Are you sure about the probable cause thing?

SmartyPants: Once upon a time, very few searches were allowed without search warrants, and search warrants were only issued if the police could show "probable cause" to a judge. According to this article about searches, the big change can be traced to the 1970s and 1980s: "...by 1992 it was no longer the case that the 'warrants-with-narrow-exceptions' standard normally prevails".

In other words, the idea that the government has a broad right to search people for "needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement" (administrative search) is a recent development. Of course, once there was an initial precedent, the number and intrusiveness of administrative searches have massively expanded.

As long as we have this collective mentality "anything for security", "safety at all costs", things will only get worse. Heck, I have family members who think that criticizing TSA (or any other government agency) is unpatriotic. This makes it impossible to have any sort of rational discussion.

I like how in the first video, her bare arms were being frisked. And those tall waistbands for pregnant ladies may be a good idea along with the super thick maxi pads mentioned on your blog earlier. Personally, I would buy a life like penis and wear that under my shirt for shits and giggles.

Skirt* sorry.

Degrading. Degrading. That's the only word for this. And the sheeple put up with it (oops! "offensive" word alert! can't say "sheeple"! especially around people who pretend they care about civil liberties! because they don't want to examine their own behavior! and we mustn't offend them! mustn't make them think! that's "offensive"!).

The idiocy of this kind of routine humiliation, and the pathetic, ignorant babbling about "security" -- no wonder our rights are being shredded before our eyes.

As for the Viagra guy -- whew! could be painful -- the priapic reaction could last for hours. Good for him for messing with the TSA, though I wonder what the date on this is. Since the guardian used only the backs of his hands, it must've been before November 2010 (or before January 2010 for Boston and Las Vegas).

And of course this was predictable -- let's ramp up the fear factor -- "The Terrorists! The Terrorists! The Terrorists Are Coming To Get Us!"
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/05/04/funding-mass-transit-security-after-bin-laden/

a_random_guy is correct, and the time to do something about it was the 70s-80s. Good people looked the other way while this expansion of the 'right to search' was used to harass and prosecute 'other people'. Of course this was only one area where individual rights have been slaughtered at the alter of Nationalism. (imminent domain, the patriot act, the war on drugs, a cartel economy, the incredible amount of video demonstrating law enforcement abuse and corruption, followed by felony laws prohibiting video taping law enforcement in public, the recent SCOTUS decision re: procecutor immunity, etc.) I still find it amazing after 40 years, it's the thought that someone might grope your 'gear' or get a pic of them naked that has people upset. I'm not sure it's a good sign.

Physical assault is physical assault -- and that's what unwanted groping is. Some of us have been speaking out and fighting against all the abuses you mention for quite some time. The fact that these abuses are getting worse doesn't mean it's time to stop fighting.

Here, on probable cause and the New Hampshire bill banning TSA assaults sans probable cause:

http://piedtype.com/2011/03/05/tsa-searches-lack-probable-cause/

As noted in its introductory text, the NH bill (HB628-FN) “makes the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault.” It goes on to specify the following do not constitute probable cause: “discussing or possessing a copy of the Constitution, discussing the security apparatus of an airport, being on the premises of an airport, possessing an airplane ticket or any other type of ticket for access to mass transportation, driving a motor vehicle on a public way, or ownership of firearms.”

I doubt a state can enforce such a law against the federal government, but at least New Hampshire pinpoints the problem: probable cause or the lack thereof.

It’s well established that the police must have probable cause to stop you on the street. They need probable cause to search your car. And searching your home or business requires probable cause. Yet TSA agents, in addition to pawing through all your belongings, can grope you and photograph you virtually naked — without any probable cause. None whatsoever. If they had to show probable cause, they’d have to profile and search only those people who look or act suspicious. And we all know profiling, however logical it might be in this case, is either politically incorrect or illegal in this country. Of course, unreasonable search and seizure is also illegal (Fourth Amendment), but that doesn’t seem to bother the federal government.

"I doubt a state can enforce such a law against the federal government"

IANAL, however, I believe a state can do exactly this. The individual states retain sovereignty, except where specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, States may be the only entities that have both the legal standing and financial resources to fight this battle.

