If You Don't Get Every Detail Of Your TSA Detention Exactly Right, The TSA May Publicly Shame You

from the how-nice-of-them... dept

Tue, Nov 16th 2010 8:26am — Mike Masnick

Following our story on the guy, who was detained by the TSA for refusing to go through a backscatter scan or to have his groin fondled by TSA agents, some folks pointed to a similar experience by Meg McClain, which she detailed on a radio program. You can hear her story here:

In response, the TSA has put out a public blog posting, which more or less calls McClain a liar. They took the somewhat extraordinary step of publishing the surveillance videos of what happened during McClain's detention, suggesting that it proves she lied about the incident. The videos have no sound and for much of it you can't really see what's going on. It does suggest that McClain may have exaggerated some aspects of the detention. Rather than an hour, it looks as if it lasted more like 25 minutes. There may not have been a "dozen" police and TSA agents, but (especially towards the end) there are an awful lot (and some appear to be out of the camera's frame at times). Also, she claims that no one else had to go through the backscatter scans while she was detained -- and suggests she was "singled out" -- but that's not the case. Though, it does appear that no one else is brought over to the roped off area for a full on search while she was held in that area.

The big controversial claims involve whether or not she was handcuffed. While her version of the events stated she was handcuffed to the original chair she was placed in, that is not true. Some viewers of the second video suggest that as she's escorted from the area, it appears her hands are bound together in some way. Honestly, it's a little tough to tell one way or the other from the video. Her hands are definitely held together during the time she's escorted away. Why that's the case is not clear. You can see both videos below, though, they're relatively long and not much happens:

What I find a lot more troubling about the entire thing, however, is this idea that if you speak out against the way you were treated the government might come out and try to publicly shame you by claiming you were lying. These types of incidents can be quite nerve-wracking, and it's unlikely that anyone going through them will get every single detail correct, even if the larger description of what happened is accurate. The same thing was true of the other story in San Diego, where the guy even admitted he was so shaken he didn't remember the exact order that things happened.

For the government's response to be to attack someone's credibility based on getting some small things wrong, rather than acknowledging the larger concerns raised by these types of searches and detentions, is really quite troubling.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: backscatter scans, meg mcclain, privacy, tsa
Companies: tsa

66 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rose M. Welch (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 7:44am

Security Theater...
On a different blog, she stated that the TSA's video isn't complete. She says: "The camera angles in such a way that it doesn't show a lot of what happened... There is a section where I was pulled to a second chair that is not included in there. There are a lot more agents and officers just off camera. There's one angle where it only shows one of the two chairs in the section. It cuts to me walking away, but where they show me walking to in the second video is not where I walked to after that first video. It happened further on.".

So in addition to suggesting that she's lying, they're possibly editing the video to make it look worse for her than it actually is.

In addition, I find it incredibly troubling that they ripped up her ticket. Theoretically, she'd need that for a refund. (Don't say 'nonrefundable' because the other passenger references had his 'nonrefundable' ticket refunded after his similar experience.)

Regardless of whether or not this girl wanted her 15 minutes of crazy fame, the fact remains that there would be nothing for her to go crazy about if:

a. the TSA officers were professional.
b. TSA policies didn't call for molestation or involuntary porn shots.
c. the TSA clearly videotaped all interactions.

All of these things are incredibly suspect on the part of our favorite security theater employees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike C. (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 8:11am

Accusing the victim...
With so many complaints of people feeling "violated", is it any wonder that my first thoughts on seeing the TSA response is that they are acting like a rapist accusing their victim? I understand it's a harsh analogy, but I almost believe it's come to a point where we need to make the harsh analogies to get people to realize how far some of our rights have been eroded.

More and more I find myself unwilling to fly unless completely unavoidable. I'd rather drive 1500 miles one way with my family of four than have to deal with the idiotic "security theater" that is the TSA these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 8:32am

Just wondering..
if the TSA is really just trying to stop people from flying at all? How many terrorists has the TSA actually caught? Sure they've caught grandmothers with tiny scissors they use for embroidery,but how many people have they really caught with guns or bombs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 8:43am

Re: Just wondering..
I flew once since the TSA was created and that was enough for me. I either no longer travel, or we drive.

