TSA Does Full Grope Search On Screaming Three Year Old [Update]

from the i-feel-much-more-secure-now dept

Wed, Nov 17th 2010 2:27pm — Mike Masnick

There certainly are a lot of TSA search stories these days but it's an important topic, so we'll keep covering it as long as there are interesting stories. The latest, found via Slashdot, is of a three year old girl who got a full pat down while screaming at the TSA agents not to touch her. Update: Pointed out in the comments is that this actually happened "pre-enhanced pat down." This original story was from 2009, but the press seems to have picked up on it again... Apparently, she was initially upset at having to send her teddy bear through the machine and she then refused to go through the scanning device herself. Her actions somehow set off the scanner's alarm, leading to a TSA agent trying to do a forced pat down. The girl's father is a reporter and caught 17-seconds of the pat down on his mobile phone.

Oddly, it appears that the Tribune Company is pulling down this video every time it appears on YouTube. It's not clear why the Tribune Company won't allow it to stay up but others keep re-uploading it. This version is working as I type this, but it might not be for long.

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: privacy, safety, security
Companies: tsa

79 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike C. (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 1:59pm

Pre enhanced pat down
While still a horrible handling of the situation, this incident took place in 2008 - well before the new "enhanced pat down" (a.k.a. Freedom Fondle) rules were put into place.

The first video I saw of this was posted by an account called "TheIntelligencer" and was originally uploaded January 22, 2009. I had to go to the Google Cache to find it:

TSA Screener Accosts 3 Year Old Child at Security Checkpoint

Since the reporter mentioned the trip was "a month ago", even if the video was posted the same night it aired, that seems to imply a Christmas 2008 trip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: Pre enhanced pat down
  It really doesn't matter either way. That child, and every other child who was touched all over their body, was violated. If a schoolteacher did that, they'd be arrested. If TSA does it, it's fine?
  
  Keep in mind that the TSA has never caught a single terrorist, and let several, including the underwear bomber, pass on by. The questions is: Does touching children make us safer? The answer is NO, not under any circumstance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bob Webster (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Pre enhanced pat down
    The TSA has never caught a single terrorist, but hundreds of TSA agents have been fired for theft. http://xpda.com/junkmail/?issue=205#I-Feel-Safe-
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike C. (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Pre enhanced pat down
    I'm not trying to imply it was in any way proper. I just want to make sure people understand that not every incident they hear about is a result of the latest policy changes. I believe in fairness and while it's been fun the last couple of days to slam the TSA for their new "enhanced pat down" process, this wasn't directly due to that.
    
    Clarification was the goal and nothing else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 4:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Pre enhanced pat down
      Neither was this:
      ""One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that 'he would just have to watch the video,'" the suit said."
      http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2010-10-11/lawsuit-airport-search-indecent
      
      Clarificat ion:
      It was already bad a few years ago, now they have more excuses.
      
      Whatever happened to radar devices detecting planes where there shouldn't be any planes?
      
      Are we really going to have another attack happen when the whole US Air Force is in "simulation" mode?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mark, 17 Nov 2010 @ 6:14pm
    
    Re: Pre enhanced pat down
    TSA never saw the underwear bomber. He boarded in Amsterdam.
    
    I don't like the dick-measuring device or the intimidation groping any more than you, but we don't get to make up facts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:38am
      
      Re: Re: Pre enhanced pat down
      TSA never saw the underwear bomber. He boarded in Amsterdam.
      
      So the original two points stand.
      
      1. The TSA has NEVER caught a terrorist.
      2. They TSA did not stop the underwear bomber.
      
      No facts were made up and the only fact remains simple - TSA = useless, molesting, child abusers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 18 Nov 2010 @ 5:30am
      
      Re: Re: Pre enhanced pat down
      IIRC, the TSA admitted the porno machine would not have caught the butt bomber.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob smith, 19 Nov 2010 @ 1:28am
      
      Re: Re: Pre enhanced pat down
      You are a liar and a TSA worker
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:32pm
  
  Re: Pre enhanced pat down
  Oh, in addition, this is one of tons of videos on YouTube with the same scenario. An adult touching a child, all over their body, without consent, understanding, or purpose.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re: Pre enhanced pat down
  An important point; this was before the new groping pat-down. Perhaps worth an Update to the post?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re: Pre enhanced pat down
  Aha... updated. Odd that SF Chronicle would have it as new...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re: Pre enhanced pat down
  FREEDOM FONDLE!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Long (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:42pm

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 chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re:
  I've read about them. Apparently, their goal is to get people through the airport, from airport entrance to plane entrance, in 25 minutes.
  