Of course, the federal government will try blackmail ("no highway funds for you"). The states had better be prepared to go all the way - if they go halfway and give in, this will set a terrible precedent.

More power to New Hampshire and Texas!

Is there anyone reading this who has, like me, decided never to fly again until all this goes away?

A small glimmer of hope on the horizon:

"n what would be a major shift in procedures, the Transportation Security Administration is working on a concept that could let "trusted travelers" keep their shoes on, leave laptops in bags and avoid body scanners altogether—one of the biggest improvements at the airport since 2001.

Drawing data from airline frequent-flier programs, the TSA plans to identify trusted travelers and indicate their status with a bar code on their boarding passes, said the agency's administrator, John Pistole. When the boarding pass and valid identification are presented at the security checkpoint, a trusted flier will be directed to the expedited screening line." http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/112680/frequent-fliers-security-speed-wsj?mod=bb-budgeting

the big change can be traced to the 1970s and 1980s: "...by 1992 it was no longer the case that the 'warrants-with-narrow-exceptions' standard normally prevails".

Yep. Look for a lot of the search-and-seizure decisions of Justice White for much of the erosion of the 4th Amendment. And most people accepted or even welcomed it because it was in the context of the "war on drugs" and these kinds of searches pretty much only happened to bad people anyway. By definition, exclusionary rule cases only reach the courts when the defendant did have whatever the cops said he had, which means that few except civ lib organizations complained when the Supreme Court did away with more and more of our protections against warrantless search and seizure.

Why do people stand there so calmly, being so pleasant, when their rights are being violated by the TSA?

On narrow, technical grounds, I suspect the TSA has a strong legal claim that they are not violating your rights. You consent to their search by entering the security area; because you willingly give up your rights, they can't violate them. I seriously doubt the efficacy of any legal challenge to the TSA's authority to search you. Instead, it will require courageous leadership of the TSA or legislators to change their mandate. Which makes it extremely unlikely to happen – what politician or bureaucrat is likely to ratchet down the appearance of security (which is what the TSA really provides – not security) given that he will be blamed if anything subsequently happens.

But, the trusted traveler thing isn't a "glimmer of hope," but a way for the TSA to get the travelers with the most chance of having a voice -- business travelers -- to be somewhat placated.

Why should the fact that I don't travel often mean that a government employee gets to feel my breasts without probable cause?

"Yep. Look for a lot of the search-and-seizure decisions of Justice White for much of the erosion of the 4th Amendment. "

Well, that's not all of it. There's the whole area of "administrative search", in which Presidents of both parties have since the '60s claimed that executive agencies can execute warrantless searches pursuant to their functions, and that the courts have no jurisdiction. Oddly, the courts seem to have accepted this. For example, the EPA can search any outdoor property, at any time, without a warrant. All they have to do is say "we suspect that there is an endangered species on your property" and in they go. And if you do find an endangered species, you are enjoined from any use of your property, although you will be required to bear the expenses of keeping up the property and providing appropriate habitat for the endangered species. That's why large property owners are routinely advised by their legal counsel that if they find a threatened or endangered species on their property, they should destroy it immediately.

"what politician or bureaucrat is likely to ratchet down the appearance of security (which is what the TSA really provides – not security) given that he will be blamed if anything subsequently happens."

Not only that, but at least some politicians don't oppose it because they fear that the wrath of said apparatus will turn on them personally. I'm beginning to realize that one reason there isn't more traction in Congress on this is because some Congressmen, both Dems and Repubs, are afraid of things like IRS anal exams if they speak out against what the TSA is doing.

Ooooh. I liked the part of feeling Alkon's breasts. I would give up some civil rights to get there.

"Is there anyone reading this who has, like me, decided never to fly again until all this goes away?""

Mike, I have stopped flying entirely. It's an enormous sacrifice for me because I love travel more than I can say. And luckily I've done a lot of it in my life already. But some things are more important than my personal desires. I won't fly again unless and until these abuses are stopped.

I sympathize with people who must fly for work. I can take the train, even though such trips entail extremely long (11 hours each way) journeys -- and once the TSA invades that space, I'll stop taking the train, too. But even people who must fly for work have choices. They can refuse to go through the scanner, which is a form of protest, of resistance. Regardless, if they're groped, they can, as Amy urges, refuse to submit quietly. You don't have to CONSENT to be pawed and groped, you can agree to COOPERATE, but again, you don't have to do it quietly.