TSA is simply not an option. Nothing could possibly compel me me support that organization with my hard earned dollars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldai, 16 Nov 2010 @ 8:45am

never heard
I never heard about successful cough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 8:58am

Re: Just wondering..
None. The answer is "none." They have never caught anyone and they never will. The only terror plots that were ever foiled, were done in by police work and intelligence gathering. If we took one tenth of the money we spend on dick-measuring machines and having mouth-breathers groping children, and spent it on actual intelligence, I think we would find a multitude of terror attacks being planned right now. Attacks that we don't know about, that may cause deaths, and won't be stopped by making Aunt Edna take off her corrective shoes and submit to invasive groping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
halley (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 8:58am

primae noctis
Overheard this: "If the government keeps groping our wives and daughters, somebody is going to go Braveheart on them." Oppressive governments create terrorists, we've been doing it for decades abroad but only in limited numbers domestically.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MuddyBulldog, 16 Nov 2010 @ 8:58am

You got it wrong
Wait, Meg McClain tries to shame the TSA and that's okay but when they provide what they believe is evidence to the contrary that's troubling?

Up until they responded there was only one truth, hers. The TSA believed her account was inflammatory and responded. The TSA's response may be downplaying the event. I don't know and neither do you.

She called the TSA out on HER radio program (not "a radio program"), a public forum. They responded in a public forum. Seems to be in the spirit of the Confrontation Clause, in my opinion.

I find the current TSA requirements ridiculously wasteful and ultimately useless, but I have to stand by their decision on this one.

We all so quickly believe the story that portrays the evil overbearing government or police force or corrupt official. Why is so difficult to consider that sometimes the accuser may not be so pure either?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:01am

So are people who travel a lot (ie: on business) expected to be exposed to harmful radiation several times a month? Seriously, how is that acceptable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:07am

Isn't *one* thug with a gun harassing a citizen for no cause enough?
Why even credit a bit that you don't see a dozen police or TSA? *YOU* are helping shift debate away from whether she did anything even slightly "wrong" or whether the new scanners / opt-out punishment are in any degree justified.

[A standard tactic is to "attack someone's credibility based on getting some small things wrong". -- Yes, just yesterday some Anonymous Coward mentioned only my typo while completely ignoring the larger point -- which is still without answer.]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:09am

Does anyone know if they compel travelers to take off their rad-badge before being scanned?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:11am

Re: Accusing the victim...
After seeing the video of a three-year-old girl sobbing "Stop touching me!" as TSA agent forcibly groped her for 'security purposes' and the mother of a 6-year-old boy yelled at for trying to comfort her son during his groin grope, I think your comparison is much less than harsh.

Aaaand the link is now down due to a copyright violation. Wow.

Anyway, these TSA policies are stupid. Incredibly stupid. If I wanted to take out a bunch of American travelers, you know what I'd do? Detonate the bomb in the screening area, before I ever get molested or irradiated.

I thank God that I have no need to fly in the foreseeable future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fred, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:11am

Re: You got it wrong
This.

Complaining about it being "troubling" without really articulating the issue basically amounts to hand wringing.

If we want video to work in favor (as it did in the San Diego case) of exposing the TSA's ridiculous tactics, then we have to be willing to accept when it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:11am

What I Wonder About . . .
. . . is all the videos they don't release.

If they are all gung-ho to start releasing videos when it suits them, I guess we can assume that any video they don't release is proof that what the harassed citizen is claiming actually happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:12am

Re: Re: Just wondering..
"Nothing could possibly compel me me support that organization with my hard earned dollars."

Taxes?

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:12am

Re: Re: Just wondering..
You forgot the passengers that stopped the underwear and shoe bombers. But your point remains valid TSA is a huge waste of taxpayer money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
m3mnoch (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:12am

you think this is bad
man. you think that's bad? just imagine if you had to put up with israel's security.

*whistles*

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-s ecurity-little-bother

oh.

wait.

nevermind.

"That's the process � six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes."

and no groping needed.

m3mnoch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:14am

Re:
Even pregnant women, despite the complete and total lack of studies with these machines involving pregnancy.

