San Diego Air Traveler Opts Out Of Peepshow Scanner And Groping, Threatened With $10K Fine Unless He Submits
Via BoingBoing, the man tells the screener he'll have him arrested if he tries to grab his "junk":
Let's have more like this guy, who said about the sexual assault they told him he'd have to endure, "What they're doing here would be illegal if they weren't the government."
This screening isn't making us safer (it won't catch contraband you stuff up your butt or your coochie); it's just making us better sheep. If you like democracy and freedom, that should worry you -- lots.
Cory Doctorow writes at BoingBoing about the aftermath of the guy's refusal:
After faffing around with various supervisors and supervisors' supervisors, he opted not to fly, collected a refund from the American Airlines counter, and started to leave the airport. But before he could go, the supervisor's supervisor's supervisor told him he wasn't allowed to leave the checkpoint once he entered it, that he was already in for up to $10,000 in fines, and that he would have to return and allow the man's minons to palpate his genitals before he'd be allowed to leave the airport. After he objected, he was left cooling his heels for a long time. Finally, he asked if he was under arrest, and being told that he wasn't, but that he would be sued for $10K if he tried to go, he said, "you bring that suit" and left. Most of the incident was recorded on his phone, and has been posted to YouTube.
We have every right -- and a responsibility -- to question government power grabs like this. Speaking of which, here's tape of a gutsy guy named Sam Dodson at Detroit Metro, in three parts:
As Dodson points out in the video, the peepshow scanner watcher job is the perfect one for the pedophile who has yet to be caught.
Report your (officially sanctioned) sexual assault by #TSA employees here:
http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/
UPDATE: The guy's whole story is here.
DOES NOT DO A THING FOR SECURITY.
Need to repeat that, because that's how they're justifying this.
Ben David at November 14, 2010 4:27 AM
I believe that from the time you enter the airport grounds to the time that you leave them at your destination you should have the right to carry concealed -- anything from mace up to an Uzi. (It's hard to carry an AR-15 concealed. :-) )
There will never be a 9/11. The sheeple that died in the first three planes thought it was the standard hijacking. Sit down, be calm, wait to land and the negotiations begin.
The TSA is an f'ing joke. I feel less secure in an environment that is heavily "secured" with a crap load guards. That tells me that you don't trust me and those around me. I feel more secure in a Wal-mart than I do in an airport.
I remember the days when I flew from a small airport in San Angelo, TX. that had metal detectors but they weren't manned to DFW. I went through security at DFW -- but the security was calm (your belt buckle set off the detector).
"Oh crap"
"We'll have to wand you"
"Not a problem."
This back scatter XRay and pat-downs are dumb. The story -- old now -- of the an 86 year old being detained because he was carrying his medal of honor on him just show me the irrelevance of the TSA.
I just had a call yesterday to interview with a Boeing contractor. It would be more money but will it be worth it in the long run?
The upside is I got a nice Gerber lock blade for seven bucks (normally twenty-five) off eBay from a TSA confiscation.
Jim P. at November 14, 2010 7:30 AM
The best, in the case of the pantybomber, was that the geniuses in charge of our security at Detroit Metro let the plane pull right up to what was Northwest gate (now Delta) with all the planes lined up, the big tall beautiful Westin behind it, and the terminal alongside. Might a Muslim pantybomber have doubled up on death toys and put a bomb in his luggage? Well, gee whiz, Opie, never thoughta that!
Amy Alkon at November 14, 2010 7:59 AM
Guess the only time the girls and I will use are passports is when we drive to Canada. Ain't goin' to Mexikillya. If I had known airport "security" would have come to this, I wouldn't have spent the money on passports. Well, yeah, okay I would have and I did, but I am SO not willing to fly anywhere now. There goes my trip to the UK.
Bastards.
Flynne at November 14, 2010 9:11 AM
OUR not "are"! What an idiot! (time for more coffee.)
Flynne at November 14, 2010 9:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/14/traveler_opts_o.html#comment-1782108">comment from FlynneGregg is taking me to Paris soon, and I've been thinking a lot about this TSA assault in the name of security. Basically, the price of my travel is allowing myself to be sexually assaulted by a government worker. It's vile and disgusting, and I have already filed a protest at the link above (about the sexual assault -- after being X-ray-screened! -- I suffered at McCarren Airport). Then, too, I needed to be somewhere -- to go to a conference with hotel I had already paid for in SF, but I am grateful to and admire those like the guy in the BoingBoing video above who protest and refuse.
