August 25, 2007
Working for the Pat Down: TSA turban policyNews
On their classic album London Calling, the old punk band The Clash had a song with some lyrics that always puzzled me:
What are we gonna do now?
Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
‘Cause they’re working for the clampdown (link)
I get the gist of the song — it’s a critique of the trend of rising fascism amongst British youth in the 1970s — but “turban”? Quoi?
Anyway, this past week I learned that Sikh travelers with turbans can expect not the clampdown, but the pat-down, as the TSA has changed its security policies yet again. The BBC has the details (thanks DJ Drrrty Punjabi):
US Sikh organisations have expressed anger over changes allowing airport security staff to “pat down” turbans.
Until now turbans have been searched or removed only to resolve an unexplained alarm from an airport metal detector.
But now security will have greater discretion to inspect turbans so that they can be manually checked for objects such as non-metallic weapons.
However Sikh groups have responded to the new measures by describing them as outrageous and discriminatory. (link)
Personally, I’m not so much outraged as annoyed and worried. I’m annoyed because I’m not sure how this is a rational or necessary change: metal detectors work pretty well. You couldn’t hide a gun, a knife, or explosives inside a turban without it being pretty obvious. But the TSA has a long history of arbitrary and sometimes irrational policies — like the nutty restrictions on baby formula, which have caused problems for me several times this past year. (Haven’t they heard? NEVER get between a hungry baby and his formula!)
I’m also worried because I have a feeling the new policies may be deployed selectively and in a non-standardized way at different airports, and according to the whim of individual TSA agents, who may or may not understand what the Sikh turban represents. Some Sikhs will certainly be asked to remove turbans even if there’s no positive indication of anything concealed. (I’ve found that agents at smaller airports, like Manchester NH or Durham NC, are much more strict about enforcing policy than are the agents at bigger airports. At Philly, where the security lines are quite long and the agents are harried, they don’t look twice if you wear a turban — they know the deal. And they usually won’t bother to stop you even if you have fluids — no baby formula or bottled water hassles…)
The Sikh Coalition has been on this, and I got an email from them earlier this week with more specifics:
* A guidance to all TSA screeners nationwide on how to implement the new headwear procedure specifically lists the turban (in addition to cowboy hats and straw hats) as an item that can be subjected to secondary screening. Sikh travelers should therefore expect that turbans will be the subject of secondary screening, regardless of whether a metal detector indicates a metallic object is in the turban.
* The purpose of the secondary screening is to detect non-metallic objects. Therefore from the TSA’s perspective, it is irrelevant whether a Sikh’s turban sets off the metal detector or not.
* If requested, a private area will be provided for a pat-down search of a turban.
* A private area must be offered if a secondary search / pat-down leads to a request that a turban be removed.
* Despite the fact that the TSA guidance lists turbans as an example of headwear that can be the subject of secondary screening, a TSA screener is not required to conduct secondary screening of a turban. The screener can use his or her discretion to determine whether he/she believes the turban could conceal a non-metallic threat item.
People who have friends or family who wear turbans may want to pass the word along, so everyone knows what to expect when they next head to the airport. It might help to know that you’re due for secondary screening whether or not you set off the alarm. And it might also help to know that you have the right to request the additional screening be done in a private room.
Personally, I’m digging out my old Clash t-shirt the next time I fly.
amardeep on August 25, 2007 01:10 PM in News · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
¤ uber desi dot com said: Comparing turbans to diapers earns the wrath of American Sikhs
Not to take away your arguments, I just want to point out that they are not just talking about Sikhs - but rather ANY headgear - be it cap, hat etc.
I’m digging out my old Clash t-shirt the next time I fly
IFob, technically you're correct. Here's the text of the TSA press release on the subject:
All members of the traveling public are permitted to wear head coverings (whether religious or not) through the security checkpoints. The new standard procedures subject all persons wearing head coverings to the possibility of additional security screening, which may include a pat-down search of the head covering. Individuals may be referred for additional screening if the TSO cannot reasonably determine that the head area is free of a detectable threat item. If the issue cannot be resolved through a pat-down search, the individual will be offered the opportunity to remove the head covering in a private screening area. TSA’s security procedures, including the procedures for screening head coverings, are designed to ensure the security of the traveling public. These procedures are part of TSA’s multi-layered approach to security screening.
It supports what you're saying -- Sikhs aren't being singled out officially here. Though it's quite clear they're talking about religious head-coverings (the title of the Word Doc on the TSA website is "Religious Advisory").
But in practice, I tend to think it's mainly going to be Sikhs that are affected. I doubt they're going to be bothering with Jews who wear Kippa. I'm not really sure what they'll do with Muslim women in Hijab, though I have a feeling 'pat down' won't be used in those cases either, since a Hijab is just a simple piece of cloth. The only kinds of head covering that could conceivably be of interest to them are larger -- turbans -- and the vast majority of people who wear turbans in the U.S. are Sikhs.
Sonal, I remember that story -- and I say, all the more reason to listen to the Clash, whenever and wherever possible. Quit holding out, and draw another breath!
it's absolutely possible to hide a nasty and significant-sized plastic explosive in a turban because there's no proof that it's hair taking up the space underneath the turban. It is understandably annoying for those that have to undergo the scrutiny, but it is not an unreasonable or illegal measure. The basis of the sikh groups' protest seems to be that they weren't consulted beforehand.
