If you’ve ever wished you could protest the Transportation Security Administration’s intrusive screening practices without getting yourself arrested, meet Evan Roth.
A self-described techno-artist and open-source developer who co-founded the Graffiti Research Lab, Roth has figured out a way to let the government know how unhappy he is about its screening “theater.”
He takes a metal plate, stencils and cuts out a message, puts the plate at the bottom of his carry-on bag, and watches what happens as the TSA employee operating the airport X-ray machine notices.
The protest, first reported this morning by Paul McNamara at Network World, has apparently raised some eyebrows at the airport.
The cut-out images, which could be anything, currently range from the benign: an American flag; to the smart-alecky: “Nothing to see here;” to what some might find offensive and a TSA agent somewhere is bound to cause a fuss over: a silhouette of a box cutter, which Roth calls “the exact opposite of a box cutter.”
“Of course having to take off my shoes and throw out my 4oz Jell-O isn’t the end of the world,” says Roth. “But by passively going along with it I feel as if I am agreeing to take part in the ruse. Taking off my belt is not going to make flying any safer. I would rather go through the dance of airport security as an active participant rather than a passive one.”
Wouldn’t we all?
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
Very smart way to protest. You do it without being obstrusive. You do it without causing the travelers in line behind you a problem. Yet you are able to get your message across.
Evan Roth: Taking off my belt is not going to make flying any safer.
=====================================================
But, what it will do is prevent the METAL DETECTOR from going off, requiring YOU to go through it twice or require a wand inspection. Secondly, he’s placing items in his bag that may require a bag check or resending the bag back through the machine. So much for common courtesy and backing up the line at Security!
HIS antics are causing “Theater Screening” to the agents who are just trying to do their jobs. The same agents who have NO SAY SO in policy and procedures. And, to anyone who became an unwilling participant in line BEHIND him.
Frank: “HIS antics are causing “Theater Screening” to the agents who are just trying to do their jobs. The same agents who have NO SAY SO in policy and procedures. And, to anyone who became an unwilling participant in line BEHIND him.”
Your persistent loyalty to the TSA is in some ways commendable: just as 22% of voters continue to support the worst president in American history, someone has to defend an agency that most travelers regard as worse than useless (and that government audits consistently report as ineffective). But I think you’ve unintentionally identified the important point of this “artistic” stunt.
The screeners, as you note, have no say in policy and procedures. Nor do we. But the people who do have a say in it hide themselves in undisclosed locations wrap themselves in the flag. They don’t care what we have to say, and respond to any questions or criticism (constructive and otherwise) with condescending mumbo-jumbo about “national security,” “robust intelligence,” and “trust us.” Like you, they want us to passively and unquestioningly accept everything they do, preferably with the appropriate mixture of fear and gratitude.
I think this is a clever and innocuous way to protest (although if the template actually looks like a weapon or explosive on the x-ray, the screeners are justified in shunting the perpetrator into aside for the appropriate humiliation). Other than that, I think it’s a reassuring sign that the freedoms the administration and the TSA claim to be protecting remain alive to some extent, even though you and the administration you defend see it as wrong or evil.
Yes, the screeners are “just trying to do their jobs.” But they’re the intrusive and reviled face of an unresponsive (and demonstrably incompetent) bureaucracy. Other than not flying, what else can we reasonably do to express our discontent with the way they’re doing their jobs?
Mr. Roth may hold me up any time, as long as it’s not at gunpoint.
The screeners, as you note, have no say in policy and procedures. Nor do we. But the people who do have a say in it hide themselves in undisclosed locations wrap themselves in the flag. They don’t care what we have to say, and respond to any questions or criticism (constructive and otherwise) with condescending mumbo-jumbo about “national security,” “robust intelligence,” and “trust us.” Like you, they want us to passively and unquestioningly accept everything they do, preferably with the appropriate mixture of fear and gratitude.