Amy Alkon at November 14, 2010 9:28 AM
Does anyone know what El Al ( Israeli airlines ) does with respect to scanners/pat downs/full body searches ?
Would El Al be a model to follow in security ? One plus for El Al is fewer flights leave Tel Aviv than a typical U.S. airport, so that leaves more time to conduct security checks.
Nick at November 14, 2010 9:29 AM
Ya... I hate flying and it just got worse apparently.
My favorite comment from one of the TSA idiots: "When you buy a ticket you give up a lot of your rights."
Pretty soon it will be more general than that. "When you become a citizen you give up a lot of your rights."
WTF...
I'm ready to take the Red pill and unplug from the matrix. I'm waiting for Morpheus to show up to explain to me that all I am is a source of energy for the machines... except that instead of holding up a duracell battery he's going to hold up a $ bill.
I'm going to pop soon...
Mark at November 14, 2010 9:32 AM
Just curious what the proposed solution is. There's plenty of Againstism in punditry these days, but the result of catastrophic failure for a security protocol is jaw-droppingly extreme and something besides complaining about security should enter into the dialogue.
Sure, we should hire smarter TSA employees -- but in what category of life would smarter employees not be an improvement?
No searches? Just search brown young men w/ beards?
All security is invasive on some level, and has to keep changing and improving and elevating -- unless someone thinks the cadre of murderous sociopaths will just give up trying or are too stupid to think ahead.
Clearly some of them are stupid, or not smart enough, but even a cockroach learns by trying.
Jim Hames at November 14, 2010 9:42 AM
The Dodson videos were really enlightening. The behavior specialist the other TSA agents sent to chat him up while he was in line at the fast-food joint seemed clumsy and unintelligent, no more discerning than the other thugs. I have great respect for security professionals, but from what I've seen, the TSA doesn't employ any.
Janey at November 14, 2010 10:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/14/traveler_opts_o.html#comment-1782133">comment from JaneyI sure wouldn't trust a woman of her apparent intelligence and savvy with our security.
Amy Alkon at November 14, 2010 10:48 AM
"One plus for El Al is fewer flights leave Tel Aviv than a typical U.S. airport, so that leaves more time to conduct security checks."
And as Patrick Smith has noted, the foremost reason for air travel delays is smaller planes - the regionals - raising the number of flights which must be handled.
Generally, a company thinks that ten flights a day with little jets beats five with bigger ones. But this creates chaos, as any delay affects more flights more immediately.
If the number of small flights is reduced, the El Al model gets better for the US because of the improvement in predictability of schedule.
Radwaste at November 14, 2010 11:12 AM
>the result of catastrophic failure for a
>security protocol is jaw-droppingly extreme
Nonsense. Terrorism has been around for decades. There is nothing new here, and there is no reason for us to be acting as though there is. The attack on 9/11 has our government pissing in its pants, but consider: 3000 people dead - that's about the same number as die in auto accidents every month. It is *not* jaw-droppingly extreme.
>Just curious what the proposed solution is.
Disband the TSA and the entire Department of Homeland Security. Let the airlines and airports deal with security. They do not care to be blown up. At the same time, they will find methods that do not humiliate their customers.
bradley13 at November 14, 2010 11:46 AM
Don't believe that your nude photo will be deleted:
http://info-wars.org/2010/02/09/exposed-naked-body-scanner-images-of-film-star-printed-circulated-by-airport-staff/
Amy Alkon at November 14, 2010 12:12 PM
If anyone with the intelligence level of the regular commenters here wanted to get an incendiary device on a plane, they could, TSA search or no TSA search.
Amy Alkon at November 14, 2010 12:15 PM
From Amy: If anyone with the intelligence level of the regular commenters here wanted to get an incendiary device on a plane, they could, TSA search or no TSA search.
The problem is that the government doesn't recognize that. They have the viewpoint that "We need to protected by the government."
The answer is "No, I don't. I'm a grown adult."
