Add the overly pampered to no-fly list
By Beth Teitell
Boston Herald Columnist
Thursday, September 14, 2006
I may be putting myself on the American Civil Liberties Union’s hit list, but it’s time for the Transportation Security Administration to start profiling passengers. Fashion profiling, that is.
A report in yesterday’s Washington Post documents what many of us already knew: The appearance-obsessed are smuggling on board hydrating gels, facial cleansers, lip gloss, ignoring the nation’s safety in favor of their own skin-care needs.
As matters now stand, screeners are able to catch only some of these well-moisturized scofflaws, snatching contraband Kiehl’s from their Prada totes. X-ray machines are better at picking up knives, guns or bomb parts than DuWop Lip Venom, and metal detectors at security checkpoints can’t sense even the thickest-coverage foundation.
Clearly, we need screeners trained to spot high-maintenance fliers, those with meticulously lined lips, whose skin is miraculously line-free for their age, whose hair is messy in a perfect, product-intensive way, despite their having arrived at the airport at 5 a.m. (for a noon flight). You know, the type whose luggage co-ordinates with their Juicy sweat suits.
In addition to physical cues, screeners should be on the lookout for suspicious self-absorption: the frequent checking of one’s face in a reflective cell phone; obsessive application of Trish McEvoy’s sparkling pink lipstick; reading Women’s Wear Daily.
In some cases, screeners could strike up a “casual” conversation with the potential suspect, engaging in seemingly innocuous chat about “Project Runway,” the difficulty of pulling off cashmere leggings, or whether StriVectin can possibly work better than Botox.
With all due respect to the current crop of screeners, I fear they’re not up to the task. The Department of Homeland Security needs an army of snotty, judgmental fashionistas, able to spot their ilk across a food court. (“Alpha Team, suspect sighted near boarding area. Hair is glossy - repeat - hair is glossy.”) Some would be assigned to preflight surveillance, others would work the arrivals gate, cuffing passengers who look just a little too good.
In-flight surveillance is necessary, too. In addition to the smoke detectors in the lavatories, an automatic Polaroid should snap pictures, and “suspicious” behavior - wanding near the eye, dabbing at the wrists - would be radioed back to the flight attendants.
There’s one one drawback to this new fashion police force. The “takes one to know one” policy has, like undercover cops infiltrating the mafia, the inherent danger of seducing the good guys to the dark side. The perks of being a Lancome mule might prove too much.
Perhaps we should take a tip from criminals themselves. After all, when the recently indicted exit the courthouse with their jackets pulled over their heads, who knows if it’s to hide their identities - or just dry skin?