======================================================
I think policies and procedure are taken into consideration when they implement them for the AMERICAN traveling public. For the airlines to remain in business, they know they can NOT institute a “security system” that’s too timely and/or invasive. Would you show up for security say, 2 to 3 hours prior to flight time for a domestic flight. Require a pat down? I’ve been through both in other countries! Civil Liberty people would be all over this. Apparently, the FLYING PUBLIC knows what makes them safe. And, when they dont agree with it, they’re highly inconvenienced.
I seem to always hear whining/complaining in the security line. I, once had a business man look at me and complain, “what do they think I am, a terrorist? Do I look like a terrorist?”…………….I replied back, “Did Timothy McVeigh?” He got it.
Maybe it’s just me, but how hard is it to place your carry-on’s into the table, push it into the machine, show the TSA your liquid bag, remove shoes, metal items and walk through the metal detector? I’ve done it THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of times!
This is NOT a clever way to protest. It’s idiotic. It’s only a matter of time before his antics send him to jail, not the humiliation you suggest. I only hope he’s read the numerous signs at security: SECURITY IS NO JOKING MATTER.
http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/10/02/tsa-likely-to-relax-restrictions-on-liquids-in-2009/
TSA has been testing X-ray machines that can detect liquid materials used in bomb-making and the technology is close to be ready for widespread use. The X-ray machines themselves are already widely deployed in the U.S., but the software necessary for the liquids detection and evaluation is still being tested.
Once it’s ready, it can be rolled out quickly not only in the U.S. but also in Europe and other countries
Frank: “This is NOT a clever way to protest. It’s idiotic. It’s only a matter of time before his antics send him to jail, not the humiliation you suggest. I only hope he’s read the numerous signs at security: SECURITY IS NO JOKING MATTER.”
And assuming that the template doesn’t resemble a gun, a bomb, or something dangerous, what law or regulation does it actually violate? Or does he need to go to jail just because he’s failing to demonstrate the proper respectful and deferential demeanor toward Uniformed Security Officials that the TSA and the administration believe is the obligatory duty of loyal citizens?
As for security being no joking matter, that presumably applies only to passengers. The entire “security theatre” that the TSA perpetrates would be high comedy if it weren’t such a tragic show of incompetence, waste, and intrusive hassle.
Regarding the new technology, I’ll bet you anything the TSA will drag its feet in deploying it. Budget will be the official reason, but I think they prefer to make passengers go through the “3-1-1 Victory Baggie” routine because an intrusive hassle appears more “thorough” and effective to the passengers they’re trying to impress.
Hapgood: As for security being no joking matter, that presumably applies only to passengers. The entire “security theatre” that the TSA perpetrates would be high comedy if it weren’t such a tragic show of incompetence, waste, and intrusive hassle.
========================================================
How typical. Havent heard ONE alternative suggestion to this perceived “intrusive” hassle? Why do you think Security came about in the sixties in the first place? Hijacking, that’s why. And, THEIR METHODS have changed through the years, guns, bombs and liquids. (with a cigarette lighter) It’s no longer the political statement and/or fly me to Cuba. It’s MASS suicide. Please tell me and Mr Kipler, Head of the TSA, how you’re going to safeguard an entire nation against aviation threats? I’m all ears.
They dont even have to be threats. Average Joe Traveler, for some reason, doesnt know that traveling with hazardous materials is not only unsafe, but against the law. Camping equipment with kerosene. Poisons, Fireworks….etc.
Someone is safeguarding us against these mistakes.
here’s some more:
Airport screeners find loaded gun in teddy bear
From Patty Davis and Beth Lewandowski
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) –Screeners at a passenger checkpoint at the Orlando International Airport last Friday found a loaded handgun hidden inside a stuffed teddy bear belonging to a 10-year-old boy, the Transportation Security Administration has told CNN.
The boy was part of a family of five that had been on vacation in Orlando and was returning home to Ohio, the TSA said.
“The family reported it had been given to the child at a hotel in Orlando two days earlier,” TSA spokesman Robert Johnson said.
The .22-caliber Derringer, according to another TSA official, was “artfully hidden” inside the bear.
Screeners became suspicious after the teddy bear was x-rayed, and a small hole was found on the bottom of the stuffed toy, the official said.