Wearing t-shirts and the like to express protest at an airport is a silly measure to elicit a response, and it only eggs on otherwise bored security people into making you miss your fight and hopefully getting you riled up enough that you say/do something for which they can dig a knee into your chest.
But in practice, I tend to think it's mainly going to be Sikhs that are affected. I doubt they're going to be bothering with Jews who wear Kippa. I'm not really sure what they'll do with Muslim women in Hijab, though I have a feeling 'pat down' won't be used in those cases either, since a Hijab is just a simple piece of cloth. The only kinds of head covering that could conceivably be of interest to them are larger -- turbans -- and the vast majority of people who wear turbans in the U.S. are Sikhs.
This seems to be a pretty good analysis of the consequences of this new procedure. I have thought many times in the past few years that the TSA has an unhealthy preoccupation with symbols of terrorism rather than actual terrorism itself. In this light, given that the turban seems to represent terrorism to armed geography-challenged idiots, the TSA wants to be seen double-checking the symbols rather than real terrorists. This is a dangerous disservice to everybody, because a terrorist who doesn't display the symbols would slip under the TSA's radar.
In a larger sense, the TSA is not the first to wet itself over symbols. Remember Devinder Paul Kaushal and the swastika? There has been an unhealthy fetish with symbols ("OMG! A swastika!", "OMG! A burning cross!") rather than real crimes ("OMG! A hate-monger!", "OMG! A racist!"), so much that you can spew hate and get away with it as long as you don't display symbols, like on talk radio for instance. Europe seems to be even more sensitive than the US in this regard, with some EU politicians trying to outright ban the swastika across the EU. Riiiiight, because that will automatically eliminate neo-Nazism.
Rational thought, please? Symbols don't kill people. People kill people.
I remember that story -- and I say, all the more reason to listen to the Clash, whenever and wherever possible. Quit holding out, and draw another breath!
I must say I agree. Take back the symbols. Focus on the
Wearing t-shirts and the like to express protest at an airport is a silly measure to elicit a response, and it only eggs on otherwise bored security people into making you miss your fight and hopefully getting you riled up enough that you say/do something for which they can dig a knee into your chest.
Uh, it's called humor. Relax, bro.
it's absolutely possible to hide a nasty and significant-sized plastic explosive in a turban because there's no proof that it's hair taking up the space underneath the turban. It is understandably annoying for those that have to undergo the scrutiny, but it is not an unreasonable or illegal measure.
First of all, no one is talking about anything illegal -- I never used that term. And anyway, the TSA makes the rules, so whatever they say is "legal" unless challenged in a court of law.
I'm also not seriously bothered by the pat down by itself (though I'm certainly not thrilled by it -- or by the prospect of mandatory secondary screening). It's really the likelihood of being asked to remove a turban that concerns me, as well as the possibility of future arbitrary policy changes. (It's only one step away from mandatory turban removal)
Finally, one could argue that since no one has ever attempted to conceal a bomb in a turban, this policy comes out of the blue. The shoe removal policy that was instituted a couple of years ago at least followed Richard Reid. Admittedly, this is a weaker argument, since it could be said that it's better to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to terrorism.
it's absolutely possible to hide a nasty and significant-sized plastic explosive in a turban because there's no proof that it's hair taking up the space underneath the turban. It is understandably annoying for those that have to undergo the scrutiny, but it is not an unreasonable or illegal measure.
I beg to differ. It is much worse than just unreasonable. It is futile and downright boneheaded. This is pure security theater on the TSA's part, because they seem to have run out of ways to be seen to be doing something. To paraphrase Bruce Schneier, this is not a good tradeoff, given the overall rare occurrence of terrorist acts, the fraction of those involving smuggling things on board (as opposed to using innocuous everyday items in plain sight like box-cutters), the fraction of those where the person tries to smuggle something on board in his turban, given how a turbanned individual automatically attracts more attention than one without. Basically this change in procedure benefits nobody, but it gives the TSA something to do and to be seen doing, and makes everybody feel safer without actually changing anything fundamental. In fact I would argue that this sort of thing is extremely dangerous precisely because it gives everybody a false sense of security.
the fraction of those where the person tries to smuggle something on board in his turban, given how a turbanned individual automatically attracts more attention than one without.
Thanks, pingpong -- I forgot to mention that.
Any SM bloggers care to blog on the Hyderabad bombings? Here is a opportunity to blog on something truly momentous. . .
Modest Proposal: Transparent plastic turbans. "See, officer, nothing hidden in here!"
[*SATIRE*]
given the overall rare occurrence of terrorist acts, the fraction of those involving smuggling things on board (as opposed to using innocuous everyday items in plain sight like box-cutters), the fraction of those where the person tries to smuggle something on board in his turban, given how a turbanned individual automatically attracts more attention than one without.
Hmm.. not sure where you are going with the idea of "rare occurrence". The events may be few but the effects of even a few such acts are far reaching as we know. It is not as much the rarity of such events but the perception it creates. School shootings are an example. Children are at far higher risk to be injured in non-firearm related incidents, but the perception is not that way. Observe the use of metal/weapons detectors in schools.
