The TSA wants to be everywhere in 2013 — here’s why we shouldn’t let it

Photo by Nathan Hansen/Hansenlawoffice.com
Photo by Nathan Hansen/Hansenlawoffice.com
When the Minnesota Vikings faced off against the Green Bay Packers last weekend in Minneapolis, the big story wasn’t that the Vikings defeated the Pack to secure a wildcard berth.

It was, strangely, the TSA.

That’s right, the agency assigned to protect America’s transportation systems was patrolling the Metrodome. Nathan Hansen, a North St. Paul, Minn., attorney, snapped a few photos of the agents before the game, and broadcast them on Twitter.

“I don’t think any federal law enforcement agency needs anything to do with a football game,” he told me yesterday.

Turns out the TSA goes to NFL games and political conventions and all kinds of places that have little or nothing to do with air travel. It even has a special division called VIPR — an unfortunate acronym for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team — that conducts these searches.

Few people know that $105 million of their taxpayer dollars are going to fund 37 VIPR teams in 2012, whose purpose is to “augment” the security of any mode of transportation. They don’t realize that these VIPR teams can show up virtually anytime, anywhere and without warning, subjecting you to a search of your vehicle or person.

That’s not a fringe observation, by the way. Even the most mainstream news outlets have reported on the problems of these random checkpoints. And it’s being observed by mainstream news personalities, not just consumer advocates with a long list of grievances from their constituents.

But almost no one noticed when the Department of Homeland Security signaled its intent to broaden the scope of its off-airport searches even more in 2013. Buried deep in the Federal Register in late November was a notice that could dramatically shift the focus of transportation security. It involves the government’s efforts to “establish the current state of security gaps and implemented countermeasures throughout the highway mode of transportation” through the Highway Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) program.

As far as I can tell, TSA is just asking questions at this point. “Data and results collected through the Highway BASE program will inform TSA’s policy and program initiatives and allow TSA to provide focused resources and tools to enhance the overall security posture within the surface transportation community,” it says in the filing.

But they wouldn’t be wasting our money asking such questions unless they planned to aggressively expand VIPR at some point in the near future. And that means TSA agents at NFL games, in subways, and at the port won’t be the exception anymore — they will be the rule.

Still, some will argue, what’s wrong with that? After all, VIPR teams were formed in response to the 2004 Madrid train bombings, and shouldn’t we play it safe?

VIPR may be limited to a few men and women in uniform with dogs, patrolling a sold-out stadium or convention center for now. But it’s not hard to imagine the next step, to a permanent presence with full-body scans and pat-downs. It’s a scene straight out of a dystopian novel, and a direct affront to the Fourth Amendment values we take for granted in the United States.

On another level, there’s this: The TSA was created mainly to safeguard our airports from another 9/11 attack. Being scanned or interrogated by an airport screener at a ballgame makes about as much sense as getting pulled over for speeding by a National Guardsman rattling down the Interstate in an Abrams tank. You would pull over for him, sure — but you would also have a lot of questions.

If VIPR teams are somehow more effective than the highway patrol or the local police at stopping terrorists — and I’m open to that possibility — then the Department of Homeland Security should show us that evidence. In the absence of that, we’re left to assume that the VIPR agents have the requisite 120 hours of training required of other agents, and that they are little more than warm bodies that will deter petty criminals from running cigarettes across a state line.

As we start 2013, the TSA is asking the wrong questions. Instead of being a solution in search of a problem, it should be trying to slim down, get smarter about the way it screens airline passengers, and leaving the rest to the well-trained professionals they will never be able to replace.

If we don’t say something about the TSA’s uncontrollable spread into almost every aspect of the American travel experience, we could one day soon find ourselves answering to someone in a paramilitary blue uniform whenever we set foot outside our door.

That’s not the America you want to live in, is it?

Should the TSA expand VIPR?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • bodega3

    Yeah, that works if you want some attention from them.

  • Daisiemae

    What was the training exercise that DHS was performing at my local social security office? How to drink coffee and shoot the breeze?

    I want my tax dollars back. I don’t think I should have to go without medical care, food, clothing, and shelter to pay these fools to sit in the parking lot and goof off.

  • Daisiemae

    Bush and Obama are BOTH to blame for this sorry state of affairs. They should both be standing on the other side of that fan when it gets activated.