Of course, you can choose to have your breasts and genitals groped instead, which is definitely painful during pregnancy, and probably emotional problematic.

My own TSA grope during pregnancy was horrible, and it was years and years ago. (Being yelled at for having a .75" Swiss Army-type key chain with nail clippers that I had forgotten about was just as bad, honestly.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:16am

Want to avoid both screening measures?
WEAR A BURKA:

http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/11/11/special-treatment-of-the-day-3/

Apparently extreme fundamentalist Muslims--the most likely to plant a bomb on a plane--do not have to be subjected to either security measure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:18am

Re: You got it wrong
She called the TSA out on HER radio program (not "a radio program"), a public forum. They responded in a public forum. Seems to be in the spirit of the Confrontation Clause, in my opinion.

The TSA is a government agency, not some idiot with a microphone. They should have at least consulted their legal or public relations expert (assuming they have one) before impulsively lashing out in self-defense -- which makes them look guilty.

The whole TSA situation really is odd. Government is usually in the business of protecting and capturing markets...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:18am

Re: Re: Just wondering..
not just police work, that guy on xmas was taken down by a passenger- like the shoe bomber (i think)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leviathant (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:20am

Re: Want to avoid both screening measures?
Did you seriously say that people in burkas are the most likely to plant a bomb on a plane? Have you seen pictures of the 9/11 hijackers, or the shoe bomber, or the underwear bomber?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ofb2632 (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:24am

innocent bystanders
Did the Govt. receive permission from all the other people in the airport to publish their images?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:24am

Re: You got it wrong
i bet there were a lot more than 2 cameras pointed in that direction.

where are those video feeds?

this says a lot about the mentality behind the TSA.

however, i would not be surprised to see this as an exaggeration by an attention-whoring woman
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:25am

Re: Re: Want to avoid both screening measures?
They are now... Knowing they can plant a bomb anywhere on their body without risk of being groped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:36am

"Shamed" by the TSA
I'm happy to say that the TSA nor anyone else can "shame" me. Only I can do that by my own behavior. If the TSA publishes video, that doesn't "shame" anyone, and to claim that it does is disingenuous. The video shows what it shows. If I have exaggerated what happened, and the video exposes the exaggeration, it's not the video that has "shamed" me. I have, and I've been caught in my exaggeration.

The TSA sucks enough that we shouldn't be exaggerating in our reports of the bullying and mindless tactics. Just tell the truth and let the TSA shame itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jakerome (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:39am

TSA should release ALL videotape
What disturbs me most is the selective release of video. If TSA can choose to make any video public, then they should be forced to make every video public. Post it all. Hopefully someone is filing FOIA requests for all the TSA harassment incidents. Clearly, the release of the videos don't endanger security, or else they'd have to keep this one secret, too.

The TSA is emblematic of the destruction of American values. The agency should be disbanded and replaced with an organization focused on security instead of security theater. They are making our country less safe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:44am

Re: Re: Accusing the victim...
If I wanted to take out a bunch of American travelers, you know what I'd do? Detonate the bomb in the screening area, before I ever get molested or irradiated.

Bingo. It's not like they pack us in like sardines or anything.

The air of terrorism is to instil fear and negatively affect our way of life. The terrorists have succeeded in these aims. Many people admit to being willing to cede their personal rights and freedoms if it means they can "feel safer."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 9:50am

Re: Re: Re: Just wondering..
Both of those attacks could be considered successful because the attacker got on the plane with an incendiary device and could have done damage. I was mainly referencing other terror plots (not just aircraft bombing) that have been prevented by intelligence gathering and going after actual criminal and terror suspects. No determined terrorist is going to be deterred by pat downs, x-rays, or any other ridiculous measure they come up with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MikeLinPA (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:01am

Re: Accusing the victim...
I agree with you. It is beyond ridiculous. The rules are silly and there is often no consistency from one agent to another. Lets all stop flying and make it a non-issue. When the airlines are starving and the TSA has nothing to do and laid off 80% of these wind up security guards, maybe they can start using a more sensible approach like what is used in civilized countries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen, 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:01am

and here are your naked body scans
totally safe for work, though.

http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:03am

Re: Re: Accusing the victim...
Careful. You have to be explicit that you're actually not planning a terrorist attack and that you're being ironic out of frustration. Otherwise, that comment might get you in trouble. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:03am

This is why I told my company I refuse to fly anywhere! The last trip I made for them, I rented a car and drove. Luckily, they haven't fired me yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:05am

Transparency
If this agency is having someone accuse them of improperly (and horribly) handling this process, it might not be unreasonable for them to attempt a response.