And as regards smuggling things on board, perhaps you have forgotten Lockerbie. It wasn't something visible like boxcutters, just 11 oz of Semtex:
Before Lockerbie, Semtex was little known outside of the military and demolition industries. Pan Am 103 was the explosive’s deadly debutante ball, an event that made common the name of a product very similar to the American-made C-4, as well as numerous other plastic explosives produced worldwide.Investigators at Lockerbie announced that 312 grams (approximately 11 ounces) tucked into a Toshiba cassette recorder felled flight 103 like a winged mallard. That much Play-Doh rolled into a sphere would be roughly the size of a baseball. link
Sometimes the best hiding place is the one people may rule out because it seems just too obvious, like a turban. Terrorists also do study human psychology...
Meanwhile, behind the facade of an innocent-looking book store...
TSA Supervisor: Thanks for meeting me here at our super-secret H-Q.
Underling: Why a bookstore?
Supervisor: Who's going to think we'll be at a bookstore? I haven't read anything in years. Except 'Little Green Footballs'. *Mostly to himself* I love that site.
Underling: So what's up?
Supervisor: Well, people are starting to get jaded again. We need something new we can do at airports. Something new to keep the fear level up.
Underling: Random strip searches?
Supervisor: You always say that.
Underling: I still say it's a good idea.
Supervisor: And its time will come. Just, not now.
Underling: Uhm...make dogs sniff everybody in the crotch?
Supervisor: *After a long pause* What...is wrong...with you?
Underling: Nevermind.
Supervisor: No no, I've got it- what we're going to do is separate out all of the brown people with turbans and start patting them down.
Underling: The brown people or the turbans?
Supervisor: YES!
Underling: Alright, I guess we can do that. I mean, if you're brown you're probably mad at the government anyway. And who knows what they've got up there. Bats, children, hash. It's a whole new frontier of fear-mongering!
Supervisor: Get on it! We'll be heroes. And our mouthpieces in the media will love it. I'll send a memo to Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin right away.
Underling: Yes sir! *He gets up and knocks some books onto the floor. Looking back at them as we walks away: Books! Who reads those things anymore anyway?
Amardeep #6
Finally, one could argue that since no one has ever attempted to conceal a bomb in a turban, this policy comes out of the blue.
Perhaps the TSA has belatedly stumbled upon the Danish cartoons.
Hmm.. not sure where you are going with the idea of "rare occurrence". The events may be few but the effects of even a few such acts are far reaching as we know. It is not as much the rarity of such events but the perception it creates. School shootings are an example. Children are at far higher risk to be injured in non-firearm related incidents, but the perception is not that way. Observe the use of metal/weapons detectors in schools.
You're just proving my case. Read Schneier's article. We tend to overestimate the probability of extremely rare incidents when the consequences are severe. This is certainly a perception flaw, but recognizing it and not doing anything about it is equally bad. The fact remains that the probability of terrorist activities as a whole is extremely small, and that the number of people killed worldwide due to terrorism is extremely small compared to something mundane like road crashes or malaria.
Also, plastic explosive aboard aircraft? That is SO 1980s. Pan Am 103 was certainly brought down by Semtex, which was used because it was odorless at the time. Following international pressure on the Czech Republic, Semtex was made to smell very strong with a volatile tagging agent that can be easily detected with a handheld vapor detector. For crying out loud, Kanishka was brought down by explosives kept on board by people wearing turbans, and even they did not hide the damned thing in their turbans!
Detecting explosives is much easier than it was in the 1980s, which is why the number of aircraft bombings has decreased compared to the number of hijack attempts, successful or not. That thing you pass through at security check which shoots out puffs of compressed air at you? That's used to volatize any trace of explosives you may have on you, which is detected by a gas chromatograph or other detector that compares the molecule signatures. (I'm told it also checks for narcotics). Airports that don't use this system already have sniffer dogs for basically everything. This new turban patdown procedure is not going to detect any explosives or drugs that the gas chromatograph doesn't already detect, it's not going to detect metal that the metal detector doesn't already detect. The only new thing it's likely to detect is if you're trying to smuggle a monkey inside your turban, and anyway that has been already been done by a guy without a turban.
Modest Proposal: Transparent plastic turbans. "See, officer, nothing hidden in here!" [*SATIRE*]
How about a clear one-quart reclosable Ziploc bag on your existing turban?
Also, here is an excellent quote in general from Experienced Traveler Dave Barry:
I have said this before, but I will say it again: If we ever catch Osama bin Laden, the way to punish him his not to kill or torture him. The way to punish him is to make him go through airport security. (“Today, Osama, you are going to fly from Mobile, Alabama, to Portland, Oregon, via several connecting flights.” “No! Please! Send me to Guantanamo!”) (link)
This new turban patdown procedure is not going to detect any explosives or drugs that the gas chromatograph doesn't already detect, it's not going to detect metal that the metal detector doesn't already detect.
No machine is fool proof. In the end it is going to have to be a combination of human intuition and machine sampling techniques that have to be used. Over dependence on one or the other in exclusion is going to leave some security hole. Do you trust your anti-virus/firewall software completely to block out all threats to your PC ? I certainly don't. I use it along with knowledge of how virus attacks are propagated. There are so many vulnerabilities to any complex system that haven't been officially acknowledged. Read Kevin Mitnick's book on hacking everything from slot machines to computer systems. Nothing is uncrackable. There could be combinations of compounds that render the sniffers useless. It finally comes down to a human connecting the dots. Remember that.
I'm not going to get bogged down in the argument--though its obviously legal but it'll be obviously annoying (especially to family coming from india who'll find it really weird).