  • Daisiemae

    Oh….I thought it was a slur directed towards Italians. Glad to hear it’s not. My husband is Italian…but definitely not a Soprano.

  • Daisiemae

    TSA is not going to cite a statute. They are not lawyers. They are not even law enforcement. They are completely ignorant of the law and don’t care about it anyway. They may say they have the right to search without your consent, but they will not be quoting any specific law.

    If they force a search on you after you have stated that you do not consent, they are breaking the law (not that they care about that). But this gives you a good foundation for pursuing action against them.

  • http://tsanewsblog.com/214/news/history-repeats-itself-with-tsas-strip-search-tactics/ Lisa Simeone

    ExplTravMag, yes, you still have the right to utter those 8 magic words: “No, I do not consent to this search.”

  • http://tsanewsblog.com/214/news/history-repeats-itself-with-tsas-strip-search-tactics/ Lisa Simeone

    MarkieA, they may “conduct these training exercises all the time on federal property,” but it still scared the sh*t out of people who were just trying to collect their checks. There’s no wolf-crying here. This incident happened. And there was more coverage of it; I just posted one article. How many more do I have to post?

  • http://tsanewsblog.com/214/news/history-repeats-itself-with-tsas-strip-search-tactics/ Lisa Simeone

    Grueny, unfortunately, no, so far they don’t have to justify anything. The worthless wankers in Congress keep shoveling the nearly $8 billion a year at the agency, no matter how many abuses are reported, even abuses against members of Congress themselves.

    That’s okay. Clearly we haven’t reached a critical mass. When more of said worthless wankers and their family members are abused, then we’ll see some change. Not until then.

  • http://tsanewsblog.com/214/news/history-repeats-itself-with-tsas-strip-search-tactics/ Lisa Simeone

    MarkieA, 4th Amendment. Yes, I know it’s been trashed at the airport,
    and by the Patriot Act, and in unwarranted surveillance, which is going
    on all the time. I know. But when someone comes up to you anywhere
    other than an airport and demands to search you, they still don’t have
    the right to do it without probable cause. Say no.

    There are dozens of great videos on YouTube explaining this and actually
    demonstrating how to do it. Here’s a really short one. I can find the
    longer ones but it’ll take a while:

    The few measly rights we still have left we should be exercising. Because
    otherwise, just as with muscles, if we don’t use them, they’ll atrophy and go away.

  • 1amWendy

    bodega3, go to TSANewsBlog for coverage of offered solutions from experts.

  • bodega3

    That shows only columns from this website. Give me something that actually shows some viable ideas, not rants.

  • Bill

    Not saying Bush started it at all. Just saying that the Patriot act tore a lot of those rights away in the first place. There seems to be so much hyperbole and hand wringing about rights being removed yet no one is petitioning SCOTUS to overturn that act. And then every monday on the hate TSA column people complain about their rights being taken away by the TSA,

  • 1amWendy

    I direct you to Charlie Leocha’s testimony to Congress and Bruce Schneier’s recommendations. http://tsanewsblog.com/7812/news/house-subcommittee-on-aviation-hearing-november-29-2012/

  • bodega3

    Thanks, I did read it. I don’t care about the uniforms, not an important issue IMHO. Adjusting what you can take on board should always be reviewed. I would like not to have to go through the xray machine. But no where do I see address the concerns the anti TSA members here express, especially about the pat downs.

  • 1amWendy

    Stay tuned, Bodega3… I am getting up data to write exactly why, for a plurality of people so searched, why pat-downs should be changed, and changed to what.

  • emanon256

    The term used by scapel is a negative slur against Italians. It comes from what MarkieA is saying it stands for back when there was a lot of anti Italian racism as Italian immigrants started coming to the States.

  • http://tsanewsblog.com/214/news/history-repeats-itself-with-tsas-strip-search-tactics/ Lisa Simeone

    Actually, not to get into a whole etymology thing here, but “wop” used as a slur against Italian immigrants comes not from “without papers” (which is an after-the-fact folk etymology), but from “guapo,” which is Spanish and which was commonly used to refer to “pretty boys” — it has to do with all the confusion and ignorance you can imagine on the part of some Americans towards immigrants of any kind. Regardless, scalpel’s comment is nutty.