As for change, it has to be political. Meaning it has to come from the political will of us, the citizens. We have to keep clamoring about this. That's the only way change will come.

As for the so-called trusted traveler program that some see as a sign of hope, I think it's an unjust and nasty development. One, for the reason Amy already outlined above, and two, because the three-tier system they're proposing is "trusted traveler," "regular traveler," and "risky traveler." Trusted: you have to give them biometric data -- your fingerprints, iris scans, and god knows what else. Regular: they haven't spelled it out. Risky: they can abuse you to their heart's content. I'm sorry, but this is a dangerous road -- like, hey, in honor of the Terror Color Code system, why don't we just slap a big ole orange sticker on the "risky" people?! Yeah, history has never shown us anything like that before!

Don't get me wrong -- I want to see them stop the crazy scans and frisking altogether, unless there's probable cause. I've stopped flying altogether because of them, to the detriment of my income and my fun. I'm writing letters about it and trying to convince everyone who'll listen that that's the way to go. But sadly, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon -- most people I know want the scanners because they think they make us safer. Call me cynical, but I think that as long as most of the electorate is behind scans and frisking, they aren't going to stop.

A trusted traveler program is at least a step in the direction of looking for terrorists instead of water bottles and knitting needles. And I do think a trusted traveler program would help more than business travelers. As the article notes, frequent flier records go back decades. If you fly a couple of times a year to see Grandma in Wisconsin, or you've been flying since 1985, that should demonstrate you're not likely to blow up a plane.

Perfect? Far from it. Better than scanning and groping everyone? I'd argue yes.

And from the article, this trusted traveler program wouldn't involve fingerprints, iris scans, biometric data, etc. It would simply involve frequent flier records -- how long have you been flying and how often. And the article notes that you'd be able to prevent the TSA from getting those records if that's what you wanted.

Yeah, you can say "but it's none of the government's business where I've flown and when." I don't disagree.

But if you like the Israeli model -- well, they ask all kinds of intrusive questions. They looked through my passport, asked me about my past travel, asked me if I knew people in those countries, why I'd gone there, if I'd had dinner with them, gone to their houses, etc.

And they ended by giving me a full grope. Why? I'd been to Jordan and Egypt in the previous couple of years, had a friend who was from Jordan (she's now a U.S. citizen, but her family still lives there, and I went to visit them.) I also had a friend in Jerusalem -- he's a U.S. citizen who works for the U.N., but he has an Arabic last name (although his family has been in the U.S. for a couple of generations).

I was pretty freaking upset about my full grope -- it's part of why I won't subject myself to it here. But that's why they did it. And if you're looking to implement the Israeli system here, you're going to be asked questions about where you've been and when.

Amy, this wasn't going IN to Israel -- this happened when I was leaving Israel. It happened on my way home to NYC. It was either submit or not go home.

The grope had nothing at all to do with deciding whether to let me into the country -- I'd been there for a couple of weeks. (Interestingly, they let me in without any hassle at all.) This was about whether I was going to blow up a plane on my way out of Tel Aviv. I was going to be flying an American airline back to NYC. I'm a frequent traveler with a non-Arabic (and non-Jewish) name, green-eyed, white as paste, with 30+ other countries (mostly European) in my passport. In addition to my evidently "suspicious" friends, I have close Israeli friends in both Tel Aviv and Israel. Nonetheless, I was deemed a terrorist risk by Israeli security.

I don't disagree that the Israeli system would beat what we're doing now. But there's no question that it can be invasive as hell, even for those of us who are not any risk at all. And if I had my way, we wouldn't go that way either. We'd suck up the fact that there will always be some risk.

In addition to giving me a full-on, under the clothes, vagina-touching grope, they also completely unpacked my suitcase, including my laundry bag, and ran an explosives-checking thingee over every panty. They took my phone and iPod out of sight for a bit -- no idea what they did with it. I had both an Arabic and a Hebrew phrase book in my bag -- they demanded to know why. They pulled all of my friends' business cards out of my wallet and asked about each one. And that's just for starters. It took a couple of hours. I've been flying for a couple of decades and nothing like it has ever happened to me -- I'm so not a suspicious terrorist type.