I will admit that prior to 9/11 I might have been in the sheeple class. But at the same time I always have to check luggage because I have always carried a lock blade or multi-tool (Leatherman with a blade) since age 14 where I can.
This extends to all areas of my life -- from what happens on my property to a car accident.
I will agree that we need the FCC, the FAA, and EPA. But they need to be in the form of controlling, detecting and stopping large violations. Not the minor crap as they do now.
Jim P. at November 14, 2010 1:56 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/14/traveler_opts_o.html#comment-1782187">comment from Jim P.I think that there's this idea that more show of police presence is protective -- not that these people are actual police officers; they just have the police officer-like outfits. But for the fact that it's a national practice, it would seem really Hollywood to me. Gregg and I were talking about doing a fun photo of me in a policewoman outfit, and all that would take is a trip to a costume rental place. Likewise, these TSA employees are just costumed-up extras the government is using to dress the airport set.
Amy Alkon at November 14, 2010 2:12 PM
My response got too large to leave as a post; it became a blog post.
http://40yearoldfanboy.blogspot.com/2010/11/on-freedom-to-be-belligerent-asshole.html
A provocative excerpt, intended to drive traffic:
---------------------------
Here's the problem. All I saw were two guys deliberately "acting up" to see what would happen. And in both cases, nothing did, save for some tension and some harsh, even poorly-chosen words.
The first fellow STARTED with "if you touch my junk I'm gonna sue you" and he was surprised that he kept getting passed up the supervisory chain?
The second guy was recording/broadcasting for his blog was surely hoping and praying that he'd get a response. And after a few minutes of checking over...he didn't get one. He showed them his ID and his boarding pass, and they let him go. They kept an eye on him, yes, but he didn't get the rubber truncheon up the jacksie that he was hoping for. Both started the situation with a confrontational attitude. Both went in all but assuming that there would be trouble, and feigned surprised when there was.
Vinnie Bartilucci at November 14, 2010 2:15 PM
"If anyone with the intelligence level of the regular commenters here wanted to get an incendiary device on a plane, they could, TSA search or no TSA search."
I think most of the commenters here could be classified AS incendiary devices.
Vinnie Bartilucci at November 14, 2010 2:17 PM
Look, I get that security is far from perfect, and I'm not looking forward to having to walk through the x-ray machines, but the answer is not to have no security. Without these checks, it would be a lot easier to bring in a weapon. Like Vinnie, I hear a lot of complaining, and I sympathize, but I don't hear a lot of better ideas. The only better idea I can think of (which I'm sure Vinnie won't like) is to focus a lot more on the people who are the most likely to be terrorists - i.e., Muslims and Arabs - and a lot less on everyone else. But that won't happen, so we're stuck with this lousy system.
kishke at November 14, 2010 4:49 PM
I'd like to know if they can force a pregnant woman through the body scanner at Heathrow as the link stated it was illegal to refuse. One thing is for sure, with all the government sanctioned harassment and violation involved with traveling, I have no real desire to travel anymore despite wanting to visit various places I can't reasonably drive to. It seems to me that not enough people are outraged over all the intrusions into your privacy and your inability to refuse.
BunnyGirl at November 14, 2010 4:55 PM
This is scary. I'm glad I don't travel much. It seems to me that this is more invasive and isn't that helpful. To justify this, it should be able to protect us at least 99% of the time. How many innocent people are going to be radiated or groped to "protect" us?
I also want to know how Israel deals with this.
KrisL at November 14, 2010 5:12 PM
"The only better idea I can think of (which I'm sure Vinnie won't like) is to focus a lot more on the people who are the most likely to be terrorists - i.e., Muslims and Arabs - and a lot less on everyone else."
I disagree. Spending money and time going after the people more likely to do a crime makes perfect sense. The old joke comes to mind about the guy who lost his keys in the alley but is looking for them in the street "because the light is better here".
And if the last two big catches were Arab or Muslim, the argument would be easier to buy. But IIRC, the shoebomber was white and the pantybomber was from Africa. And the Times Square bomber, while closer, didn't fit the profile perfectly either.
Arguments about profiling aside (and don't think I'm not waiting for the flurry of lawsuits claiming people's civil rights were infringed upon) there is still a feasible possibility that some non-expected person might be "the next guy". So the idea of checking everyone, while the most annoying, does cover the most ground.