  Wouldn't that me amazing? Safety and efficiency, while we have neither.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - gindil (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem is that if they can be REALLY selective about the people that get through in 25 minutes...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      pretty sure that's a large part of the point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 6:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, well. The US has more people fly in a day than Israel has fly in a week.
    
    Remove the volume and sure, we could maybe be efficient too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 7:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why do they have multiple machines per airport?
      
      Are you saying you can't have more people in the same way they have more machines?
      
      Sounds to me like you have found your solution to the high unemployment rate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 8:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The US also has more airports. It sorta balances out, you know.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 9:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Remove the volume and sure, we could maybe be efficient too.
      
      Or maybe just add capacity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael Long (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 3:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They have about as much traffic going through a single, major airport as we do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Blamer .. (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:26pm
  
  Re:
  No no no, it's PEOPLE that are the PROBLEM. Why not use multi-million dollar machines to replace the passangers? Robots can much more safely attend to our business trips, holiday snaps, weddings and funerals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:45pm

Seems the TSA are the instillers of terror this time..
It is sick I have to agree, and there are other non intrusive and safe methods for testing for drugs or explosives.

You do not have to do that to children, even if it is well know that some parents will use their kids for that reason.

All the same, you should subject kids, or anyone to X-Rays, that is the bigger risk, that is the risk of CANCER..

sure if you have never had cancer you might not think about it much, but if you have, and if you have lost friends from cancer, and you know X-Rays will give you cancer.

I cannot see that scanning millions of people like that will not result in a massive increase in the cancer rate.

patdowns are bad, but cancer is much worse..

But you can build a "magic wand" that they could pass over children that does gas sampling for drugs and explosives, or let that nice doggie visit them..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re: Seems the TSA are the instillers of terror this time..
  My 3-year-old kid is terrified of dogs. Screaming will continue. My older boy is on the no-fly list (found out back when he was two). Must have the same name as somebody else. Secondary screening every time now. Is it a good idea to force small children, who are already in a strange place crowded with strange people, to separate from their parent? It is hard enough to do that at home.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re: Seems the TSA are the instillers of terror this time..
  "...it is well know that some parents will use their kids for that (drug smuggling) reason."
  
  Since the TSA has instituted these security procedures in 2001 not one search has yielded anything. Drugs, bombs, guns, anything. And I'm not exactly sure how well-known it is. I don't recall hearing of drug smuggling using children very much lately, even at all.
  
  There have been a handful of incidents that have still occurred (drunks getting out of control and one or two would-be terrorists) and all were handled by passengers and air marshals after the plane was in the air.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eugene (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 4:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Seems the TSA are the instillers of terror this time..
    I don't recall hearing of drug smuggling using children very much lately, even at all.
    
    But it totally happened in the famous Schwarzenegger movie "Collateral Damage"!! They hid the bomb in the teddy bear!!! That means they do that!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymoose (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 2:59pm

I have a solution. Crowdsourced security.
Step 1: Send back the RapeScan machines, go back to basic metal detectors to catch the obvious stuff.

Step 2: Understand that there is an imbalance of power created when one person has a weapon others do not (standard for all violent crimes that include a weapon)

Step 3: Understand that the only thing that has foiled terrorist attacks on transport is passengers. Who fight back in spite of any individual imbalance of power (using numbers to overcome the would-be terrorist).

Step 4: Knowing all of that, reverse the balance of power to amplify the effect of the ONE thing that has worked -- mandate that all passengers MUST carry Tasers in flight. No exceptions. They can incapacitate without punching a hole in the aircraft, and so what if the terrorist has a taser; he's surrounded by 100 people who are similarly armed. Problem solved. No one can take control of the aircraft.

(caveat: explosives triggered by high voltage might suggest a non-taser solution, but that's one specific movie-plot threat. The principal applies regardless of weapon mandated)

It will never happen, but would be a more cost effective, elegant and useful solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:14am
  
  Re: I have a solution. Crowdsourced security.
  Having everyone carry tazers isn't necessary. Just arm the pilots, reinforce the doors (those two things have already been done) and move on!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RobShaver (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:06pm

Forth Amendment
I still don't understand why the forth amendment does not apply here. They pick people at random with no probable cause and they have no warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:33pm
  
  Re: Forth Amendment
  It hasn't made it to the Supreme Court yet?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 4:33pm
  
  Re: Forth Amendment
  I still don't understand why the forth amendment does not apply here.
  
