TSA: "Let me see the prosthesis."

Aortus said:

Ya know, Penny...
As the adoring husband of a two-year (as of this week) BC survivor who wears a prosthesis - hell, as a human being - the insensitivity of this new TSA bull$hi+ is disgusting.

But somehow, I actually feel a little sorrier for any TSA zealot who crosses BC sisters like you or Moopy. Moopy is already well known to the local TSA...

SIROD said:

Time for Profiling!!!!

I've pasted one of the hundred of articles now on the internet on how Israel keeps it's passenger safe at their airports. I am against profiling, but.............. it's time at our airports. The Fourth Amendment is being violated. For our safety, but............. is there a limit to what we will put up with in the future, is nakedness next?

I'm with you Carkris, I have no problems after all these years, to take my prosthesis out and dump it in their bins. No one is going to take me to a private room to feel me, especially non medical people.

I use my prosthesis when traveling as a bank. I keep my money, credit cards and a copy of my passport in a little pocket tied with a pin to the cover of the prosthesis. I keep only the money I need on hand and one credit card in my purse, along with my passport. On year, I had a ct scan the day after returning from a trip. I had forgotten to remove the little pocket. The tech said, you have some metal on, and then I remembered. I reached in and hand him the prosthesis. He always remembers me when I go for a scan. We joke about it. I am certain that he had never seen a breast prosthesis up to that time. My primary doctor hadn't either and I showed her what it looked and felt like.

After 9/11, at the Washington DC airport, I was picked along with a young boy (blond, blue eyes) around 8 years old. I didn't carry a purse. I only had a paperback. My bag had been checked in. I said very loudly, "now I really feel safe on this plane!". No one needed an explanation.

The article:

Israeli airport security skips scanners, favours profiling

By Jeff Abramowitz Apr 12, 2010, 6:07 GMT


Tel Aviv - Israel's Ben Gurion Airport is considered one of the most secure in the world, even without passengers having to pass through an obtrusive body scanner.

Simply put, the security in place at Ben Gurion is based on the premise of 'find the attacker, and you prevent the attack,' or what Rafael Ron, a former director of security at the airport, calls, 'the human factor.'

'Without a person who intends to do harm, an attack will not take place,' he says, explaining a system which - although obviously alert for weapons - concentrates on people, questioning them and, if deemed necessary, subjecting them to further interrogation and even physical searches.

Critics say this method is racist, since it involves racial profiling. Arab passengers, or non-Jews, for example, are routinely subjected to greater questioning than are Israeli Jews.

Backers point out that the system works. The last time an El Al Israel Airlines aircraft was successfully hijacked was in 1968.

Moreover, no aircraft has ever been hijacked out of Ben Gurion Airport. The terrorists who took over an Air France flight in 1976 - the hijacking which culminated in the Israeli army's rescue of the hostages in Entebbe, Uganda - boarded the plane during a stopover in Athens.

Although airport officials insist that 'we do not give any information regarding our safety procedures and methods,' enough is known of Ben Gurion's security practices to ignite the debate whether other airports in the world should 'Israelify' their security.

It's a debate which has become more urgent since December 25, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up an aircraft en route from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Advocates of the Israeli method say he would never have been allowed onto an aircraft leaving Ben Gurion airport. The multi- layered, not always obvious, security in place would ensure that he would have aroused suspicion, and been stopped, questioned and arrested long before he boarded his flight.
The first security layer manifests itself at the entrance to the airport complex, a good distance from the terminal.

Every vehicle entering the airport is stopped, and the passenger asked a seemingly innocuous question: 'Where are you coming from?'

In most cases the answer is not important. But the way it is delivered is. Questioners are looking for signs of nervousness, or stress, or evasiveness.

The second and third layers can be found outside the airport terminal, where armed guards scrutinize, often seemingly casually, passengers as they alight from their vehicle and move to the building.
At the door to the terminal, more guards are stationed. These sometimes stop random passengers to question them, while looking for signs of suspicious behaviour.

The 'hard' security begins inside the terminal, on the way to the check-in counter. Each passenger is asked some standard questions, such as when they packed their luggage, was their luggage with them all the time after being packed, did anyone give them anything to take on board the plane with them.
At the same time, their flight documents and passports are examined. This often leads to profiling.
Most Israeli Jews are waved though to put their luggages on the X- ray machines. Arabs or non-Jews, on the other hand, are subjected to more intense questioning, and sometimes checked physically.
Advocates of the system maintain that the profiling is not solely ethnic, religious or national, but it based on factors which include behaviour and attitude.

'If you are a bona fide passenger, you answer the questions in a normal way. If you have something to hide, there will be physiological changes: People become white, their Adam's apple jumps, they get angry and jump up and down,' Isaac Yeffet, a former El Al security chief, now a security consultant in New York, told the Wall Street Journal.

Another 'hard' security layer, comes after passport control, when hand baggage is X-rayed and passengers are asked to pass through metal detectors.

And finally, passports and boarding cards are checked just before the passenger is allowed onto the aircraft.

The Israeli method has been scrutinized and even proposed for adoption, especially since Abdelmuttab's aborted attack, but its supporters acknowledge it may not be suitable for worldwide implementation.
For a start, Ben Gurion Airport, Israel's main air terminal, handles around 11.5 million passengers a year - a paltry figure compared to other major airports, but one that makes the Israeli system relatively easy to implement.

The cost of training enough staff to handle all the passengers who pass through a major airport could also been seen as prohibitive.

Even beyond that, lies the problem of social mores. Whether it is called 'behavioral recognition,' or some other euphemism, the spectre of complaints, pr even possible court action, is likely prevent its implementation elsewhere.