In answer to "what Israel does", they spend a LOT of time training people to read faces better than any poker player. We have people working at the gates who would have taken the job at Popeye's if they had called back first. They have limited training, and few if any have been on the job long enough to have amassed any true real-world experience. El-Al has employees who have been doing this for decades, and they are the ones doing the training, not folks who are six pages ahead in the manual.
Taking that into consideration, it should be seen as GOOD news that these two guys didn't end up in a cage as some under-trained nervous-nelly chose to over-react.
We're relying on technology, and other countries understand that humans, properly trained, will be able to read a face far better than a scanner. A computer may be able to identify you, but a person will be able to better guess why you're sweating.
The free market, if anything, will likely be the thing that will cause the security systems to change. If enough people specifically choose not to fly because of the scans, the airline might well have the ammo to go to the TSA and at least ask they try and get more efficient. And simple oversight by the public can keep the pressure on as well.
Provocative stunts like these will only serve to infuriate, and make people who have legitimate complaints come off as wolf-callers.
Vinnie Bartilucci at November 14, 2010 5:50 PM
Older, but still interesting article about Israel's airport security:
-------------------
Renewed threats of airborne terror have once again drawn attention to Israel’s track record of preventing terror attacks on airplanes.
American commentators and politicians, riled by the recent failure to stop terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab from boarding a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Detroit, have raised calls for “Israelification” of American airports and the adoption of the security model used at Israel’s Ben Gurion International Airport.
But while Israel does maintain an excellent track record for preventing airplane terrorism, its unique system of security, which leans heavily on personal interaction and on group profiling, cannot easily be emulated by the United States.
“The way things work in the United States is 180 degrees opposite to the way things work in Israel,” said Yuval Bezherano, an executive at an Israeli consulting firm that designs airport security systems. “Adopting the full Israeli system won’t work, because of costs, time and legal differences.”
Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/122781/#ixzz15JOTydDz
Vinnie Bartilucci at November 14, 2010 5:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/14/traveler_opts_o.html#comment-1782270">comment from Vinnie BartilucciAnother disgusting assault by the TSA -- a mother traveling alone with her baby has a TSA worker reach into her pants from the back and reach forward and touch her labia!
http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html
Amy Alkon at November 14, 2010 6:25 PM
Just commented to her site. While I have no doubt the incident certainly happened as related, the apologetic and courteous response from the manager suggests that they recognized it as an error, and it would be addressed. She's certainly right to complain and bring the incident to light, but to paint it as deliberate assault and not a series of serious errors is... understandable, considering, but still perhaps emotionally exaggerated.
Vinnie Bartilucci at November 14, 2010 6:54 PM
> Without these checks, it would be a lot
> easier to bring in a weapon. Like Vinnie,
> I hear a lot of complaining, and I
> sympathize, but I don't hear a lot
> of better ideas.
How 'bout this: When the guy in front of me in an airline seat threatens the operation of the aircraft, I remove the shoelaces from my sneakers and choke the life from his wretched, twitching trunk...
...Or, alternatively, plunge into the landscape of the free-est nation the world has ever known, with my shoelace nonetheless wrapped around his fuckwitted gullet, proud to have lived in the country that still takes individual responsibility seriously, and grateful to have given my descendants this important example of how courage works.
Seriously... Dood. Those are your options. If you can't choose from one of those, DON'T FLY on my airplane, and I'm not fucking kidding.
If you can't take your kids to see Grandma for Thanksgiving dinner without accepting these risks and responsibilities, and without having a minimum-wage, diabetically-obese high-school dropout making $120,000 a year to caress your penis through rubber gloves to 'make you safe', then you don't deserve the privilege of seeing the topside of a storm cloud from an airliner... Not over ANY nation of the Earth.
And don't kid yourself. Aviation is a distinctly AMERICAN gift to the world, much like jazz or the internet. Couldn't have happened --and certainly wouldn't have been this good-- without us Americans.
Because we have big clangin' balls.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 14, 2010 8:28 PM
I think it is a mistake to give any of these security people the benefit of the doubt. Ever. Force them to increase training and qualifications via lawsuit or it will never improve. The more useless, invasive, ineffective shit they are able to shove down our throats, the more we will have to put up with useless, invasive, ineffective shit. If you don't stand against this type of thing it just continues to get worse.
matt at November 14, 2010 8:31 PM
> it is a mistake to give any of
> these security people the benefit
> of the doubt. Ever.