However, with regards to TEDDs don't claim they're an end all detection of explosives in order to support some sociological/psychological theory you espouse. Vapor detection, which you're referring to is only really useful for EGDN, ONMT, and DMNB. It is NOT effective against RDX, TNT and PETN. Gelamex is nearly undetectable by a TEDD. RDX is also definitely a threat. Saying it is so 80's is a joke especially considering the fact its been used multiple times in India recently, most notably in the horrific 06 Western Railway bombings. There are also multiple methods of manufacturing RDX and it is manufactured in other countries outside of the czech republic. While the semtex production controlled by the Czech govt was marked, there are still literally thousands of unmarked tons around the world (remember the north korea, syria, iran, and libya all had recieved about 1000 tons before the czechs took over). That doesn't even count the fact that its manufactured in other countries in much greater amounts nowadays.
SOON, TSA WILL TAKE PASSENGERS TO A SPECIAL AREA TO DEBONE THEM BECAUSE A PASSENGER MAY BE CAPABLE OF REMOVING A BONE FROM THEIR BODY AND USING IT AS A WEAPON. ONLY MOLARS WILL BE ALLOWED AS PASSENGERS MAY RESORT TO BITING STEWARDESSES.
We have become a nation of cowards.
it's funny how some of the same people who are part of the NRA which opposes any kind of restrictions on gun ownership including reasonable screening, because as they say, there is no foolproof way to prevent looneys from owning guns, now are part of this police state like security at airports. I bet more people die of gunshots than terorrist attacks. How about a tradeoff. Reasonable but not extreme security at airports in return for some reasonable but not extreme screening for guns. I will happy in both cases. I can sitll own a gun, just not the very moment I want one, and I get to travel conveniently.
Pravin #18... you forgot fingernails... fingernails and throw in toenails too... they can scratch the flight attendant's eyes out and dig through the cabin door....
"Read Kevin Mitnick's book on hacking everything from slot machines to computer systems. "
Hackers by Steven Levy is another good ref for this.
Any SM bloggers care to blog on the Hyderabad bombings? Here is a opportunity to blog on something truly momentous. . .
Mukul: I am intervening because you have made similar comments before, when we didn't blog about something else you thought significant. We are not a newspaper, so we are not going to write about every "momentous" thing which happens. We will write about whatever we can, if it interests us.
Please stop insinuating the bloggers here are "uncaring" because they didn't blog what you wanted.
We are not a newspaper, so we are not going to write about every "momentous" thing which happens. We will write about whatever we can, if it interests us.
Right.. And I don't think "terrorist attacks" in random cities in India are even "momentous" anymore.. It's become kinda routine to expect a few minor ones and two or three major ones in temples / shopping places / trains etc every year..
SOON, TSA WILL TAKE PASSENGERS TO A SPECIAL AREA TO DEBONE THEM BECAUSE A PASSENGER MAY BE CAPABLE OF REMOVING A BONE FROM THEIR BODY AND USING IT AS A WEAPON.
You'll be surprised as to where people might hide potential weapons in their bodies...
An Iraqi national wearing wires and concealing a magnet inside his rectum triggered a security scare at Los Angeles International Airport link
It's become kinda routine to expect a few minor ones and two or three major ones in temples / shopping places / trains etc every year..
Yeesh, that's depressing. True, I know, but depressing.
Not to take away your arguments, I just want to point out that they are not just talking about Sikhs - but rather ANY headgear - be it cap, hat etc.
I have heard that skullcaps are exempted from the new policy. However, since the TSA is refusing to show the written version of their procedure (for security reasons, again), I can neither confirm nor deny this.
Any SM bloggers care to blog on the Hyderabad bombings? Here is a opportunity to blog on something truly momentous.
We also tend not to blog on items where we have nothing original to add. The Hyderabad bombings are straight news. We only know what we have read, and there is little information on it. Given that, what do we bring to the table? Why do you want to see it here?
We blog lots of frivolous material, we skip lots of important material. That said, this is a very important topic to me.
This country is headed some place that can't be very good. These new regulations are ridiculous and don't make sense at all. But, seven years on with this president, not a whole lot has...
Interesting how UK faces the same terror threat and has far more Sikhs travelling in and out of heathrow on a daily basis and they have seen no need to implement such a policy. I'm convinced US national security with all it's affiliates is run by a bunch of hicks from Wyoming.
Sadly:
In Britain, the government said recently that private searches of turbans might be necessary as part of airport security. [Link]
Just means the idiocy is contagious. I hope you're right and they don't follow through.
Much more of an uproar can be expected in the UK if they do follow through with that. I wonder if their American counterparts instigated this? Timing is suspect. Just a co-incidence? I don't think so.
Well UK is not off the hook. This is the same place where cops overreacted and killed a Brazilian with a backpack, they concocted an exagerrated account not backed by security cameras. The footage was conveniently released in a low key manner.This is a guy they could have easily apprehended without fuss if they were smart enough not to alarm him.
I am kind of tired of the premise that underlies Vikram's comment @ #16. Of course no technology is foolproof; I don't think that's at all a deep insight. But laws are never meant to be made to control for all pathologies. This is a practical premise that even the gotta-respond-robustly-to-terror crowd understands but is, alas, all too willing to suspend when it comes to security in public places. The problem with "a combination of human intuition and machine sampling" (to quote Vikram) is that the human-intuition component -- when it comes to airport security, highway stops-and-searches and issues of that type -- is far, far more prone to prejudice than people are prone walking through airport security with magnets up their asses (cf. #24). Thus, stops-and-searches represent a commoner pathology, that the laws should be addressing, than the bombs-in-body-cavities/clothing problem.