However, it does lend the question of why there needs to be one. Also, some transparency into the process will go a LONG way towards making this all flow better. There needs to be some insight into how you will be screened before you purchase a ticket; then you can agree to it, or against it, before you buy.

Lastly, its also quite clear this agency needs some oversight regarding the whole process (women choosing women for screening, men choosing men), its would seem the breeders working the machines are thinking with their genitals and not with their brains.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MikeLinPA (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:06am

Re: Just wondering..
And they never will. The system isn't designed to catch terrorists, it is designed to inconvenience citizens while looking like they are doing something.

The no-fly list is another part of the farce. Suspected terrorists are not put on the list so as not to tip them off that they are being watched, so that means that everyone on the list is not a suspected terrorist. However, if you openly criticized the government during the Bush-Chaney years, you were put on the list as punishment, er, I mean because you said something suspicious. Yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
etrimby (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:07am

Timestamps
Where are they? Any video surveillance system I've ever used has them somewhere in-frame on every camera. The lack here would seem to indicate that the footage has been altered in some way to remove them. So we really have no idea how long she was in custody or if this footage cover the entire interrogation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:08am

This is what happens when you give a government agency the power to violate the Constitution with virtually no accountability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:09am

Thanks for the reminder - to reserve my rental car for my next trip.

Screw the TSA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:13am

What about the privacy of all the other passengers that showed up on that video? I highly doubt that any of them consented to having their faces and whereabouts broadcasted all over the Internet.

If Google did something like that, the feds would have a field day. The double standards in our society never cease to amaze me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MikeLinPA (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:16am

Re: you think this is bad
Thank you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:16am

Jumping to conclusions
These officers seem to have no interest in dealing with her. I'm not sure how trustworthy Meg McClain is either - she's an activist who is possibly just trying to stir up trouble (and succeeding).

here she is selling off her skin for some cash...
http://freekeene.com/2010/08/24/meg-for-sale/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ac, 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:21am

scanners and pat downs
scanners and pat downs do nothing. a person crazy enough to enact a suicide bombing is easily motivated enough to hide en explosive in one of his/her orifices, which are missed entirely by both types of scanners and surface pat downs. Honestly, using trained dogs or some other means of detecting traces of explosives is vastly more effective. If the dogs alert to something, then by all means pull that person out of line for more detailed inspection.

I feel that by virtue of being a branch of gov't, the TSA is violating the 4th Amendment rights of passengers. One could argue the exemption of borders, but border searches are still subject to 'reasonableness'. I think that dogs alerting, other detection of trace materials, or even failing the metal detector would satisfy the reasonableness check, enabling use of the body scanner and/or enhanced pat down. I feel that random screening is an abuse of power by the TSA, and it sickens me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:22am

Re: You got it wrong
Wait, Meg McClain tries to shame the TSA and that's okay but when they provide what they believe is evidence to the contrary that's troubling?

Meg McClain is one person. The TSA is the government. So, yes, it's quite troubling.

Up until they responded there was only one truth, hers. The TSA believed her account was inflammatory and responded. The TSA's response may be downplaying the event. I don't know and neither do you.

The TSA is free to respond, and to say that she got her version of the events wrong. What's troubling is the way they did it. They didn't even say what they thought she got wrong, they just showed the video and made it sound like she totally made up the experience, when that does not appear to be the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:34am

Re: Re: Re: Accusing the victim...
I hope it does. I'd like to see the outcry when a typical mom-of-three married to a disabled veteran of the USMC, who has neither a passport nor a valid ID with which to enter an airport, is arrested for being logical.

My adorable crying children, the angry veteran husband/dad...