I cried afterward. I never cry. But I didn't have a choice if I wanted to go home. I vowed not to go back to Israel again. And that trip is why I'm so reluctant to expose myself to a grope here.

Ironically, I think what we're doing now is even worse. I do NOT think the Israeli security personnel had reasonable grounds to do what they did -- what, wanting to see the pyramids and Petra is suspicious? -- but at least there was a tiny, teeny, microscopic speck of grounds. We're groping six-year-olds at random.

Also, for what it's worth, my friend's family in Jordan are Christians, and a couple of them work for the Jordanian royal family. Hardly terrorist types. My Israeli friends are as beyond suspicious as possible. My own "suspicious" activity consisted of seeing the pyramids and Petra (in addition to thousand other tourist attractions on six continents), knowing Christian people who happened to have Arabic last names, and wanting to go home to NYC.

Don't kid yourself. Israeli-style security is invasive as hell. The question is whether it beats what we're doing now.

Please reflect on the fact that I was trying to get OUT, not IN. This was on my way home to NYC. They let me in without any hassle.

I actually found it quite ironic that they let me IN and let me hang out in their country for a couple of weeks, and suddenly deemed me a terrorist risk when I was on the way home, on the basis of the same damn questions and the same damn passport.

"if you don't like it, you can stay home or restrict your travels to all the nice, fun Muslim countries with lots of human rights"

Lovely. That's EXACTLY what people are saying about our new TSA procedures. And you are arguing for an Israeli system to be implemented here -- despite our nice shiny Constitution.

And they ended by giving me a full grope.

Compare and contrast. The Israelis give you the group at the end and here that's at the start.

I mean, the question here is "what do we want to implement here" -- right?

My own view is that we should roll security back to about 1954, except that we should screen and guard our cargo area, lock the cabin doors, arm the pilots (and I'm probably OK with metal detectors to check for guns on the passengers). And then we all man/woman up and accept that there's a teeny tiny itty-bitty chance a terrorist gets on the plane and causes a ruckus before the passengers and crew take him down.

But alas, we won't get that any time soon, not with the wimping down of America and the increasing police state mentality. While we're fighting for it, the question becomes, what kind of screening would be useful without being too invasive.

What we're doing now is insane and ineffective. What they're doing in Israel is effective, but it's incredibly invasive. Looking at frequent flier records to see whether you've flown a lot without blowing anything up is a actually a lot less invasive and probably a fairly decent way to weed out a lot of non-threats.

Assuming that someone who's never flown before or has rarely flown might be a terrorist risk isn't fair? No, it isn't. But neither is assuming that a world traveler who went to see the pyramids is a terrorist risk. Or assuming that my Christian friend born in Jordan (now a U.S. citizen who's lived here for decades) is a terrorist risk. Or that someone who happens to know that Christian is a terrorist risk. And that's what the Israelis are doing. They want to do it on their soil? Fine. But you want to bring it here. Should we?

If we're going to screen (and I probably woudn't if I had my way), we need to decide the criteria. We'd have to decide how to quickly weed out people who present little risk, spot the people with screaming red flags, and be minimally invasive and efficient in sorting out the rest without assaulting their rights. In that regard, I think sorting out frequent fliers might be less offensive than a lot of other methods -- if we're going to screen at all.

"The Israelis give you the group at the end and here that's at the start."

For pity's sake. By "at the end", I mean that I was on my way home to the USA (not coming into Israel). As a matter of fact, they continued to question me and look at my belongings after they groped me.

Can I just say, I look forward to the day when a terrorist blows himself up in the middle of the security checkpoint line, maybe then we can hve a rationAL conversation

@Gail
I have forsaken travel by air for leisure because of the ridiculous farce that is the TSA; they readily admit that body cavity explosives and even attempted terrorists like the underwear bomber will not be caught by the current screenings. They refuse to use profiling to narrow the focus of the screenings to include the obvious (or exclude the obvious). The TSA now terrorizes more people than the terrorists do.
Your experience with the Israeli security measures, while seemingly extreme from your perspective, are highly effective and much less intrusive to the majority than our own. The reason for that is simply that they profile every passenger. By identifying those that pose the most risk and screening them more closely rather than the stupidity of groping every passenger (including toddlers), travel to and from Israel is very safe considering they are arguably the most terrorized nation on Earth.
You, unfortunately, travel to many countries known for exporting/supporting terrorism or extremist activity and associate with people that happen to have Arabic names, thus you fit several categories that would lead to elevated security screening. Because of their security, you have the choice whether you wish to travel there and be screened/groped or not based on how unpleasant the experience is rather than having to avoid travel there for fear of being blown up.