Of course, a bomb that has passed through airport security represents traumatic consequences. But laws are based on minimising the expected risk of breakdowns. That may seem cold-hearted, but it would completely seem that way only to someone whose attitude to an issue is determined primarily by his/her instinctual feelings on the issue. Many (but not all) robust-response-to-terrorism champions seem to fall into this latter category.
Post related to SF meet-up, not this story...Is the SF meet-up for active bloggers/SM community only or open to readers as well? I'm a regular reader of this blog and really enjoy it, but pretty reticent when it comes to commenting...
Goa-nator, I'm not going to be there, but I think I speak for everyone when I say that meetups are indeed open to *everyone* -- lurkers, friends of lurkers, noobies, etc.
Rest assured technology will come to the rescue albeit it may take some time. The so called Terahertz waves can penetrate clothing and reflect of tissues. They are being considered as useful devices for security scans in future.
Rest assured technology will come to the rescue albeit it may take some time. The so called Terahertz waves can penetrate clothing and reflect of tissues. They are being considered as useful devices for security scans in future.
It's not clear if that will matter given that this is being driven less by security considerations and more by the staging needs of security theater.
It's not clear if that will matter given that this is being driven less by security considerations and more by the staging needs of security theater.
But if there is a technology that can do away with obtrusive pat-downs then one can make a case to the security theatre that it doesn't make sense to continue with such security drill.
But if there is a technology that can do away with obtrusive pat-downs then one can make a case to the security theatre that it doesn't make sense to continue with such security drill.
There is already - there's the hand held magnetometer wand. It already doesn't make sense to do the drill from what I can tell. So much of what the TSA does is governed by the logic of theater rather than the logic of safety.
This policy is a bunch of bullshit, and I'm with pingpong on this one. It's also clearly discriminatory, and the only reason or way it can pass as "legal" is because of all this heri-pheri re: the new "anti-terror" (i.e. anti-Constitutional procedure) laws granted to DHS. And, if as Ennis mentioned there is an exemption for skull-caps (or baseball hats, for that matter), then I'm pretty sure that there is case law that would say that this policy can't hold. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know for sure, but I think there's a restriction along the lines of if you grant a secular exemption, or an exemption to one group on religious grounds, that you have to offer that exemption to others as well.
Amardeep, I'm not sure what Philly airport you're flying out of because everytime I fly out of PHL I leave 2 hours--because I know I'm in for an extra-long line and some double-checking. I'm not even an overly cautious traveler who shows up 15 years early or something, i usually duck in last minute but that place is INSANE.
More to the topic, I get really down when I see comments on travel blogs complaining about TSA policies and prefacing with a disclaimer like "and I'm just a white guy from Iowa" as if if he wasn't, it would justify them digging down their pants or whatever.
Thanks Amardeep. Unfortunately could'nt make it to the meet up today, but hopefully will catch the next one in SF.
"I have heard that skullcaps are exempted from the new policy. However, since the TSA is refusing to show the written version of their procedure (for security reasons, again), I can neither confirm nor deny this."
And within about twenty posts:
"And, if as Ennis mentioned there is an exemption for skull-caps (or baseball hats, for that matter), then I'm pretty sure that there is case law that would say that this policy can't hold."
This is, in its own bitchy way, as insidious as the "I heard all the Jews got a call to stay home on Tuesday" rumor. Assuming, however, that it IS true, a yarmulke clearly can't hold as much material as an adult's turban anyway.
This is, in its own bitchy way, as insidious as the "I heard all the Jews got a call to stay home on Tuesday" rumorHow is this insidious?
has there been any good studies on the potential side effects all these screening devices could have on our bodies? Just throwing it out there.
Pravin--
Most of the explosives-detection systems (EDS) authorized in the late nineties are imaging devices and have similiar health risks to imaging devices such as x-rays and other things which people are more familiar with. They generally had to undergo certification testing at the FAA Technical Center and meet FDA cabinet x-ray machine specifications. The CTX is the most common of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTX_(explosive-detection_device).
Pulsed Fast Neutron Transmission Spectroscopy is probably the next step and also undergoes testing under relatively strict standards:
Here's a brief NMAB summary of the health concerns with PFNTS
"Severe Radiation safety. Shielding is very practical, but safeguards are required to ensure very high radiation levels within cyclotron shielding and that apertures are monitored. Requirements are similar to hospital requirements for cyclotron production of radioisotopes. Radiation monitoring requirements None Meets FDA cabinet x-ray machine specifications. Yes TLDs for monitoring personnel are required. Machine survey is required. Area survey is required. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission license required No No Radiation shielding issues None Unit is self-shielded. Important Additional studies required to validate conceptual design. Shielding appears to be feasible with minor changes in design. Public perception of health risks Low Similar to current x-ray systems. Main public concern is that it is not film safe. Moderate Neutron irradiation of bag will generate some protest, but safety can be assured. "
trace explosives-detection devices also have to meet such standards-- though i think there's a lot more variety in those devices-- http://en.chainki.org/wiki/Explosives_%28Science/Environment/Hazardous_Waste/Products_and_Services/Management%2C_Remediation%2C_and_Response_Services%29 adn http://en.chainki.org/wiki/Explosives_Detection
43 Camille
This is, in its own bitchy way, as insidious as the "I heard all the Jews got a call to stay home on Tuesday" rumor
How is this insidious?