  • http://tsanewsblog.com/214/news/history-repeats-itself-with-tsas-strip-search-tactics/ Lisa Simeone

    Wendy, you’re a trouper, but you’re wasting your breath. We’ve explained countless times both here and at TSA News (which, contrary to bodega3′s claims, is not merely a reprint of Elliott Blog posts) why current TSA practices are both abusive and unnecessary. He/she doesn’t want to hear it. I’d explain it all again, but it’s pointless.

  • AUSSIEtraveller

    this would be funny if it wasn’t so stupid.
    Who takes ID to a ball game especially in USA where pick pockets abound.

  • AUSSIEtraveller

    what would happen to a tourist in USA if he/she simply told these TSA idiots to go away ?
    In the land where everyone seems to have a gun, would TSA shoot them ?
    (we’re not talking about at the airport)

  • bodega3

    It has always been the case that you should carry an ID on you at all time.

  • bodega3

    All you do is talk and don’t produce anything that of worth.. Wendy at least provided me with more that you ever have. Many of you, Chris included, are very good at criticiism, but no ideas on how to IMPROVE security procedures. I don’t like how things are done, but I have nothing to offer in the way of better methods. Come up with something and we’ll listen, instead of having to read the same old rant.

  • MarkieA

    I fear for the day that I have to have a Lawyer “on call”. More than the TSA, lawyers are ruining this country.

  • MarkieA

    And, unfortunately it’ll come down to my word against theirs. Just try and film them abusing your rights, then you’ll really get in it.

  • AUSSIEtraveller

    bodega3, who carries ID to places like the beach, sports games or anywhere that’s very crowded, or it this an American thing ?
    In Australia, we’re only required to carry ID when flying on a commercial flight.
    We don’t have to carry any ID when driving a car.

  • Ed Boston

    Most people carry at least their driver license with them if they are driving to the game and that is the only ID that would be needed. But you are right in that in the USA, we are not required to carry “papers”. In fact, some states you don’t even have to carry your drivers license when driving. That was the law when I lived in Idaho. You only had to know your license number. It’s been awhile since I lived there so that may have changed by now.

    An contrary to your view, pick pockets don’t abound in the USA any more than they do in other countries. I’m sure you will find just as many in any other country in large crowds.

  • Ed Boston

    TSA agents don’t carry weapons as part of their job. They are not law enforcement either.

  • MarkieA

    But it’s not against the law not to….yet.

  • MarkieA

    I got stopped my the county police here in Maryland just the other day for a minor traffic infraction. I was asked for my driver’s license, which was in my gym bag in the trunk. The police officer said “not to worry” and asked me to verify address information that he had apparently pulled up from my license plate number. On the warning citation I got, he noted “failure to produce driver’s license upon request” – which I thought was rather crappy, plus he informed that I should keep my license “within reach” at all times while driving. Don’t know if this is the law, or just his “suggestion”.

  • y_p_w

    It’s a requirement in California.

    http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc12951.htm

    “V C Section 12951 Possession of License

    Possession of License

    12951. (a) The licensee shall have the valid driver’s
    license issued to him or her in his or her immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle upon a highway.

    Any charge under this subdivision shall be dismissed
    when the person charged produces in court a driver’s license duly issued to that person and valid at the time of his or her arrest, except that upon a third or subsequent charge the court in its discretion may dismiss the charge. When a temporary, interim, or duplicate driver’s license is produced in court, the charge shall not be dismissed unless the court has been furnished proof by the Department of Motor Vehicles that the temporary, interim, or duplicate license was issued prior to the arrest, that the driving privilege and license had not been suspended or revoked, and that the person was eligible for the temporary, interim, or duplicate license.

    (b) The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or
    her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code.”

  • y_p_w

    There is no requirement in the US that a US citizen must carry an ID or produce one upon request for normal activities other than driving in most states. If someone is arrested by law enforcement, they can detain someone or take them to a police station to ascertain their identity without ID.

    There is a requirement that those above a certain age need to produce acceptable ID to travel by air, and to produce said ID at checkpoints. The ostensible purpose is to verify that the person on the ticket is the person flying. If they can’t, then the they can possibly check databases for the identity of the traveler, but that doesn’t always result in a positive ID. Some people have been denied boarding.