"Can I just say, I look forward to the day when a terrorist blows himself up in the middle of the security checkpoint line, maybe then we can hve a rationAL conversation"

Well, I may not look forward to it, but the exact same thought about where and what to hit struck me when I was returning from DC through Reagan Nat 3 months ago.

Early flight, empty airport *except* at the single security checkpoint, where 3 folks were working tag team on the travelers one at a time. There must have been 200 - 300 folks queued up there, many with those 'little' roll-on bags for the overhead compartments on the plane - and there was zero security prior to this concentration point.

I wonder how much damage you could do with what could be packed into one of those little numbers?

The bomber wouldn't even have to suicide if he didn't want to.

On the other hand, Gail, about that "trusted Traveler" thing... Think about all the tracking and databases that will take place on you. The previous trusted pilot programs all relied on lots of your data, any new one will be no different.

Once you give up your right to be secure in your own person, it is very difficult to get back.

Also? Gail, think of the pattern of things you did, that is what flagged you. Additionally, that Jet is essentially an Isreali responsibility until AFTER everyone gets off at it's destination. Especially if it's an international flight. That doesn't mean I'm not sorry to hear that they put you through the ringer.

That said, I wouldn't expect such treatment flying from Albuquerque to Omaha. There's the problem, they are trying to treat EVERYONE as if they have a suspicion of probable cause. Even where there is none.

"Many countries known for exporting/supporting terrorism or extremist activity?" Arguably two, Egypt and Jordan (not Iraq and Iran). This was before the current turmoil. Both were at peace with Israel. Both were extremely common tourist destinations containing wonders of the world. I'd been to each of them exactly once, for about two weeks each, like millions of other tourists, just like I'd been to Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, Croatia, Poland, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Thailand, Peru, etc. And if being friends with someone with a couple of Christian U.S. citizens with Arabic names is reason for probable cause .... wow. That's where you want our country to go?

In my world, that's still a police state. And I guess that's where we're going. As long as anyone is saying "so don't travel if you don't like it," that's what we'll be stuck with.

Like I said, you get your wish --that's where I am with it. I don't fly. I've gone from world traveler to person who takes an 8 hour train to see her family. And that's just ridiculous.

NO. It is NOT worth it. The tiny, teeny risk that some kook might maybe cause a ruckus on a plane is NOT worth people foregoing their rights forever or else never flying again.

In light of this conversation, I'm re-thinking my support of a trusted traveler program. It's one step less invasive than Israel, true, but it's still screening the innocent, and I don't want to take a step down that path. I'll be glad and honored to help take down the kook who makes it onto the plane with a boxcutter or a liquid explosives in his toiletry bag, if we ever come back to sanity. In the meantime, I'll be on the ground.

People in this country tout Israeli security all the time, but let's remember -- Israel has decided it doesn't want bombs going off on planes, but it has accepted bombs going off elsewhere in the country. Buses and marketplaces, for example. So before people claim the Israeli method (which, yes, does include racial, ethnic, and political profiling as well as behavioral profiling) as some sort of panacea, let's be clear about the facts. Israel has decided to accept risk in other venues, just not on planes.

We're not in the same situation in this country, though we may be someday. But by then, given how blithely so many people are going along with TSA abuse now, we'll probably have no rights left anymore anyway.

I can see the tour company brochures now: See the pyramids, the Sphinx and the ancient rose-red city of Petra carved out of the living rock of the dessert! And be branded a potential terrorist for the rest of your life!

I've learned my lesson -- no matter how nice someone is, no matter if they're American citizens, no matter how long their family has been in our country, no matter if they DO work for the United Nations, if they have an Arabic last name, don't get too chummy, or you'll be branded a threat. Stick to people with English and Jewish names!

Puh-leaze. Is it a police state you object to, or are you OK with a police state as long as they leave you alone?