Bumper sticker. Business card. Wedding vow.
CAMPAIGN SLOGAN.
Good comment.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 14, 2010 9:02 PM
vinnie:
“The way things work in the United States is 180 degrees opposite to the way things work in Israel,” said Yuval Bezherano, an executive at an Israeli consulting firm that designs airport security systems. “Adopting the full Israeli system won’t work, because of costs, time and legal differences.”
- - - - - - - - - - - -
In other words:
1) Americans like assembly-line, drive-thru-window, Walmart-scale solutions. They want to hire a burger flipper and have the machine do the work.
2) The PC climate - and lawsuit-happy culture - in America prevents obvious ethnic profiling, even though it's the best way to identify likely splodeydopes.
The Israeli focus is on finding the bomber, not the bomb.
The Israeli system uses data analysis and a series of personal interviews to spot suspicious people. Your bookings, itinerary, and other data are analyzed. Then trained interviewers repeatedly ask questions about your trip and your luggage, and your responses are closely observed.
Based on this screening - some people are pulled out for more thorough search.
Until they come up with a machine that can duplicate one human's highly evolved perception of other humans, the Israeli system will not be adopted in the USA.
Ben David at November 15, 2010 5:13 AM
And if the last two big catches were Arab or Muslim, the argument would be easier to buy. But IIRC, the shoebomber was white and the pantybomber was from Africa. And the Times Square bomber, while closer, didn't fit the profile perfectly either.
Hello? Vinnie? All three were Muslim.
kishke at November 15, 2010 7:04 AM
How 'bout this: When the guy in front of me in an airline seat threatens the operation of the aircraft, I remove the shoelaces from my sneakers and choke the life from his wretched, twitching trunk...
I'm all for it. But even better would be to keep him off the damn plane.
kishke at November 15, 2010 7:08 AM
@Kishke - Sure, they were muslim. How do you test for that? Since muslims come in all shapes, sizes and colors, we need to come up with a muslim test.
Put dogs and/or pigs on the planes. That'll keep all but the most determined muslims off the planes. Sure, it will fuck the non-terrorist inclined muslims too, but maybe it will motivate those to go after the islamists in their midst.
Also, if the muslims knew that any attempt by them to do harm to the passengers of the plane would result in extreme pain, they'd give up.
And they already have, in large part. The last scheme didn't involve any muslims actually getting on planes, it involved sending explosives via cargo.
@Flynne - you could always take a boat to the UK and rent a car once there.
brian at November 15, 2010 8:30 AM
I'm pretty well stuck with flying, since Japan is a bit too long of a drive...
Seriously, I don't fly much any more. It had already become too much of a hassle even before this latest facade.
It's not like our economy needs any help, or that our balance of trade would benefit from tourism.
MarkD at November 15, 2010 9:17 AM
Sure, they were muslim. How do you test for that?
Like it's impossible to figure out. Start with names and countries of origin. That won't weed them all out, but it'll do for a huge number. After that, yeah, it's intelligence; looking for suspicious patterns in travel, ticketing, purchase of tickets, background checks where it seems warranted, have experts talking to the passengers, who will pull the guy out of line and talk to him if he seems suspicious. And once that's done, we're at the place Crid's talking about. Fine.
kishke at November 15, 2010 10:34 AM
@Brian - it'd take too long on a freakin' boat! But I get where yer comin' from.
Vinnie, the Times Square bomber was indeed Muslim, and he was just pack from terrorist camp in Pakistan before he rented his little flat in Bridgeport, CT, from whence he traveled to Times Square to release his little (failed) Package o' Doom. Thank the gods someone blew the whistle on that asshole.
Don't think for one minute that there haven't been other tries on American soil that we the people haven't heard about. The reason we haven't heard about 'em is because the gubmint doesn't WANT us to hear about them. It'd cause too much of a frenzy. There's enough of that going on now, without shoving more down our throats (and up our collective butt). Those that make the news are those that the Big Boys want us to know about so they can brag about doing their jobs, don'tcha know. They know the people can't handle TOO much knowledge, right?
RIIIiiiiiiiight.
