Yes, pat-downs are “more invasive” but here’s what you can do about them right now

So TSA Administrator John Pistole had his day on the Hill, testifying in front of the Transportation Security Administration Oversight Hearing. I predicted earlier this week that this could be an interesting meeting, but I was wrong.

Far from the “grilling” that mainstream media outlets claimed Pistole got, I found the exchange to be more of lovefest.

Guess the TSA isn’t the only part of government that has lost touch with the people.

Pistole did say a few interesting things. First, he admitted the pat-downs were “more invasive.” Duh! But watch his expression when he makes that confession after the opening statements (link to video at top). Is that defiance I see in his eyes? Why yes, I believe it is.

Second, he suggested children under 12 wouldn’t be patted down. We’ll see how long that policy lasts, or how uniformly it’s enforced.

The TSA administrator also said John Tyner, the San Diego-area passenger who who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan and is being investigated by the TSA, is basically off the hook.

But it’s obvious that TSA isn’t going to back down from the body-scan/pat-down protocol, despite threats to boycott air travel or refuse the scans.

So one of the questions I’ve been getting a lot this morning, particularly after the hearing and incendiary statements earlier this week from Janet Napolitano, is: What can we do about it?

Let your elected representative know how you feel. Extra points if they’re on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which oversees the TSA.

Or you could sign one of the petitions, such as this one from the ACLU.

You can also contact the TSA directly, sending an email through its site.

Better yet, you can go straight to the people making these questionable decisions. Here are a few contacts along with their email addresses:

Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

John Pistole, TSA Administrator

Margo Schlanger, Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Kimberly Walton, Special Counselor to the Administrator

Hope Goins, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security

Paul Monteiro, Office of Public Engagement

When you write to them, please be polite and above all, tell them how they can resolve this conflict before it becomes a crisis.

Even though TSA is taking a hard line on the pat-down problem, enough pressure applied at the right time will convince the agency to make some common-sense revisions to its ill-advised policy.

Note: Napolitano’s email is bouncing. If you have a better one, please let me know.

Update: I contacted TSA about Pistole’s apparent statement that kids 12 and under won’t be patted down. Here’s what it had to say:

TSA officers are trained to work with parents to ensure a respectful screening process for the entire family while providing the best possible security for all travelers. After a thorough risk assessment and after hearing concerns from parents, we made the decision that a modified pat down would be used for children 12 years old and under who require extra screening.

I am hearing that TSA is considering suspending enhanced pat-downs during the Thanksgiving holiday, in order to pre-empt a disruptive “opt-out” action by passengers. I’ve tried to confirm this with TSA, but it is simply referring me back to Pistole’s testimony, which is at times evasive and can be interpreted in several different ways. All of which leads me to believe that it’s quite possible that TSA will selectively suspend enhanced pat-downs during the week of Thanksgiving.

(Photo: Reid M ix/Flickr Creative Commons)

  • cjr

    “Why not low poly 3d human models?”

    Something I’ve seen pointed out, whether here or elsewhere, is whether low-resolution any image defeats the purpose?

    Don’t you need detail on these images to see something in the first place?

    But then, maybe that’s part of the problem: if they see anything (hip replacement, a Prince Albert, etc), it’s assumed to be a threat.

  • PauletteB

    @cjr: A patdown, intensive or otherwise, is NOT a sexual assault. Your comparison is a disgrace and a disservice to those who HAVE been assaulted. Chris and his buddy Charlie Leocha can whine about this all they want. I read their blogs for other information. I’m firmly in the “don’t like it; don’t fly camp” — more room for the rest of us.

  • DaveS

    The problem with the “don’t like it, don’t fly” mantra is that many, many more people will get killed on the highways. A Cornell study after 9-11 showed that additional hundreds per month died in highway crashes. That’s not the answer.

  • cjr

    “A patdown, intensive or otherwise, is NOT a sexual assault.”

    Somebody touching my genitals without my permission – or in the case of TSA, doing so unnecessarily – is sexual assault. End. Of. Story.