But in light of that thought -- I no longer think the trusted traveler program has any merit. We shouldn't go a single step down that road.

Busy airports such as Denver International and Orlando International already use the "Clear Card," which acts much like a Fast Pass at Disney. After undergoing a one-time background check, iris scan, and fingerprinting, fliers are issued a card that allows them to make a quick stop at a biometric scanning before cutting to the front of a security line. The card comes with an annual price tag of $179.
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/05/05/tsa-weighs-trusted-traveler-program/

I'm tellin' ya, in addition to giving the government -- and corporations -- scads of personal biometric info about you for databases that will inevitably be merged with other databases you know nothing about, this system is classic Divide-And-Conquer. It speeds through the most wealthy and privileged and leaves the rest of the population in the dust. It's inherently unjust, and it will be used to propagate more abuse. If we as a nation agree to go along with this, we'll be saying, It's Okay If Somebody Else Gets Abused, As Long As I Don't. (And yes, I know that similar injustices already exist; that's no excuse to ramp them up.)

You've sold me, Lisa. I agree.

I'm "going off the rails" on it because you think going to Egypt once on vacation and having an American friend with an Arabic last name are reasonable grounds for thinking I'm a terrorist. And you want to bring Israeli methods here -- that's your solution to the TSA madness. That means, in your book, you'd think it was reasonable to subject me to the gropes and scanners right here in the good old U.S.A. despite the fact that I'm a squeaky-clean, law-abiding, non-violent person without a hint of anything genuinely shady about me. Am I misunderstanding you?

I've already been there, but thanks for the tip. I generally avoid going to countries when they're in the middle of a revolution. And why do you assume I went alone?

"Alone" in an Arab country means without a team of armed military escorts.

you think going to Egypt once on vacation and having an American friend with an Arabic last name are reasonable grounds for thinking I'm a terrorist

Don't make up stuff that I've supposedly said. I never said anything remotely along those lines, and wouldn't because it would be stupid and irrational thinking, and I try to avoid looking like an ass, especially indelibly.

Incidentally, one of my good friends from my New York days -- a woman I'm very fond of -- is named Hamady. You can probably guess that she's not Anglo-Saxon or Ashkenazi Jewish.

And my French friend Nathalie has been to the pyramids a number of times. She's a French teacher, not a terrorist, but she does wear terrifyingly high heels.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you and others were saying. However, you didn't answer my question. If you were running the TSA, would taking a vacation in Egypt and/or Jordan and having a friend or two with an Arabic name constitute reasonable grounds to grope or scan me in a U.S. airport?

...And if not, what are some examples of things that would constitute grounds? (Taking aside the obvious things like clutching a weapon, shouting anti-American rhetoric, and hollering "I'M TAKING DOWN THIS PLANE AND EVERYONE ON IT!")

Is simply being of Arabic descent enough? Like how about my friend, for example? She was born in Jordan. Her Christian family still lives there. She's a U.S. citizen. Has lived here for years, went to graduate school here, and works for an American company. Should she be scanned and groped for being from Jordan?

What about her dad? He's a retired Jordanian businessman. Christian. No violent behavior in his past at all. He's traveled all over the place without blowing up planes. Is being Jordanian enough?

What if he was exactly the same law-abiding businessman, but he was Muslim?

I wouldn't grope any of those people, because to me, none of those things, in itself, is reasonable cause to think they're going to blow up the plane.

"That means, in your book, you'd think it was reasonable to subject me to the gropes and scanners right here in the good old U.S.A..."

But you're already subject to them. That's the whole point. You got the third degree in Israel because your traveling profile popped out of their system as being high risk. You can argue about the legitimacy of the criteria that they used to decide that, but that's really beside the point.

The point is: if we profile, the way Israel does, then you stand a (hopefully small) chance of getting groped. If we don't profile, then you stand a very high chance of getting groped. Either way, if you get groped, it sucks. The question, in those terms, is whether we have a system in which a few people get groped (possibly every time they fly), or whether or whole bunch of people get groped.