    The only legal requirement I know of is that permanent residents of the US are required to carry their “green cards” (permanent residency cards) at all times. I know of quite a few who don’t. The federal fine is light with less than 30 days jail time, and I really doubt it’s a high enforcement priority. This became an issue when Arizona passed a law (struck down by the courts) that made the same violation a state crime punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $5000 fine. The other issue would be that it could be prosecuted by the state or counties if the feds weren’t keen on doing so.

  • y_p_w

    They have been known to summon the local law enforcement that has responsibility for a particular airport or other facility.

  • y_p_w

    I said the only legal requirement is for a permanent resident to carry the green card at all times. It’s almost never enforced.

    Sometimes I’ll step out of my house wearing shorts, a T-shirt, and no wallet.

  • y_p_w

    I always keep my wallet in my front pocket. If I’m worried about pickpockets, I’ll slap a large rubber band around it. It reduces the chance of a pickpocket using a light motion that’s less detectable. Someone would really have to yank hard to overcome the friction with the increased risk of detection.

  • Ed Boston

    The question was, ” would TSA shoot them ?” The answer is no. The TSA does not have authority to use any force, let alone deadly.

  • Ed Boston

    That’s great. But the example was for Maryland. If you are going to quote code, quote the one for Maryland.

  • Daisiemae

    These are two women who paid a huge price for not knowing and exercising their right to refuse a search without a warrant:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/roadside-body-cavity-search-texas-women-sue-state-troopers-for-humiliating-body-search_n_2333302.html

  • MeanMeosh

    TSA has no law enforcement authority. If you refuse to submit to a TSA search or produce ID, the most they can do is call the police. Unless you do something stupid, like run away or make a bomb joke, they can’t do much, either. You can refuse a request for a search by a police officer, and unless they show probable cause to a judge and get a warrant, there’s not a darn thing they can do about it.

    So if you, as a tourist, refuse to cooperate with the TSA outside of an airport, nothing will happen to you, aside from wasting some time.

    Now, if you are at an airport checkpoint, that’s a different story. Unfortunately, American courts have essentially bought the TSA’s argument that the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to airport security. Since the TSA is a vindictive bunch, the cops will be called, you’ll get thrown out of the airport, and likely arrested for interfering with security screening.

  • Daisiemae

    This code does not state that the license has to be in the interior of the car. There is nothing here that says you cannot carry your license in the trunk.

  • Ed Boston

    A lot is going to depend on what “immediate possession” means I guess. In the example given for the incident in Maryland, we don’t know what their law is. But if it was something similar, I think the cop was in the wrong to put the failure to produce on it when the cop told him not to get it.

  • Extramail

    I personally don’t believe the tsa is keeping our airports safer; therefore, I’m not interested in their trying to make anything else safer. I also personally have a family member who was financially ruined trying to fight an illegal search so forgive me if I don’t trust “authority” and my right to deny an illegal search.

  • http://tsanewsblog.com/214/news/history-repeats-itself-with-tsas-strip-search-tactics/ Lisa Simeone

    Been there, done that. No, you don’t want to listen.

  • rmc

    History repeating –“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”Ben Franklin

  • ExplorationTravMag

    I read that article the other day and wondered how the police were able to get away with that. I think the LEOs use the psychology that people are intimidated by them.

    I have to wonder, though, how much more of a problem it would cause for the average person to say, “No, not w/o probable cause or a warrant”. It’s my belief (opinion?) that by telling them no, they can use that as an excuse for probably cause?

  • y_p_w

    It was just an example of what I was familiar with.

    This is the closest thing I could find for Massachussetts. It’s a mess trying to read it. As far as I can tell, an out of state driver is required to carry that license, and the description is “has such license on his person or in the vehicle in some easily accessible place”. I couldn’t find anything that refers to those licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

    http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section10

    Oh – Maryland:

    http://www.mva.maryland.gov/resources/dl-002b.pdf

  • TonyA_says

    Bodega, as you know since you have travelled internationally, the biggest difference is the TSA uses nudeoscopes and does pat downs. Both are dehumanizing.
    During my recent domestic Japan flights, there is a sign in English – we allow food and drinks to be taken into the airplane. Wow, what a sign of great common sense.

  • bodega3

    You think you have, but you haven’t

  • bodega3

    That’s why I said should, not have to. There are good reasons to have your ID with you, especially if you are alone and should get hurt.

  • Cybrsk8r

    Actually, no government agent has a “RIGHT” to do anything. Citizens have rights. Governments do not.

  • bodega3

    Define government agent?