It would be awesome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 10:34am

Re: Security Theater...
The TSA officers aren't really the problem, and I think "touch my junk" guy is aware of this throughout the whole situation. Its the feds who give these people license to do what they do. They are the only people who are granted authority to break the usual penal codes on assault. Its bs and I don't really care if it give people that false sense of security they seems to think they need. I'm with this guy. I've resolved not to fly again until something changes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
torment, 16 Nov 2010 @ 11:17am

Re: you think this is bad
The difficulty with the Israeli approach is that it isn't really scalable. They have FAR fewer airports to protect, and a much lower volume of air traffic. The comments on Schneier's blog (as well as the links in his post) reference the actual scaling difficulties: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/adopting_the_is.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 11:26am

Re: Re: Security Theater...
>> Its the feds who give these people license to do what they do.

The "feds" do not have the authority to grant this license. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by the Federal and State governments.

The Constitution requires that probable cause be presented before a legal search can take place. The purchase of an airline ticket, and / or attempting to board an airplane is NOT probable cause. I find it difficult to understand those who can claim that this is not an unreasonable search.

And even if some people have a fear of terrorists, that also is NOT justification for the government to perform unconstitutional actions.

Since many (most?) of the TSA's airline security policies require that a government agency violate one or more articles or amendments of the Constitution, I claim the the TSA is a criminal organization.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChronoFish (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 11:42am

While I in no way support the use of the backscatter scanners....
I find it funny that you ridicule the TSA for doing the exact same thing that what you praise others for.

The TSA is the defendant here. They have been called out as violating a passenger rights (which they still may have done) and in response they released evidence which they felt would indemnify them.

How is this different than someone posting a legal notice from the RIAA or other tyrannical organization to their website with a list of reasons why the notice was uncalled for?

In fact this method is exactly what you highlighted as being more effective than taking someone to court for over copyright violation. Call the offender out in public, and watch his (her) status go down the tube.

Certainly they don't win any style points, but it seems like an effective way to prevent hyperbole and lawsuits, especially at a time when their public opinion is about to take a huge nosedive now that travelers are realizing that they are submitting themselves to a strip search, in violation of our Constitution, just for the convenience of air travel...

-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChronoFish (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Accusing the victim...
Don't know where those took place.

I just took my boy from Providence to Orlando (and back) and in both Airports travlers with children did not have to go through the scanners. In fact we went through an express lane with the standard older technology. An no pat downs.

Not saying it didn't happen. I am saying it didn't happen to me on a recent trip.

-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 12:29pm

The video doesn't show what happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 12:32pm

Re:
It's called a thermolucent dosimeter and you can buy them online for about $35.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 12:44pm

Re: Just wondering..
Have they caught any? You hear about people like the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, but these are all people who got through the security onto flights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 12:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Accusing the victim...
by this definition, the TSA is a terrorist organization.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Accusing the victim...
Yes. Exactly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike C. (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 1:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Accusing the victim...
The one Rose and I has been taken down by the Tribune over a DMCA/copyright complaint. I did, however, find another pat down of a toddler posted just a few days ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN6pJ7nP1yA

Five minutes sleuthing is all it takes to find videos like this now. We teach our children that they shouldn't be touched "that way" by anyone except a doctor or their parents and only with permission. Do we now have to add "police" to that list? What's next... "People in suits that say they're federal agents"? Where do we finally draw the line and say "find a better way"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan Diederich, 16 Nov 2010 @ 1:57pm

After this...
My views on the new technology has changed.

Metal detectors stop everything metal.

The glass room that blows particles off of you and then checks for explosive ones prevents most people carrying explosives

What do they need a backscatter X-Ray machine for? I dont remember what the reasoning is, if there was one.

Why not just continue checking people the way they are?

Nonetheless, I have accidentally taken a spray bottle of lense cleaner on a plane...3 times. Obviously their systems arent the best.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 2:27pm

Well...
It does seem strange the TSA had only had 2 camera angles to provide, but according to TSA "Blogger Bob" thats all the video they had. I say strange because in this accusation of a prior incident that spanned approximately 9 minutes, there were at least nine camera angles (even timecoded) to prove TSAs innocence. Sure it may have been a different airport, but the next time you fly look around (not too much, TSA might think you're casing the place) and tell me you don't see them everywhere (except for the hidden ones, of course).