___________________________________
Camille,
You must not have gotten the reference here--that rumor about 9-11 is false and obviously anti-semitic.
One point that no one seems to have mentioned...
What can I possibly hide in my turban that I couldn't hide in my socks, in my underwear (a bra? I'm a dude, but, c'mon...the ideal place to hide something), under a baggy shirt or pants or even taped to the small of my back?
I wonder if Vikram would be so accommodating if the policy mandated that anyone wearing socks should be subjected to discretionary pat-downs or searches even if they didn't set off a metal detector.
Religious implications aside, the policy is flawed. The way the policy was implemented and it's sheer idiocy leads me to think that some redneck politician was sick of seeing all these god-damned towel heads waltzing through airports without have their towels searched and pressured some admin official or the TSA into doing something about it. Sure, it appeases his ignorant sensibilities, but does absolutely nothing to heighten security.
Ridiculous.
rob, you're right, I didn't get the reference -- thank you for clarifying for me :) I had a sense that it was alluding to something anti-Semitic, but wasn't sure.
That said, I just want to state for the record that my comment was not meant to be misconstrued as anti-Semitic. Again, I'll disclaim that I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that exemptions granted to one religious group open the door for exemptions for all groups in the context of legal policies, particularly if there is a secular exemption granted. Hence the "if X group is exempt, then all groups are exempt" comment.
Usually this kind of nonsense happens after some kind of spark event.
Richard Reid shoe bomber --> take your shoes off
Richard Reid brings lighter --> nothing because tobacco lobby is too strong
liquid bomb scare --> all liquids must be in approved bag
was there an event like this to trigger the turban search?
"I have heard that skullcaps are exempted from the new policy. However, since the TSA is refusing to show the written version of their procedure (for security reasons, again), I can neither confirm nor deny this."
Let me explain - some people went to the meeting with the TSA and came away that there was a defacto religious exemption for one form of headgear (used by both Muslims and Jews) although not others. Given that this policy applies to hats as well, they couldn't see the functional logic involved. However, I don't remember who said this to me which makes it an unreliable statement by me, and the TSA is not divulging the details of this policy except to confirm what we have already noticed about a change in turban screening procedure from the last policy, which was publicly available.
My point in bringing it up was to suggest that the feds might not be applying their policy even handedly, although again, my information on this point is very very weak.
Let me explain - some people went to the meeting with the TSA and came away that there was a defacto religious exemption for one form of headgear (used by both Muslims and Jews) although not others.
Ennis: I am not sure which meeting you are referring to but I was told that there is no exception for hijab and the only religious gear which is presumably exempt is the Jewish Yarmulke. In fact if you look at the list of co-sponsors, it has mostly Muslim organizations like CAIR, MAS, secular organizations like AALDEF, ADC and various Sikh organizations. No Jewish organization is a co-sponsor for the reason that Yarmulkes will be exempted.
"In fact if you look at the list of co-sponsors, it has mostly Muslim organizations like CAIR, MAS, secular organizations like AALDEF, ADC and various Sikh organizations. No Jewish organization is a co-sponsor for the reason that Yarmulkes will be exempted."
Further dipshitness and evidence of the ways in which such rumors (thankyou original poster for clarification) become facts and fodder for ridiculous claims. That the absence of jewish groups as signatories on letter of protest means yarmulkes are excepted from the standards is a complete non-sequitur. The Association of Clowns neglected to sign the letter as well, as did the Cowboy Federation so I suppose big clown hats and ten gallons are also exempt, not to mention motorcycle helmets (otherwise hells angels would have signed).
The very fact that the new regulations remain unpublished make it less of "security theater" than any of the above posters claim. It isn't (as so many things are) just a way to say, "look we're giving the 'towel heads' a hard time, and that's going to keep you safe so long as you vote for me again next year." And adult sikh with a whole bunch of hair has a very large turban, much bigger than a sock, underwear or pants, even baggy, or a tight fitting headpiece.
--
Richard Reid brings lighter --> nothing because tobacco lobby is too strong
Nothing? How about lighters being banned from flights?
--
That there was no actual trigger, that is, nobody actually tried to smuggle a weapon in his turban, is no reason not to scrutinize turbans in the future. It's also illogical to say "Nobody would be stupid enough to hide a bomb in a turban" and therefore they shouldn't be scrutinized. Clearly, if that was the case, then someone could say "nobody's going to check my turban because they think it's too stupid to put a bomb in my turban."
There are grievances worth considering for sikhs in the midst of the hysteria over hairy brown men, but this is not such a case.
Noblekinsman. Here, from the San Jose Mercury:
Screeners may also search people wearing cowboy hats or straw hats. Skullcaps, worn by many observant Jews, are not on the list of suspicious head coverings... [Link]
The fact that skullcaps are not on the list of headgear singled out for extra scrutiny is confirmed by Transportation Security Administration spokesman Nico Melendez.
I'm not going to dignify accusations of antisemitism with a response. I'm just going to note that you were factually wrong, just like you're wrong to make the accusation.
sizzle:
Um, there already is a random patdown policy at airports for people selected for secondary screening (you don't even technically have to be set off the metal detector)--its something like 15-20% of all passangers recieve them. However, a couple years ago they did change the rules so that sensitive areas wouldn't be subject to such a patdown unless a metal detector beeped over them (which in some ways defeats the purpose of the random secondary screening)---so that airport screeners don't get to cop a feel of one's naughty bits.