  The US Supreme Court has already found that the fourth amendment doesn't apply even in the US within 100 miles of the border. I'm sure they'll have no problem saying it doesn't apply at airports either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Carmichael (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:27pm

Urethra search
Shoes, water bottle, nail clippers... I can't wait until some guy tries tries to smuggle something in his urethra just to see how they'll handle this one at the security gate. Or how about "I'm feeling lucky" flights where there's no security control at all? Hell I don't mind taking the chance, what's the probability of having a plane hijacked? About the same as the plane crashing from a mechanical error?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:53pm
  
  Re: Urethra search
  "Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University in Tempe, did his own calculations and found the exposure to be about one-fiftieth to one-hundredth the amount of a standard chest X-ray. He calculated the risk of getting cancer from a single scan at about 1 in 30 million, "which puts it somewhat less than being killed by being struck by lightning in any one year," he told me.
  
  While the risk of getting a fatal cancer from the screening is minuscule, it's about equal to the probability that an airplane will get blown up by a terrorist, he added. "So my view is there is not a case to be made for deploying them to prevent such a low probability event.""
  http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/16/5477568-are-airport-x-ray-scanners-harmful
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - James Carmichael (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:58pm
    
    Re: Re: Urethra search
    Good remark. If only understanding statistics was within the reach of the common man...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - out_of_the_blue, 17 Nov 2010 @ 4:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Urethra search: TAKE YOUR OWN LINK!
    Because it REFUTES the msnbc pablum.
    Right at the "Peter Rez":
    http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html
    
    "The manufacturers claim that the dose from one of these screenings is less than 0.25 mSv. Examination of the images that they publish and some simple Physics based on well known scattering cross sections shows that it is VERY unlikely that the dose is this low."
    
    And at bottom in LARGE:
    "Scary thing, what happens if scan jams and fail-safe mechanism fails -- local dose very high of order a few Sv."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - out_of_the_blue, 17 Nov 2010 @ 5:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Urethra search: READ THE PDF!
      The msnbc piece spins Rez as saying risk is vanishingly low when he doesn't, he's trying to find out what it is.
      
      From NY Times: "That�s one reason Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University, has been pushing for more data to be shared so that academics can do their own analysis."
      
      And read the Rez et al PDF from bottom of Rez page:
      "Our findings indicate effective dosages may be as high as 0.8-0.9 uSv for the personnel screening systems. This is about 4 times higher than the maximum value determined by the vendors as indicated by their claims that doses are in compliance with ANSI 2002 standard..."
      
      Now. The "1 in 20 million fatal doses" figure is PER mieroSv. So that's roughly the risk PER scan. But radiation is a cumulative risk. Ten a year may be 9uSv so 1 in 20M is divided by 9, to 1 in 2.2M of fatal cancer. -- Still low, only wimps would complain, huh? But Rez can only INFER from the supposed ANSI compliance limit; there is NO real data provided by TSA, it's just "trust us".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btrussell (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Urethra search: READ THE PDF!
        Maybe we read different links.
        
        I came away with Rez saying there is no need for the machines since the probability of a plane being blown up is so minuscule...
        
        ...you are far more likely to get hit and be killed by lightning in any one year period.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 17 Nov 2010 @ 4:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Urethra search
    Frequent travelers will be comforted to know that they would be just fine if they did not have to travel so much.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 8:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Urethra search
    "Do I have to submit to this X-Ray? It could give me cancer and stuff!"
    
    "No way, sir, the chances of getting cancer from this little machine are 30 MILLION TO ONE! It's practically impossible!"
    
    "Ok, thanks, I feel much safer now."
    
    "In fact, in all the time we've used them, not a single case of cancer has been reported. Not a single case in 29,999,999 times we've tried it before you, sir!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 9:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Urethra search
      "No way, sir, the chances of getting cancer from this little machine are 30 MILLION TO ONE! It's practically impossible!"
      
      That means that at least one of my sperm per scan is probably getting it's DNA damaged. I hope that's not the one that starts my next kid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 6:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Urethra search
      I get your point, but do be careful with these kinds of statistics. It does not take 30mil scans to produce one problem. Each person scanned is just as likely (statistically speaking) to have a problem as the last guy or the next guy.
      
      And THAT'S assuming all body conditions are the same... and they're not.
      
      It's amazing really... we can't use cell phones on a flight because it MIGHT interfere at a critical moment. A HIGHLY unlikely situation, but one that we protect against because of how bad it would be if that ONE time happened. So why don't we have the same preventative attitude with problems this thing might cause? I guess one human's health is not as important. -shrug- glad they cleared THAT up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Groove Tiger (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 7:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Urethra search
        Duh, of course I don't think that exactly person 30 million will get cancer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:37pm

This has the proportion of being a police state.

