2. August 2008 by Martin Suter.

So the Department of Homeland Security has revealed finally that it has the right to detain a person’s laptop at the border, possibly for months, with no suspicion of wrongdoing. (Washington Post article).

“The policies . . . are truly alarming,” said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who is probing the government’s border search practices. He said he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion or national origin.”

Senator Feingold is half right.

How do you require reasonable suspicion on the one hand and prohibit profiling on the other?

As a very frequent traveler, I am often shocked at what I see in airports these days. A few weeks ago, as I was putting back on my shoes and belt, I looked over to see an elderly, rotund woman, in tears, as she was being patted down and humiliated in plain view. The TSA employee was patting under her breasts with the back of her hand, looking for what, I have no idea. C’mon…When was the last time a 70 year old fat lady tried to hijack a plane? Or a 45 year old high tech executive father of two? Or a high school student? Or a…

You get the idea.

We live in a world where it is somehow deemed more acceptable to humiliate old fat ladies than it is to say out loud what we all know: radical Islamists are the threat, not my 14 year old son or the old lady next door, or me.

How will the DHS proceed if political correctness is a requirement? Will they have to pull aside and seize an equal number of laptops carried by business people, students and children – analyzing these before returning them months later? At what cost to the taxpayer? At what inconvenience to honest Americans?? And for what?!?

We lack the resources to treat everyone as a potential risk.

Put some wood behind the arrow, but aim it at the bullseye, not at me, not at my kids and not at fat ladies in wheelchairs.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

(martin.suter@iplicensing.net)

Posted in Security | Print | 3 Comments »

16. June 2008 by Martin Suter.

As I was walking to my gate on Sunday at the Orlando airport, I “tuned in” to the broadcast that continuously drones over sound systems in airports across the country. “The Department of Homeland Security Threat Level is Orange”, said the voice.

Just as with the exhortations to “Mind the gap” in the London Tube, the DHS threat level announcements are a ubiquitous part of the aural landscape, so much so that they are simply background noise.

“Why Orange?”, I wondered, “Why not Yellow or Blue, or some other shade of the DHS rainbow?”

It’s hard to know what constitutes an Orange threat level. I imagine that there are different security protocols for TSA employees based on a graded scale, but does John Q Public do anything differently based on whether the official threat level is Orange or Yellow?

Who are they kidding by including Blue and Green on the scale, even Yellow, for that matter. Does anyone expect that we’ll see a DHS Security Threat Level of Green in this lifetime? What will it take to move the needle on airline safety and security from Orange to Yellow again? And what will that mean to us? Will we get to keep our shoes on or carry full size bottles of water through security checkpoints?

I, for one, would love for security broadcasts to be turned off, except in the event of specific threats, much as is done with Amber Alerts. I know that I’d pay much closer attention if the announcement was meaningful and occasional instead of a constant drone about a meaningless colour gradient.

Aren’t safety and security black & white?

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

(martin.suter@iplicensing.net)

Posted in Security | Print | 6 Comments »