I would argue that neither is acceptable. As far as I can see, part of the solution has to be technological: we need explosives scanners that can work on a clothed human body and provide indication of where on them a person has explosive-type substances, and how much. This may be an area where throwing R&D money at the problem may be effective, since the technology to do this exists, just barely. I can see some kind of regimen that combines this with some sort of profiling: low-risk people get a cursory scan from the machine and then get waved through if the machine doesn't pick up anything, and higher-risk people get a more thorough scan that takes longer. There's still no touching and no clothing removal.

(Actually, I think we're near or at the point where the risk has shifted from the passenger to the checked baggage. Historically, putting something in checked baggage has been how most airplane bombings have been done. We already have methods to deal with that, but they aren't used consistently.)

Vacationing in Egypt right now isn't safe, but I disagree that it has always been "not smart." So would the kajillions of tourists that have been there over the last decade. Half my parents retired friends have been there over the last decade. I stuck to the beaten tourist track, with a reputable tour company. I felt pretty safe and protected. I wouldn't have gone off and camped in the Gaza strip. That would be dumb.

But let's take that aside. Israeli style security involves asking travelers where they've traveled, who they know, and looking at their passports. They were asking all travelers those questions, not just me. I didn't volunteer that information --I just didn't think it advisable to lie. And the answers provided their basis for giving me the full treatment. To me, that's exactly what Israeli-style security means -- ask those kinds of questions, and decide on the basis of the answers whether the person constitutes a threat and warrants a grope and further investigation. What does it mean to you, if it doesn't mean that?

"The question, in those terms, is whether we have a system in which a few people get groped (possibly every time they fly), or whether or whole bunch of people get groped. I would argue that neither is acceptable."

"the risk has shifted from the passenger to the checked baggage."

Agree and agree, Cousin Dave. Someone (is it Radwaste?) on this board routinely shouts "9-11 couldn't happen again!" and I agree with that too. They didn't succeed because of box-cutters. They succeeded because of our belief (at the time) that you should knuckle under to hijackers if you wanted to live. That belief ended on 9-11 when the passengers of Flight 93 attacked the hijackers and crashed the plane into a Pennsylvania field. So, for Pete's sake, let's stop looking for box cutters. The real bombs are where they've always been -- in the cargo area, which is still left wide freaking open while we grope all the passengers.

I was in Egypt in the 80s, under military orders, and I did not feel safe. Arabs lived in holes in the ground on Cairo West Air base. Arabs are crazy. Muslims are crazy. Arab Muslims are double-plus crazy.

@Gail
Despite the fact that YOU would possibly still be flagged for increased scrutiny, the obvious solution for the TSA is to adopt the Israeli model.

Per Cousin Dave: "The point is: if we profile, the way Israel does, then you stand a (hopefully small) chance of getting groped. If we don't profile, then you stand a very high chance of getting groped. Either way, if you get groped, it sucks. The question, in those terms, is whether we have a system in which a few people get groped (possibly every time they fly), or whether or whole bunch of people get groped."

While not a perfect solution, it's a hell of a lot better than what they are doing now.

Can you imagine doing the job of the average TSA drone? If you are required to treat EVERYONE as a potential threat, when faced with a REAL one will you be receptive to the clues? Or would you just go through the same motions that you've gone through with untold number of passengers in the course of your monotonous day? Contrast that with the thought process involved in the questioning that you seem so offended by, during which the agent can determine whether or not you are a threat based on your answers and your travel patterns. Under this model, toddlers will no longer be felt up, lactating mothers will not have their breast milk irradiated, oldsters will not be forced to remove their shoes or have their urology bags dislodged during unnecessary pat-downs.

I do have to make one more comment regarding about it being "not smart" to ever visit Egypt and Jordan (with the caveat that I definitely wouldn't go to Egypt right now -- as I said, I avoid countries in the midst of political turmoil).

Lara Logan notwithstanding, it is a mistake to lump Egypt and Jordan in with places like Iran. I would never try to minimize the terrible thing that happened to her, but we've had ugly mobs here, too, and ugly mobs do ugly things.

My tour guide for three days in Cairo was a married Muslim woman. She wore a pants suit and had a university education. A number of the women working behind the desk at my hotels were women, and most didn't even wear a head scarf (although most of the women in the streets did).

I did not see or experience any violence or even any anti-American sentiment (I went to Egypt in 2008). Not one bit of it. I definitely got stared at a lot. So many men told how beautiful my eyes and skin were I got sick of hearing it. But no one grabbed me, made comments about my breasts, etc. (It probably helped that I didn't wear shorts or tank tops.) A souvenir vendor offered to give me 100 cows to marry me, but it was pretty clear he was kidding.

