big damn hero
bamatone.net
- livejournal edition
With the TSA, "Every Traveler a Suspect" 
27th-Nov-2011 03:01 pm
wtf

From The Atlantic:

I'm at the Salt Lake City airport, and it probably won't come as a surprise to you that at least one TSA agent here thinks that sarcasm is just part of the job. I opted out of the new scanner--having looked it up now, it appears to have been a millimeter wave model--and was escorted over to the side after two agents gathered up all of my stuff.

"Have you been through this procedure before?" the agent asked.
"Yes," I answered.
"Just have to keep coming back for more?" he asked, somewhat to my surprise.
"You don't give me a choice," I said.
"Sure we do. You have a choice," he replied. "Scanner...or pat down!"
"I would have preferred to just go through the metal detector," I said. He paused.
"That's not a choice."
"I went through the metal detector on my way to Salt Lake City," I said. No answer.

"So what about the scanner is it that you have a problem with?" he asked
"Ionizing radiation," I said.
"There is no ionizing radiation!" he said, referring to his particular scanner.
"That's not true," I replied, not knowing which kind it was, since it's not posted anywhere on the scanner (and even if it was, I'd still opt out of anything beyond a metal detector). Also, the TSA's official phrases "whole body imager" and "21st century technology" say nothing about the use of ionizing radiation, x-rays, or terahertz waves; see http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/04/safety-privacy-concerns-regarding.html.
"What would you call ultrasound?" he asked.
"I have no idea what model or type of scanner that is," I replied. He proceeded to lecture me in a mocking tone as though I were an idiot.
"There's only two types: two flat boxes, that's backscatter x-ray. Round, that's millimeter wave. Flat boxes, x-ray. Round, millimeter wave. I don't blame you for not wanting to go near the backscatter, but this one's fine."
"Well, I've had six CT scans, so I really don't need any more radiation of any kind." (I'm aware of course that many things including visible light are part of the EMR spectrum, but I wasn't about to get into a debate over physics with the agent.)
"CT scans...those are local."
"Not necessarily," I replied. "And I've had two head, two chest, and two abdominal."
"Well, you could just do it to spread it all out." he said. He then ran my chap-stick through the X-ray scanner, and finally walked away, leaving me to think...what the hell?

So, it's clearly not the worst TSA story ever, but I think it highlights three points (which are nothing new to you):

A) the totally arbitrary nature of the scanner selection process;

B) that passengers' decisions to opt out should never be questioned as it's none of the TSA's business why I have a problem with the scanner, even though in this case I had no problem sharing why; and

C) that passengers' decisions to opt out should absolutely never be ridiculed, or even remarked upon in a manner that could be interpreted as ridicule.

Another thought that came to mind is that had I refused to answer the agent's question, depending on how obnoxious he was feeling, he could have said that I was refusing to cooperate. So either you disclose personal medical information to the government, or you're not cooperating. What a deal.

Comments 
28th-Nov-2011 03:23 pm (UTC)
Sounds like part of their security through social means. I've read that some airports have agents that chat up people while they wait in line. This sort of personal interaction can be more revealing than any machine. If they're going to use this tactic, it might help to hire agents that are friendly.

I've come to take the opposite approach. When I feel that people are being a bit too curious about my personal affairs, I will open up and bore them until they regret it. Like back when telemarketers were a thing, I would keep them on the line talking about nothing just to hurt their sales numbers.
2nd-Dec-2011 09:33 pm (UTC)
I had completely forgotten about it until I read your comment, but you're right - I did read about the new "chat" method in USA Today a while back. Still... bleh.
This page was loaded May 23rd 2013, 5:22 am GMT.