Johnson said the FBI is examining who gave the child the bear and why.
The family was questioned and sent on their way, he said.
The TSA said the gun had been reported stolen in 1996 in Barstow, California, after a residential burglary.
“We are criticized a lot for screening grannies and babies: ‘Why are they checking this? My two-year old isn’t a terrorist.’ This underscores the need to screen everyone and everything,” said Johnson.
“It’s lucky that we kept it off the flight,” he added, noting it could have fired mid-flight while the child was playing with the stuffed animal.
Johnson stressed passengers should never accept anything from a stranger and take it on a flight.
Federal screeners have made two other catches recently. In Hartford, Connecticut, screeners stopped a man who had slipped a knife down the back of a six-year-old child’s shirt to try to slip it past security, Johnson said.
Also at that airport, screeners stopped a 67-year-old man who had hollowed out his prosthetic leg to conceal a nine-inch knife in a scabbard.
Both were arrested, Johnson said.
“These sorts of things make the point that we need to screen everything,” he said. “We can’t allow terrorists any opportunity.”
=============================================================
Hapgood: Regarding the new technology, I’ll bet you anything the TSA will drag its feet in deploying it. Budget will be the official reason
===============================================
no difference than Microsoft delaying it’s new software. Apple have issues with it’s new IPhone.
Frank: “Airport screeners find loaded gun in teddy bear…”
And what does that have to do with the War on Liquids and Toiletries?
Frank: “Please tell me and Mr Kipler, Head of the TSA, how you’re going to safeguard an entire nation against aviation threats? I’m all ears.”
First, Mr. Kip Hawley is the head of the TSA. Second, the answer to your question is that you can’t safeguard the entire nation against aviation threats. At least not through any measures involving mass screening of passengers to enforce absurd rules that belatedly react to past threats.
That said, intelligence that uncovers plots long before they get to the airport would certainly help. As would screening of cargo, the lack of which the GAO singled out last year as the leading threat to aviation. The only “benefit” of airport screening is that it gives the public the misleading impression that the government is doing something visible and tangible (if not effective) to protect aviation. That may well convince the 22% who still support Bush, but anyone with open eyes and half a brain who submits to TSA screening can see for themselves it’s a costly, frustrating joke (notwithstanding the official admonitions to take it Very Seriously and be Very Afraid).
Frank: “And, THEIR METHODS have changed through the years, guns, bombs and liquids.”
Indeed. But the TSA’s approach of adding hassles to checkpoints in belated reaction to method changes is itself a security vulnerability. Terrorists no longer have to kill themselves or anyone else to inflict significant damage to the United States. They merely need to fake or suggest a “method change” that will provoke the TSA’s bureaucracy to react with another bone-headed rule or restriction that will increase the expense and disruption at airports. I wonder how Kippie would react to a plot to smuggle explosives (or contraband lip gloss) in the nether regions of the plotters.
If that seems farfetched, consider the vulnerability the TSA has already created. Checkpoints that create long lines are a much easier target than airplanes. I worry about that whenever I’m stuck in line waiting to be screened. I wonder if Kippie has ever thought of that. I’d bet against it, since he and Michael Chertoff probably travel by government jet and never have to endure the system they created.
I think it’s entirely appropriate to demand that we get something effective and useful for all the expense and hassle the TSA is causing us. But their only response to such demands is “it’s classified… trust us.” The most effective terrorist tactic is to let the enemy smother itself in continually escalating but pointless “security measures.” And the Bush administration seems to be playing right into that tactic.
On October 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm Hapgood said Frank: “Airport screeners find loaded gun in teddy bear…”
And what does that have to do with the War on Liquids and Toiletries?
=======================================================
The comment was related to your incompetent statement of the TSA. So I gave you examples of how they reduced the possibility of getting dangerous items through security.
=======================================================
Hapgood said: Checkpoints that create long lines are a much easier target than airplanes. I worry about that whenever I’m stuck in line waiting to be screened. I wonder if Kippie has ever thought of that.
======================================================
Actually, they have. In alot of airports, they’ve installed barricades in the front of entrance ways.