Yeah, I got hit on way too much if I happened to be by myself at the hotel or at a tourist site, and it got annoying. I'd definitely say that any woman going there would be more comfortable dressed modestly (covering cleavage, legs and arms) and she'll be that much more comfortable if she's with a man. But I didn't feel like I was going to be raped at any second.

Nothing scary happened in the two weeks I was in Egypt. Nothing. Most people were very polite and friendly to me, and no one was hostile. The most disconcerting things were the metal detectors at the hotels and museums, and the armed police in the streets. They stopped our car occasionally, but ushered us on after a word with our driver. The biggest annoyances were the hoards of tourist vendors trying to sell you things, and the freaking unbearable heat.

And Jordan was awesome. (I was there for two weeks in 2009.) Everyone was polite, friendly, and respectful to me every moment of my stay. No one so much as catcalled me or leered at me. A male Muslim tour guide readily answered all of my questions about Islam and Jordanian culture. (He condemns both the Burqa and terrorism as being against Islam, by the way. He said the Koran said that women should dress modestly, but that their faces and hands should be uncovered.)

I felt safe enough at Petra to split off by myself for a bit (I was the only one who wanted to hike up to the monastery.) I didn't get a shred of hassle from anyone. I can't say that about a day in NYC. Oh, and the food was great in Jordan. (Although not in Egypt. Bring immodium if you go to Egypt.)

My friend's mother and sister-in-law in Jordan both work. They both drive -- yes, by themselves -- and they're both educated. Neither wears a head scarf or feels any need to do so. Yes, my friend prefers it here. She thought she'd have more and better career choices here than there. But if she'd stayed there, she wouldn't be locked up and shrouded behind a veil.

No, I don't want to move to Egypt or Jordan. Yes, I think I'm better off here than women are there. Absolutely. But neither place is Iran. Egypt has undergone a lot of turmoil recently, but prior to that, hordes of tourists moved through and most of them didn't suffer anything worse than a sunburn (and some pressure to buy useless tchotchkes). And I'd go back to visit Jordan tomorrow if it weren't for the TSA.

Things could change. Indeed, I'm very afraid that in Egypt they may be changing for the worse right now. I'm crossing my fingers that the moderate democracy types (and they're definitely there) win out. But I'm telling you -- neither country was the scary American-hating, woman-raping hell you're painting. Not by a long shot.

Sorry for all the posting. But I had to put in a good word for my experiences in Egypt and especially Jordan. To tell you the truth, my experience at the Israeli airport was way more upsetting than anything that happened to me in either Egypt or Jordan.

Let's all be very clear why (beside the fact that there are power- and rights-grabbing bureaucrats in our country) that we're being groped at the airport, that we're force to take hours out of our lives to get to the airport early to be searched. That reason is ISLAM.

Nitpicking: That reason is our ill-informed and poorly-targeted overreaction to the threat of Islamic terrorism directed at our airplanes. We chose to implement those (dumb, ineffective) security measures, not them.

Probable cause means there's reasonable suspicion you have committed a crime.

More nitpicking: Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are terms describing different legal standards. Probable cause, upon which warrants are issued and arrests made, is a higher standard of evidence than reasonable suspicion, which is what is required for police interventions less than arrests (the "stop and frisk" is a common place where the reasonable suspicion standard is applied).

"I wonder how much damage you could do with what could be packed into one of those little numbers?"

You get it. See my second post in this thread of Amy's.

It explains a bit more about how badly you're being lied to about the reason for current TSA actions.

Every terrorist can laugh out loud at every American who thinks they are "safer" because TSA pats them down.

From Raddy's second post: 3) Railcar sabotage or truck bomb. If you know what travels the rails (look up "ERG 2008"), you know that your neighborhood can be wiped out with a properly placed, multiton detonation of propane or a release of chlorine gas. No, McVeigh didn't use it all up.

As it turns out, that's exactly what bin Laden and his people were planning!

http://www.northjersey.com/news/ny_metro/050511_Bin_Laden_raid_reveals_train_attack_considered_on_911_anniversary_.html