It seems to me the real, unannounced objective is to reduce air traffic by making it as onerous as possible. Making air travel into an experience you don't do unless you have no other choice.

So far that hasn't spread to train and vehicle traffic. A train is a nice way to travel and not near as expensive as flying.

It seems the Homeland Security only recognizes air travel as the means for terrorists to get the country or into the country. That is a fallacy on the face of it.

Our borders are as porous as a sponge. You have only to look as far as drug smuggling to figure that out.

This is stage show for the passengers, nothing more. When was the first time the TSA actually caught a terrorist? They are trying to take credit for the underwear bomber; one who already went through their security measures, was already on the plane, and already in the air. It was the passengers, not the TSA that prevented the mishap.

So how long before we hear, "papers please" and every block?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 6:32am
  
  Re:
  "papers please"?
  
  you think they'll actually say 'please'? Heh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:49pm

heh
"Oddly, it appears that the Tribune Company is pulling down this video every time it appears on YouTube"

Yea I noticed that too. I was gonna ask ya about it, but then got sidetracked by puppies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McCrea, 17 Nov 2010 @ 3:57pm

Parents' consent for their children / acclimatization
When I had heard about this before viewing, I had considered the "no means no" defense for the child.

But in this video, it "clearly" appears the mother effectively gave consent for the child to be searched, and the father, although objecting to something (his daughter throwing a tantrum?) after the fact, by no means suggests that he did not consent.

I had envisioned the parents being separated from the child (if only by 3 or 5 feet) during the pat down ... certainly not the mother holding the child.

I believe I had cried a time or two when I was dropped off at school, because I didn't want to go to school. And maybe the kindergarten teach took my hand to lead me inside. And maybe I scream "quit touching me". That wouldn't be the faculty's fault --understanding that they had my parents consent -- that would be a child over-reacting as usually because I wasn't acclimatized. Or more simply, I probably cried the many first times I had to get a shot at the doctor's.

Maybe the parents could have trained the child to be scanned. Play peek-a-boo with Mr. Bear more often. "There he goes! Here he comes!" "Hee hee, haa haa," not "boo hoo hoo." Maybe such training should become part of early schooling.

Since the mother and not the agents are restraining the child, I don't see anything other than sensationalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Your Benefactors, 17 Nov 2010 @ 4:53pm
  
  Re: Parents' consent for their children / acclimatization
  "sensationalism."
  
  That's right. Everyone just calm down.
  Hey you - pick up that can!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gordon, 18 Nov 2010 @ 10:13am
    
    Re: Re: Parents' consent for their children / acclimatization
    /throws can in My Benefactor's face
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 4:55pm
  
  Re: Parents' consent for their children / acclimatization
  If you think it is okay to put your hand between my little girls legs, just because I am holding her, I foresee a very long hospital stay for you, with a possibility of never eating solid food again.
  
  Same goes for touching my better half.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:35am
  
  Re: Parents' consent for their children / acclimatization
  Yes, let's instill the image that the TSA are god almighty at a very young age, and that we ALWAYS have to submit to authority figures, they are never wrong.
  
  Don't question the law, move along citizen. Nothing to see here.
  
  If this groping had been done by anyone other than a TSA agent, it would've been assault, why not now?
  
  No means no. Period.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 6:22am
  
  Re: Parents' consent for their children / acclimatization
  Actually, this is the only video I've seen where the parent was allowed to hold in the child. In every other video, they are separated, and I've seen TSA agents yell at parents for trying to comfort their kids.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 5:00pm

Just refuse to fly. I have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 5:02pm

I don't recall hearing of drug smuggling using children very much lately, even at all.

It's less abusive than the TSA, obviously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eugene (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 5:19pm

Oddly, it appears that the Tribune Company is pulling down this video every time it appears on YouTube.

The irony here is that this would have been reported and forgotten about long before the current pat-down issues if it had been allowed to stay up. But because they insisted on taking it down every time, they inadvertently made the video look current, provide fuel for an already bad PR nightmare.

In the immortal words of Nelson: HA ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RikuoAmero (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 5:38pm

Can some explain to me
Can someone explain to what the copyright claim is that keeps taking down that video? Is Tribune the owner of that news program or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Higher750, 17 Nov 2010 @ 5:41pm

Why does age matter?
Why is the age important? I think these new security procedures are ridiculous, but I also wonder why children under the age of 12 are exempt.

