With TSA, indignity security’s price |

With TSA, indignity security’s price

It was probably worse for the Transportation Security Administration officer than it was for me.

Maybe I’d better explain.

I recently had the misfortune of experiencing the TSA’s recently enhanced pat-down procedure.

According to ABC News, you see, an audit by the Department of Homeland Security determined that TSA officers failed 95 percent of airport security tests in which undercover agents snuck mock explosives and banned weapons right by them.

As a result, the TSA modified its screening procedures. Officers used to have five pat-down types to choose from — five degrees of thoroughness, in a manner of speaking — but now they have one.

And, boy, is it invasive.

As I attempted to board a flight in San Antonio, Texas, my computer bag was flagged by the X-ray machine. The TSA officers pulled me aside for “special screening.”

Three officers rooted through my computer and carry-on bags like crack addicts looking for change.

A fourth snapped on a fresh pair of white plastic gloves and began working me over like I was a side of Kobe beef.

I tried to maintain my composure, but “no means no” had zero effect. “Don’t touch my junk” fell on equally deaf ears.

The only time I can remember having that level of physical contact with someone I didn’t know goes back to the MacKenzie twins (spring-break happy hours, circa 1986).

Now, I can empathize with the poor fellow who was doing my screening. It’s not his fault that religious fanatics are driving cars into innocent crowds, shooting co-workers at Christmas parties and attempting to hide explosives in their skivvies so they can blow our planes out of the sky.

But how do I, a freckle-faced fellow with a hint of Jameson on his breath — I don’t enjoy flying and the hooch calms me — fit the profile of the fanatics hoping to commit these horrific acts?

I don’t.

Neither do the little old grannies or nuns or countless other people who must now go through overly invasive pat-downs when their baggage sets off the X-ray machine.

I understand the process is even worse for women. Because they have more undergarments — and more places to conceal explosives — they’re being patted down in a manner that used to require dinner and a show.

In a saner world, we would make a couple of key changes to end this pat-down madness.

First, we could modernize the dated technology most airports are still using.

“The machines the TSA is using at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to scan carry-ons at checkpoints are nearly a decade old, and the practice of X-raying a bag goes back far longer,” reports CBS News.

Three-dimensional CT scanning technology, commonly used in the medical industry, “can detect explosives in laptops, liquids and gels, which means the days of having to take things out of your carry-on bag could be numbered,” says CBS News.

So why aren’t we using it?

Second, why aren’t we using better screening processes as practiced in Israel?

Despite considerable threats, Israel boasts some of the safest airports in the world — without groping millions of innocent people.

Here’s why: Israel’s security people are highly trained. They conduct multiple checkpoints and screenings before you enter the gate. And they profile.

Profiling does not mean “stereotyping by skin color or nationality,” either. It means that highly skilled agents are continuously assessing behavior and any oddities. These processes are extremely effective.

Why are we afraid to do something that sensible?

Because we’re afraid of offending people who keep telling us they want to blow our planes out of the sky?

All I know is that the next time you fly, there’s one thing you’d better be prepared to leave at home.

Your dignity.

Tom Purcell, a freelance writer, lives in Library. His books include “Misadventures of a 1970s Childhood” and “Wicked Is the Whiskey,” a Sean McClanahan mystery. Visit him on the web at Email him at: [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.