This new screening policy is still part of that random secondary screening policy http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1037.shtm .
I don't know how the kippah has become an issue in this. Aside from the fact that its generally smaller than a turban, I haven't read anything that says its exempted (and it shouldnt be).
The part that stinks about this is that the binding of a turban can take a lot longer then simply having to put a skullcap or something else back on.
ce blast - see above - the kippah is exempted. I brought it up because the policy is not consistent.
thanks for the skullcap update ennis.
that's bogus.
I tend to agree with Camille then on the religious exemption angle. While the claim is made that the policy is not targeted at a particular religion, such an exemption is absurd considering a dangerous amount of a liquid or other synthetic explosive can be hid under a skull cap.
Their security arguments may float, but this exemption is incredibly hard to argue in favor of.
Responding to noblekinsman @ #52 : What's with all the rudeness, dude ? You initially, without any effort to appreciate and acknowledge the circumspection of Ennis's comment, insinuate that some commenters on this board are anti-Semitic. You then smoothly abandon the accuse-my-interloqutors-of-anti-Semitism rhetorical strategy and instead accuse a person or persons unknowm of dipshitness.
What is your precise point ? You feel that there is a lot of sense in the new patting-the-turbans procedure ? Then say so, and give reasons why you feel that way. If you want to quarrel with someone on this board then: A) at least explain the cause of your disquiet; B) try to avoid the lazy man's cheapo tactic of accusing random people of anti-Semitism; and C) at least try to keep it entertaining.
As for this:
Richard Reid brings lighter --> nothing because tobacco lobby is too strong Nothing? How about lighters being banned from flights?
(Emphasis mine) Many, many of us have witnessed passengers being allowed to carry their lighters into the aircraft with them. Perhaps that has not been your experience. . . But before putting up statements like the one highlighted, I wish you would at least look up the TSA and the DOT press releases on cigarette-lighters vs other hazmat first.
The very fact that the new regulations remain unpublished make it less of "security theater" than any of the above posters claim. It isn't (as so many things are) just a way to say, "look we're giving the 'towel heads' a hard time, and that's going to keep you safe so long as you vote for me again next year." And adult sikh with a whole bunch of hair has a very large turban, much bigger than a sock, underwear or pants, even baggy, or a tight fitting headpiece.
Nobody pays attention to the regulations. They will, however, notice that the big brown turbanned guy is being made to take his turban off, and that will make them feel better.
A turban is not actually that large. It is made of a long but fairly thin material, and there's no way to hide a bomb in it, which is what they're worried about. T
hey're concerned about plastic explosives being smuggled in. That will be more visible in a turban than in any of the garments on your body. For example, far easier to do on the inside of baggy pants or a long skirt. Their "logic" isn't consistent.
We'll see how bad things get in practice, but if it is really bad, then I might well stop flying domestically. I don't like being at the mercy of a bigotted TSA employee.
More disagreement with Noblekinsman's factual assertions - lighters are not banned on planes:
As of August 4, 2007, in an effort to concentrate resources on detecting explosive threats, TSA will no longer ban common lighters in carry-on luggage... Lifting the lighter ban is consistent with TSA's risk-based approach to aviation security. First and foremost, lighters no longer pose a significant threat. Freeing security officers up from fishing for 22,000 lighters every day (the current number surrendered daily across the country) enables them to focus more on finding explosives, using behavior recognition, conducting random screening procedures and other measures that increase complexity in the system, deterring terrorists. The U.S. is the only country in the world to ban lighters – all other nations, including Israel and the U.K., do not. [TSA]
The lighter ban was officially lifted (in practice they had not been enforcing it well) at the same time that the turban search policy was enacted.
obviously you can't account for a bigoted or (more likely) slightly dim airport screener going about this in a bad way in every case, but the argument that they can be hid more easily (an arguable claim in itself) in pants, etc don't necessary preclude such a policy. Pants, etc are subject to their random secondary screenings. Extending it to headgear, regardless of why its worn is a logical extension of such a policy as long as its carried out consistently and with respect.
As for the public viewing of a such a patdown, all the more reason to inform people about this policy so if they do get randomly selected they ask for a private patdown.
private patdown
is that what its called these days?
Ce blast - the problem is that turbans are now on a list of "suspicious head coverings". It goes beyond whether they can be searched in a random search, the presumption with these head coverings is that they may be hiding something, although action is left to the discretion of the screener. Again, I'm piecing this together from comments from the TSA since we cannot see the policy itself, unlike before when the turban screening policy was a public document.
Furthermore, since it's easier for me to hide something in baggy pants or a skirt, then shouldn't screeners be encouraged to view those articles as suspicious too?
The impression that I also get from the new policy is that a turban is guilty until proven innocent (i.e. ostensibly every turban qualifies for a search), which is not really the case for other articles of clothing in screening. I just don't see how this policy actually improves security in any tangible way, especially given all the other requirements, cross-checks, etc. It seems like a case of chasing the "symbolism" instead of the "substance" behind security checks. One thing this policy definitely does do, though, is further alienate and divide U.S. travelers.
As for the public viewing of a such a patdown, all the more reason to inform people about this policy so if they do get randomly selected they ask for a private patdown.
Such requests have not been granted in the cases we know about.
A lot of this obviously hinges on the policy in question--turbans shouldn't fall under a category of suspicious head covering anymore than pants should fall under a suspicious category as well. However, as a consistent check of articles of clothing that can hide a dangerous contraband I don't see any problem.
