further, there is quite a bit of uncertainty about how accidental the demise of Dag Hammarskjöld [nobelprize.org] really was. So the total could be three in modern times. That doesn't count Russian mafia gunning people down in parking lots, which would bring the total much higher.
Denmark had the Banditos and the Hells Angels in all-out war, even breaking into prison to kill. Now they collaborate... That doesn't count the street fights between ethnic groups nor the daylight gang rapes etc. Nor does it count the random eastern european mule here and there who drops dead from radiation poisoning because of a hot cargo in his vehicle.
The point here is that those that count above are all tied, or supspected to be tied, to the West, and the US in particular.
Re:Appeasement = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:3, Interesting)
Or do you mean "ousting Saddam Hussein from power" (and soon "ensuring that no Islamic group gets the Bomb")? Terrible, terrible, right? Then what do you suggest the US did wrong before that Tuesday in September?
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:2, Interesting)
Canada.
While technically true; It is misleading. The Canadians just foiled a plot to assassinate the Prime Minister of Canada. So while the attack didn't happen, it was attempted.
The truth is there aren't any countries that don't have attacks from Muslim terrorists. From China, Russia, United States, Great Britain, France, Sweden, The Phillipines, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakastan; all of these have had attacks. If a country isn't being attacked its simply because they are lower on the list not off the list.
Caught by random selections in Canberra airport (Score:2, Interesting)
It went off, not big red lights and stuff but a little flashing message. The person looked a little stunned at first and I was pulled over to an office. I showed them my AG passes and explained what I had been doing in Canberra that day. They seemed fairly sceptical until I gave them the name of a senior officer in the department of defence who could verify who I was, the questioning stopped and they let me go after a quick search of everything. It was a quick interlude in what was going to be a fairly un-eventful day. They were polite and cheerful, but certainly focused on their job.
Effective at What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Once you realize this, then the practice of profiling makes perfect sense -- you pull aside the people that you think the other passengers are nervous about, and you search them. The other passengers see "dangerous looking" people being checked, and they feel safer. And you pull aside a few other random folks just to make it look sort-of fair.
And for folks who have the Unabomber look, or the fundamentalist Muslim look, or who generally wear any sort of non-standard clothing, you pull them aside for the full body-cavity search etc. This trains people to clean themselves up and not look dangerous when they fly, which makes the public feel safer.
And of course, there is the other mechanism; you announce it is random, and you look for people who look nervous, and check them. I had a math professor in college who used to do this; he had a deck of 3x5 cards with everyone's name on it, and he would make a great show of shuffling the deck and picking someone to put each homework question on the board. Of course, he actually picked whoever was squirming in their chair, or otherwise looking nervous, thus training folks to do their homework.
Re:TSA = wrongheadedness gone wild (Score:1, Interesting)
As a Jew, I don't understand what is qualitatively more horrific about suicide attacks. I don't think the crime perpetrated against my family in Poland were any more acceptable because the perpetrators didn't die in the process. Likewise I don't think destroying a Palestinian market from an attack helicopter is any better than walking into an Israeli one and blowing yourself up. Besides, what consititutes a suicide attack? Functionally, pretty much any Palesitinian attack on the IDF is suicidal. Hell, simply walking near the IDF is dangerous.
Re:TSA told me why i was always searched.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Because of the unholy layovers I was close to first in line just about every flight. At the last connection to Miami I realized that while I had not been first to get in line every time I was usually the first or second to board because the VERY first dude got searched every time.
This little observation paid off bigtime on the way back. On the second or third connection I noticed this guy who was traveling the same toute as I was. He seemed to be getting pissed that I was boarding before him and getting preferential seating. Apparently he thought he deserved better than everyone else. As he approached the line he was flirting with the borders of decency: pushing just hard enough to make people get out of the way but not hard enough to get himself decked.
This big lug was mean-mugging me from behind, all angry like. I was seated closer and had stepped in front of him for the first spot. I guess he felt like I cut him off.
Then I rememberd the search protocol.
I motioned for him to go ahead of me.
By the time that a-hole got his shoes and belt back on all the good seats were long gone. I sat there, relaxed and lounging in the bulkhead isle seat, crunching on my honey-roast peanuts, and watched that jerk shoehorn his fat ass into a middle seat at the back of the plane.
So, yeah, don't be first in line either.
Random? (Score:1, Interesting)