Hapgood, the government could spend TRILLIONS of dollars on Security, but they wont. Safety HAS A PRICE TAG. Just like anything else. They’ve reduced the risk by reducing the amount of liquid in your carry on. That cost them NOTHING and in reality, you, a MINIMAL inconvenience. And, you better believe I EXPECT my government to REACT to any and all “method” changes. It’s where I work.
==========================================================
Hapgood: I think it’s entirely appropriate to demand that we get something effective and useful for all the expense and hassle the TSA is causing us.
===================================================
what expense is that?
Frank: “Actually, they have. In alot of airports, they’ve installed barricades in the front of entrance ways.”
And how does a barricade protect a crowd of passengers patiently waiting at a TSA checkpoint from a suicide bomber with an explosive vest? Of all the very visible flaws and deficiencies in the TSA’s approach to “security,” this is the one I genuinely worry about. (That and the lack of screening for the cargo under passengers’ feet, which by itself is ample proof that the “security theater” is a useless charade.)
Having said that, I’ll agree to disagree with you, if you’ll also agree to that.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-10-06-terminal-scans_N.htm
I thought of YOU, today, when this article showed up in the USAToday.
Yes, we disagree, but, it’s fun to debate the issue at hand. Isnt that what this board is for? And exchange of VIEWS. (one being mine, an airline employee)
I lived in Italy in 1975. I remember the first time I got off the bus from the gate to board the plane and there was row after row of baggage on the tarmac. Before I could get on the plane the police required me to point out my luggage and then a baggage handler put it on the plane as I boarded. Would you rather take off your belt, or board the plane off the tarmac?
Surprising the TSA agent, who just works for a living, tells the government nothing it doesn’t already know.
Suppose tomorrow the government put out a survey with just two questions:
1. We want to stop all the screening and just let people walk on the plane. Are you for or against that?
2. If you answered the question FOR, do you have any concerns and if so what means would you prefer we use to make sure you have a safe flight?
I have no problem putting up with some hassle and inconvenience if it is actually going to help. But this is all a big show. Do you really think some lip balm is potentially more dangerous as a hiden bomb than a laptop? They are always reactive, never proactive. While we’re freaking out about shoes and liquids on airplanes, the terrorists are planning their next attack at a stadium or our ports or who knows where. It’s a joke, except it wasn’t that funny for my seven year old when his souvenir snow globe was confiscated because we didn’t think to tell him to put it in his suitcase rather than his backpack. The best part is that this dangerous item was purchased at the National Air & Space Museum. Give me a break.
Frank: “I thought of YOU, today, when this article showed up in the USAToday.”
The test in Denver caught two false positives. But the authorities define that as a “success,” which means they’re all set to deploy it widely. I guess security officials define “success” differently from anyone else.
Once the device is fielded, airport authorities will have to hire lots of police officers, and set up special areas to detain, interrogate, and (presumably) strip-search all the false positives it will detect. Maybe if they nab enough false positives, they’ll eventually stumble across something genuinely dangerous and be lauded as heroes. Yes, that should make us all feel very safe indeed!
Why does “security” require a complete suspension of all reason?
Mike: “We want to stop all the screening and just let people walk on the plane. Are you for or against that?”
If the screening is useless at protecting aviation, it would indeed be better to get rid of it and just let people walk on the plane. We’d be no less safe, but we’d save a lot of time and taxpayer money.
I’m not opposed to effective security. I’m very much opposed to ineffective security, especially if it’s costly and intrusive.
On October 8th, 2008 at 4:08 pm Hapgood said Frank:
The test in Denver caught two false positives. But the authorities define that as a “success,” which means they’re all set to deploy it widely. I guess security officials define “success” differently from anyone else.
====================================================
Did we read the same article? It’s my understanding that the DEVICE is being TESTED. They questioned individuals and released them. No success story yet.
Wouldn’t mere foil work, like aluminum foil? It did in one of the Bond movies anyway. To delay a female agent, accompanied by a child, he gave the kid a present with a foil cutout of a gun in the bottom of the box. Stopped them at the screener!