Next
time you fly, take a minute to look around at the airport screening area.
You'll see all kinds of interesting passengers, from the "get-alongs"
to the dissidents to the folks who think the rules don't apply to them.
Just
last week at the crowded Orlando airport, I had a front-row ticket to a
confrontation between a young woman and a TSA screener.
Young
woman: "I don't want to be X-rayed."
Screener:
"We don't use X-rays."
Young
woman: "I don't want to be scanned, either."
Screener:
"Then you'll get a pat-down."
I
briefly made eye contact with the passenger and saw that familiar look of
terror. She was about to receive what the TSA refers to as an
"enhanced" pat-down, and perhaps a little firmer than normal, despite
the fact that it was abundantly clear she posed zero risk to the aircraft.
Her
crime? Questioning a TSA screener about the safety of its allegedly invasive
and harmful body scanner.
I
know about these retaliatory pat-downs. I refuse to use the scanners, a
decision the agents tend to take personally. During my last opt-out, a screener
in Denver was so aggressive that he almost pulled my pants down in front of
everyone.
Folks,
this shouldn't be happening in a free country.
I
didn't see what happened to the young woman, but I know how she must have felt.
She's
just one of five common passenger types you'll encounter at a TSA checkpoint.
Who else are you likely to meet?
The get-alongs. This is by
far the largest group of passengers. They just want to pass through the
screening process with a minimum of hassle. They have nothing to hide, they
figure, so just do what the people in the blue uniforms order them to do. They
comply, obediently stepping into the full-body scanner and agreeing to a
pat-down, because they "know" the TSA is just trying to keep everyone
safe -- and despite the fact that even a small amount of research will reveal
that almost nothing they're asked to do makes the flying experience any safer.
Critics call these passengers "sheeple."
The elites. A smaller
group of passengers and crew members are offered special screening privileges --
a dedicated line where they often don't have to remove their shoes or step
through a poorly tested scanner. Pilots, flight attendants, and dignitaries
fall into this category, but by far the largest subset belongs to those with
TSA "pre-check" membership. These frequent fliers believe that
because they've given an airline so much business, or have paid the federal
government to run a background check, they deserve a less invasive screening.
And they're partially correct. Actually, everyone
deserves to be screened in that way.
The dissidents. An even
smaller group of passengers opts out of the full body scanners, which means
they get an automatic, prison-style pat-down. These brave contrarians know that
opting out takes up valuable screener time, and they understand that a pat-down
can feel even more invasive than a quick scan. But that's fine with them. For
many reasons, they believe the government has no business asking them to submit
to a scan, and they're willing to make that point whenever they fly. Many
opt-outs feel they have a lot in common with the civil rights activists of the
1960s. One day, when the scanners are decommissioned and the world recognizes
how far the federal government overreached, maybe their protests will be more
appreciated than they are today.
The victims. An even
smaller group of passengers doesn't realize it yet, but they're about to become
a headline, a viral video, or at the very least, a complaint letter to the TSA.
Thanks to a misunderstanding, or a cruel TSA agent or a federal screener who
has no values and steals from the passengers he's assigned to protect, the
screening will go terribly wrong. It may not happen often when compared to the
millions of travelers who fly every week, but it ought to happen less than it
does -- a lot
less.
The ignorant. The
smallest group of passengers are the dummies who pack loaded revolvers,
souvenir hand grenades, and machetes in their carry-on luggage and expect to
get through security. Too many actually do. A vast majority of these
"armed" passengers turn out to just be careless mistakes; a handful are
done intentionally. One in a billion are done with the objective of bringing
down a plane. No matter what, you can bet the TSA will tout the confiscation
and inevitable arrest on its blog every week. Critics can do nothing but shake
their heads at these incidents. The only thing they squabble over is the
propaganda value of the confiscations. Taking away a gun, say agency-watchers,
doesn't necessarily mean you've stopped another 9/11.
I've
met most of these passengers either at the airport or after their flight. By and
large, they all have one thing in common: They just want to get from point A to
point B with a minimum of hassle. And the paramilitary blueshirts pushing them
through scanners, prodding them, and in some cases stealing from them, are a
hindrance, not a help, in that regard.
Shouldn't
it be the other way around? Shouldn't our taxpayer-supported federal screeners
be making the process easier
instead of harder? At the very least, shouldn't the TSA try to do a better job
of telling one group apart from the other?
Reference: Christopher Elliot
No comments:
Post a Comment