Of course, the fact that the kippah apparently is exempt makes me suspect that if and when the formal policy is actually revealed that there will be a number of well deserved lawsuits and criticisms of the TSA (and this is from someone who theoretically has no problem with turbans, kippahs, etc being checked).
I don't know that all head covering search policies would necessarily employ a guilty till innocent strategy if done consistently but so far the way the TSA has handled this doesn't inspire much confidence in this policy.
As for the failure to allow private screenings, while I'd appreciate some links, the fact such cases exist makes me appreciate a person's ability to sue in this country (even if sometimes its done frivolously).
If the TSA had a truly random check all the clothes of a person policy, combined with an evenly applied suspicious behavior policy, I might accept it.
As is, suggesting to screeners that they check for bombs in turbans when there's no good way to hide such a thing in there, and leaving it up to their discretion, is a bad move. It also doesn't inspire much confidence that they are increasing our security. It's like checking all people wearing spandex while letting people wearing loose dresses through.
If the harassment becomes constant, I'll have to stop flying I suppose.
And if they're looking for explosives
a) can't they do a wipe test like they do with my laptop?
b) shouldn't they not need to do this in airports with puffer machines?
More reasons why this feels like theater.
ennis, check my first couple sentences in 17. wipe tests and puffer and other TEDDs are not effective with many explosives
ennis, check my first couple sentences in 17. wipe tests and puffer and other TEDDs are not effective with many explosives
But if they're truly worried, then shouldn't they be doing large scale and random strip to your underwear searches then?
ce blast:
in re: your comment 54.
the key word is "discretionary." the pat downs you speak of are random. the new TSA policy allows discretionary (and seemingly recommended) searches precipitated on head coverings, namely the turban.
As a caucasion Sikh, I can assure you this policy is not limited to brown people... though I do believe it is clearly targed towards Sikhs... based on a perception of being 'terrorists."
I've flown 3 times in the last 2 weeks... and EACH time... I was patted down. Also... each time.. I didn't set off any alarms. So.. if it's 'discretionary' by the TSA agent.. .then I'd say the overriding state of discretion is to pat down Sikh turbans no matter.
While it 'is' possible to hide something I spose in a turban... or in a 'fake hair knot' beneath the fabric... it is also ENTIRELY possible to hide MUCH more inside the bra of fake or real breasts. This policy has no reason other than to harrass non-'normal' people.
There's a large black comedienne who does a shtick complaining about the price of drinks in bars... by the time she's done.. she's pulled a cup, ice, pint of vodka and a gallon of OJ out of her bra. TSA is fueling the politics of fear among the public, and I look forward to a constitutional challenge to this policy.
So, I just flew home to Newark from SFO and totally got the hijab pat down...
Sorry, but I'll be damned if I'm subjecting myself to a pat-down. Their hands have no business on my turban. If they deem it necessary, I'll gladly unroll it and expose my kesh for their eyes, but I'll most likely wind up in the pokey if they lay finger one on my pag.
Amina, thanks for sharing that -- it changes my perception of the new rules somewhat. (I still don't like them.)
Pat down is not great, but a whole take this off routine ... shudder. I'll leave my job and move elsewhere where I don't need to fly if that's the case ....
the key word is "discretionary." the pat downs you speak of are random. the new TSA policy allows discretionary (and seemingly recommended) searches precipitated on head coverings, namely the turban.
I don't know if i agree with you on that reading. If they said that the method by which the screeners would choose specific people was discretionary or that head covering searches are allowed at a screener's discretion than yeah, it would probably suggest some type of profiling if a particular screener felt any person with a head covering deserved to be searched (whats unfortunately inevitable is that regardless of policy, some screeners will do this anyway). However, at least in the excerpts referred to in this post, the term discretion doesn't apply in those ways. The first mention But now security will have greater discretion to inspect turbans so that they can be manually checked for objects such as non-metallic weapons. suggests that security will now have the ability to inspect turbans through different physical methods as opposed to just taking one off and unraveling. Its why its followed directly by the non matellic weapons bit and is preceded by the methods which were allowed previously.
The second reference also seems to be a physical as opposed to profiling reference: Despite the fact that the TSA guidance lists turbans as an example of headwear that can be the subject of secondary screening, a TSA screener is not required to conduct secondary screening of a turban. The screener can use his or her discretion to determine whether he/she believes the turban could conceal a non-metallic threat item. Here the TSA asks the screener to judge whether a partiular turban could physically conceal a non metallic threat item---its why they refer to a singular turban and is even prefaced by the bit that says the turban doesn't have to be subject to secondary screening. One reason why the kippah may be exempt is because the TSA may believe (as they also seem to suggest about some turbans from this sentence) that they physically cannot hide a dangerous non metallic threat. This is justifiable difference, but a very, very poor one because anyone with familiarity in the area can tell you that a non metal explosive that would be very dangerous can definitely be hid under some kippahs.
TSA should also include the following items to be patted down removed and searched as the wearer can cause issues if they smuggle any chemical bombs in them.....
(1) Underwears
(2) Bras
(3) Baggy Jeans
(4) Loose Fitting dress - may it be any - shirt, pant, underdress.
Then I will say TSA is not biased, until then it's just causing an unnecessary stir in the Sikh community and brining Americans who are illiterate about Sikhism closer to being more hateful about us - The only turban wearers in the West.....
