In 2006, I wrote an op-ed for The Arizona Daily Star, imploring the TSA to enforce the established airport security rules. The liquid regulation had just taken effect and the PA system continuously reiterated the need to dump your liquids, gels, and aerosol cans. In the article, included below, I indicated that the TSA was always reactive opposed to proactive. So now, four years later, when the authorities are finally being proactive in their approach, I stand by them.
The TSA is catching national flack for invasive pat-downs and incredibly detailed body scanners. My only gripe with the scanners is the potential health risk, which has been debunked considering your flight emits 150 times more radiation than one time through the scanner. I've been through a body scanner more than once at ABQ. Sure, there's an added ten seconds of standing with your arms in the air, but I'm not about to boycott a system that has been established to ensure my safety.
However, I'm not the target market for TSA body scanner protests. I fly about 10 times a year, which is minuscule compared to Up in the Air, but more than the typical family of four who embark on a runway annually for the winter holidays. The people who are enraged over the TSA pat-downs and full body scan system don’t seem to be regular travelers, and their delusions of bunking the system is laughable.
The instigator of the body scanner boycott explains on optoutday.com that they "want families to sit around the dinner table, eating turkey, talking about their experience." Well, that’s not going to happen. If these people opt out, the inevitable delays caused will require them to eat Cheetos from the airport vending machines when they miss their flight. Enjoy Thanksgiving, kids.
There have been reports of improper searches, and it's unfortunate that some TSA employees don't take the moral high ground. However, it also a misguided sweeping generalization to imply all TSA pat-downs are uncouth. While the masses complain that the screening process is inconsistent across the country, I wonder when it has ever been completely standard. I know I can get through TUS faster and with more leeway than PHX. MDW is easier than ORD. LGA is a breeze compared to JFK. ABQ is a delight over DEN. That doesn't make the inconsistency right, but it certainly implies a widespread variation of techniques that work for each individual airport.
This TSA ruckus has obviously turned political, as complainers incite the constitution and their right to a reasonable search. While I understand this argument, it's also ridiculous. You are choosing to fly and therefore choosing to undergo a search. If you refuse the full body scanner, you are subjecting yourself to a pat-down. A simple solution to avoid this: don't refuse the scanner. Empty your pockets. Take off your belt. Avoid carrying change. Don't be a jerk. And if you’re still afraid of ten seconds in a glorified revolving door because one official will see under your clothes? Don't fly.
Airport security has been too lax for too long. And while my tune may change the minute I'm forced into an uncomfortable enhanced pat-down if something goes wrong with the body scanner, for now I thank the TSA for finally being proactive. I prefer an added twenty minutes of inconvenience and a fleeting moment of a stripped scan over the potentially fatal alternative caused by negligent security.
Travel Rules Need to be Enforced;
Published September 2006 in The Arizona Daily Star
Travelers were quickly downing their coffees for the 7 a.m. flight to Los Angeles two weeks ago as the repeating PA system warned against bringing "liquids, gels, or aerosol cans" on board. But passengers were not greeted with strict security as we were led to believe over the past few weeks since the latest liquid rule.
Security on the West Coast was meek Labor Day weekend. It was as if homeland security relaxed the rules instead of strictly enforcing them as made abundantly clear by recent media. It is especially important to have higher security standards when headed to such a busy hub like LAX, which was more stringent than Tucson International Airport when it came to security efforts, but still did not live up to expectations.
Homeland security is always a few steps behind the terrorists; when the shoe bomb threat was thwarted, we took our shoes off and when dangerous liquids nearly made it on board, we dumped our water bottles. Security should be proactive instead of reactive.
Airports across the board cannot simply rely on passengers to adhere to requests to take out liquids or gels opposed to thoroughly checking bags. Terrorists will not feel compelled to throw away any dangerous items before they board because an automatic announcement politely instructs them to do so.
Americans say they are willing to sacrifice a few personal liberties as a way to protect U.S. soil—and skies. That should include time and effort at the airport. Travelers should expect to arrive early to flights so security can do its job. And that job should entail more than a smile and a glance as passengers walk through metal detectors.
Meticulous baggage checks should be administered for all travelers, especially now with the new restrictions against liquids and gels—as ridiculous as that rule may seem to some. Perhaps two check points should be implemented, along with a valid ID check at the gate with the boarding pass. Bags for flights should be limited to one, small, carry-on for essential items only, the rest should be checked.
The x-ray machine should not be the only form of vigilance as passengers go through check points; random searches would be extremely beneficial and that applies to baggage going into storage as well. Society’s slant toward technology could also put safety in jeopardy. E-tickets or automatic check-in counters at the airport are just one less step rebels have to take to get on board without face-to-face interaction.
Though these strategies would be inconvenient for frequent travelers, if homeland security is going to demand harsher rules, then they should be effectively enforced.