I find it difficult to believe the airport she was in did not have cameras covering more angles of her than what they show, but I never doubt incompetence when it comes to any government and their fix-all programs. I would still bet there is more unreleased footage in the Meg McClain case, but irregardless of any lack of audio it might be too easy for a lip reader to pick up on exactly what was said. Who knows what might be gleaned from that? (Hint: the TSA knows).

The below image is in jest, but it's how many people feel they've been treated by the TSA.

TSA Instructions for Screening: Infant Travelers

It might be humorous now, but one day... if were not vigilant enough to take a stand at some point, it may not seem so ridiculous anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fred, 16 Nov 2010 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re: You got it wrong
Meg McClain is one person. The TSA is the government. So, yes, it's quite troubling.

Wait, I don't get this, what difference does it make whether they're one person, a corporation, or the government? In terms of setting the record straight, wouldn't the truth be the truth? What does it matter who the speaker is?

The TSA is free to respond, and to say that she got her version of the events wrong. What's troubling is the way they did it. They didn't even say what they thought she got wrong, they just showed the video and made it sound like she totally made up the experience, when that does not appear to be the case.

What was so bad about the way they did it? The harshest accusation they make is that her account was inaccurate, which you yourself acknowledge is the case.

How did they make it "sound like she made up the experience"? They posted the video of *the* experience, and asked the audience to decide for themselves:
You can listen to her radio interview, and then you can view our airport CCTV footage. We�ll let you decide what really happened.
I'm all for keeping the TSA in check on these kind of shenanigans, but there's a real risk in exaggerating and lending credence to exaggerations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Accusing the victim...
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

You need to see which side the TSA is on and who they are working for.

As a Canadian, I know they aren't on my side...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 2:57pm

Re: Re: Re: You got it wrong
How come, with all this security, so much can happen off camera?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 5:27pm

Re: Re: Accusing the victim...
Lets all stop flying and make it a non-issue.

If I didn't have to fly for work, I'd be right there with you. Unfortunately, my paycheck is dependent on my occasional travel to exotic locales, and thus, if I wish to continue eating, I have to fly. Or find another job, or take up permanent residence on a street corner...

However, this incident broke just before a recent trip to Nevada I had to take for business, and when they pushed all of us through the porno-machine, I thought the same thing (to opt-out,) but then decided against it because of the problems she was having. I just hope that the person examining my nekked body got an eye-full. If I had been on personal travel, I'd probably would have drove or at least protested, but if I missed my flight, my boss wouldn't have been so happy if I missed the flight. (Ok, maybe I am just a conformist/closet rebel.) I noticed two people who went through after me had both opt'd out, and they yelled "opt-out" and made it absolutely painful and miserable for both of these people too. Neither got out of the checkpoint earlier than 15 minutes later (and one of them had to wait in line for the other to finish getting violated.) Luckily, the airport in Nevada didn't have these new fangled machines, so I didn't get radiated on the way back.

TSA is a joke, plain and simple. But it is a joke that will never seem to go away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xenomancer (profile), 16 Nov 2010 @ 7:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: You got it wrong
The same reason the TSA has caught so MANY terrorists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 7:27pm

Re: Isn't *one* thug with a gun harassing a citizen for no cause enough?
er that was me. Sorry I was pointing the quote back at you and didn't actually notice the typo until after I posted - my bad for being unclear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Long (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:04pm

We're doing it wrong. Here's a great article on how Israel handles security at their airports. Note the emphasis on training PEOPLE as opposed to buying and trusting multi-million dollar machines to do the job.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-both er
[ link to this | view in thread ]
janey, 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:43pm

Meg Mclain is also a well known 'activist' from some fringe group in NH.. freekeene.com or something. Google for the domain. They stage stunts in order to drum up attention.

They're grade A attention whores... plain and simple. She played up the entire incident for attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
want to piss off the TSA?, 16 Feb 2012 @ 2:59pm

when there searching you say the bombs a little to the left.
[ link to this | view in thread ]