    “Your comparison is a disgrace and a disservice to those who HAVE been assaulted.”

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/17/tsa-screenings-worry-sexual-assault-survivors.html

    I guess you’ve got a lot of people to complain about them, because I’m far from alone on this. Are there any other baseless claims you would like to make against me?

    The real disservice and disgrace here is people like you who defend such measures in the first place. That innocent Americans somehow deserve to be fondled and humiliated, often in public in front of other passengers, just to board an airplane. And yet you applaud this because it means “more room” for you? Absolutely disgusting.

  • Cathy @ U.S. Travel

    @Emily, Roger, Joe R and others: There’s also a new site from the U.S. Travel Association, YourTravelVoice.org, to collect travelers’ stories and opinions on the security process since so many people were emailing us to sound off on their experiences. Check it out and join the conversation at facebook.com/yourtravelvoice — we’ll be sharing the comments we receive with the Obama Administration, Congress and the travel industry.

  • Amy Engelhardt

    “Don’t like it, don’t fly” is a completely offensive statement. Air travel is a vital part of how I make my living. My choices should not be: 1) submit to possibly harmful radiation (with no shield for reproductive organs like EVERY medical office does) on a repeated basis that has the added bonus of basically being photographed naked and/or 2) submit to be touched in an invasive manner in order to TRAVEL to make a living. I have rolled my eyes and done the whole security theater thing with no problem up until now. But THIS IS PLAIN WRONG and no one is safer because of it.

  • http://www.skyfirephotography.com Paul Conrad

    The TSA statement regarding the search procedures prove to me three things:

    1. The terrorists won as their goal “to strike fear” has been achieved. We have gone from a carefree nation to pointing fingers at the oddest behavior as a terrorist threat. Our so-called government now uses any terrorist action as an excuse to continually erode our civil liberties.

    2. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” – Benjamin Franklin. A “pat down” in my opinion is an illegal search and seizure. A violation of my Fifth Amendment civil liberties. They have no cause to pat me down. I’ve committed no crime, I’ve done nothing wrong other than wanting to go see my family or travel for business.

    3. We are merely being treated as criminals and suspects. Anyone flying on a plane today is considered a suspect until proven otherwise. No longer is it “innocent until proven guilty,” rather it’s guilty before being proven innocent.

    Personally, I believe that this has gone too far. We are having our civil liberties eroded little by little each day. At what point do we say enough is enough?

    I think the time is now.

  • http://www.michaelbrein.com The Travel Psychologist

    IF Homeland Security conducts careful statistical studies, they will most assuredly discover categories of travelers with very low statistical risk of causing threats or problems as air passengers, let alone causing terrorist acts. For instance, they will probably discover that among frequent flyers the risk of any potential threat to be infinitesimal. This includes MOST frequent flyer cardholders. I am not saying that they should not be screened, but they can be part of a vast number of people who need fewer invasive procedures. There could be a security line for frequent flyers who may meet some sort of a pre-determined lower risk threshold. I’ll bet that there are other categories as well: maybe, for instance, airline personnel with so many years of inflight service, including flight attendants, pilots, and so on. Keep on studying the stats, keep on discovering ways to reduce security procedures to safe but less invasive thresholds. Do the math, Homeland Security!

  • http://www.clarkecomputer.com Charles Clarke

    Off topic – I’m amazed that the techies at the Senate haven’t figured out that it makes sense to remove the 15 minutes of waiting at the start of videos like the one at the link for the Transportation Security Administration Oversight Hearing. Or are they more clever than we think and believe that since we have to wait for the TSA normally, we should expect it in the videos? :-)

  • bajajoes

    I curse the tsa…daily!

  • insufferable

    THE TSA ARE THE TERRORISTS. ITS LIKE AN EPISODE OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE. THE INNOCENT ARE CONSIDERED GUILTY OF CRIMES AND THE CRIMINALS ARE IN CHARGE