(/sarc)
Flynne at November 15, 2010 11:27 AM
You think that's bad, just wait until the death panels come looking for you:
http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/nobel-prize-winning-economist-krugman-stands-up-support-of-death-panels
biff at November 15, 2010 11:56 AM
P.S.
Maybe this whole charade is to allow Barry to take over the "faltering" airline business??
biff at November 15, 2010 12:00 PM
Oh GODS, Biff, perish the THOUGHT!! ACK!
o.O
Fynne at November 15, 2010 12:16 PM
Don't think for one minute that there haven't been other tries on American soil that we the people haven't heard about.
You mean like the mystery missile fired by the ?Chinese, ? North Koreans, ? U.S. Navy?
biff at November 15, 2010 12:23 PM
Drudge has an image posted of a behijabed Muslim woman patting down a nun. Good grief.
kishke at November 15, 2010 3:02 PM
And amid all that, the only solution I saw --paraphrasing-- was to abolish the law enforcement aspect of getting on a plane and leave security to the airlines, because the threat is either not real enough or security is easily surmountable ....
Good thinking
Jim Hames at November 15, 2010 4:22 PM
Hey,. it's all in the War on Terror.
This war, like our wars on poverty and wars on drugs, will consume hundreds of billions, and then tens of trillions of dollars, but never result in victory.
Why would federal agency ever declare victory--and then admit it was obsolete?
Ever wonder why we are fighting terrorists with a Cold War machine on steroids?
But, hey, when you get felt up, then you get angry.
Listen suckers, your wallets were lifted a long time before you were felt up.
BOTU at November 15, 2010 4:32 PM
crid says: "How 'bout this: When the guy in front of me in an airline seat threatens the operation of the aircraft, I remove the shoelaces from my sneakers and choke the life from his wretched, twitching trunk..."
My dad actually travels on airplanes with a piece of nylon (I think) rope in his pocket, for just this purpose.
Back to the topic of the "feel-ups"... If anybody feels assaulted by this, what you you felt-up your friendly TSA officer back. If it's a guy, grab him by the nuts and squeeze... If it's a woman TSA officer give fondle her breasts back.
What are they going to say or charge you of?
Sexual Assault? Perfect.
Are they going to admit that what you did to them was offensive, humiliating, or unnecessary?
Hey, of I'm going to let somebody feel me up, then I feel that I have the right to make sure that they aren't dangerous before letting them get that close to my person. So I want to pat them down too.
Or maybe I can just say that I was being assaulted, so what I did was actually done in self-defense.
mark at November 15, 2010 5:27 PM
"And amid all that, the only solution I saw --paraphrasing-- was to abolish the law enforcement aspect of getting on a plane and leave security to the airlines, because the threat is either not real enough or security is easily surmountable ...."
Well, the point is that what we're currently doing is no more effective. But yeah, giving up is not an option.
Here's the deal: The people who are doing the good, effective work at preventing aircraft terrorism aren't at the airport. They are the intel analysts and coordination people who are identifying and watching the people who want to blow up airplanes. For all of its flaws, the most effective anti-aircraft-terrorism tool we currently have is the no-fly list.
The airport screening as currently constituted is pretty worthless. They're still fighting the last war. The terrorists have moved on. Hijacking a plane with an edged weapon will never work again, and the terrorists know that as well as anyone. What the want to do know is blow up planes. Airport screening needs to be focusing on keeping splodeydopes off of aircraft. The primary work of that is identifying the splodeydopes in advance and not letting them get anywhere near the damn airport. However, you still need the boarding-area screening as a backstop, because no system is perfect.
Therefore, boarding area screening needs to be concentrating on finding explosives. This is where you need the tech. Most commonly used explosives today have very distinctive chemical makeups, easily distinguished both from bodily substances and common materials by a sufficiently sophisticated sniffer machine. With common explosives, it's actually pretty hard to hide a large enough quantity on one's body. The carry-on or checked bag is much more likely. And, as we've seen recently, there needs to be a lot more focus on screening air cargo. Strip-searching the pax, either virtually or physically, does not add much.
Cousin Dave at November 15, 2010 6:21 PM
nice post, thank you!
Reyes Vaillancourt at December 13, 2010 3:23 AM
Leave a comment