If this security is really necessary, age shouldn't matter at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tom Landry (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 9:22pm
  
  Re: Why does age matter?
  agreed.
  
  it's easy to Monday morning quarterback over how TSA and homeland security is supposed to address the issue but the fact is that theres no easy answers.
  
  The minute you start putting "exceptions" in regards to who gets the full treatment and who doesn't then that weakness could possibly be exploited.
  
  I know its fun to mock what we all perceive as overzealous TSA people but they are acting on orders from higher-ups. There's also the fact that if someone WERE to smuggle some kind of device via one of these "exceptions" (and you KNOW extremists will justify any sick method as long as they are doing Allah's bidding) and it went off the same people mocking would have plenty to say about how incompetent the system and employees are.
  
  You can't have it both ways. Either everyone is screened or none of us are and we take our chances.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:32am
    
    Re: Re: Why does age matter?
    Point me to any case where the TSA has stopped any kind of terrorism, that might justify these kinds of invasive searches.
    
    Shoring up your constitutional freedoms for a false sense of security is just stupid.
    
    [sarcasm]Also nice, putting the blame on Muslims, by invoking Allah. Well done.[/sarcasm]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Howard, Cowering, 18 Nov 2010 @ 4:13am
    
    @ #50. Re: Re: Why does age matter?
    "...the fact is that theres [sic] no easy answers." -- Untrue. Stop using the backscatter machines, start profiling, and use the intrusive pat-down if the metal detector goes off or the profile hits. Easy, and no less effective.
    
    "...are acting on orders from higher-ups." -- 2LT Calley's lawyers want to know where you were when they needed you.
    
    "You can't have it both ways. Either everyone is screened or none of us are and we take our chances." -- Um, yeah. Go check out logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy)*, and see how many you managed to cram into those two sentences. Not everyone is screened now. We still take our chances, and I would prefer to take them without having to physically or virtually undress in front of a low-wage, minimally-trained object of nearly universal derision.
    
    * Sorry, this system strips out hyperlinks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eugene (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 1:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Why does age matter?
    Reactive measures will ALWAYS be incompetent measures. We don't need there to be an actual attack to call them out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay Parkhill, 17 Nov 2010 @ 5:51pm

children's patdowns
Been there, done that in December 2001. My three year old slunk through the metal detector and touched the sides, which set it off.

Airport security (pre-TSA) pulled him aside, wouldn't let us get near him and did a full-body inspection while he cried and screamed.

It was over in 90 seconds and there was no lasting harm for sure- but still it was no fun and certainly didn't leave anyone feeling any safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 6:54pm

well atleast theres some comedy to come out of tsa security theater http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEeRD26hDDw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re:
  That is funny. You need to be 18 to see what they do to you, but can be done to you regardless of age.
  
  I watched that earlier and I don't recall anything NSFW. It is a cartoon. Then again, I wasn't thinking about kids at the time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 6:54pm

Think the TSA is bad now...wait until they unionize. You haven't seen anything yet. They already admit the scanners wouldnt have stopped the underwear bomber and groping wouldnt have worked either so now what...the sexual assaults and radiation will continue until you feel safe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 7:03pm

Security Theater
Who manufactures the back-scatter X-Ray machines and how much have they given in political donations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 17 Nov 2010 @ 7:10pm
  
  Re: Security Theater
  One of these stories/videos tell of an agent for the gov. ordering billions of dollars of equipment, then shortly thereafter, resigned from politics to become CEO of a company. The company being the one whose machines he ordered.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 8:32pm

Can companies administer gropes? Check the Political Contributors.
List of Manufacturers:
American Science and Engineering (device name: Smartcheck)
Rapiscan Systems (a subsidiary of OSI Systems Inc.)[5] (device name: Secure 1000)
Tek84 (formerly Spectrum San Diego Inc.) (device name: AIT84 Body Scanner & Castscope)

Elected officials gettin' some love:
* Bennie G Thompson (D) of MS. (Chairman of Homeland Security)
* Hal Rogers (R, KY- Homeland Security), Ranking Member over Homeland Security says "MAKE IT RAIN" SAIC money!
* John Carter (R, TX- Homeland Security) loves SAIC honey.
* John Culberson (R, TX- Homeland Security)in Homeland Security likes sprinkles on his SAIC money.
* Ken Calvert (R, CA- Homeland Security)loves SAIC a lot!
* Jerry Lewis (R, CA- Homeland Security) wants SAIC Sugar.
* Bennie G Thompson (D- from American Science and Engineering.
* Rep Daniel Inouye, Chairman of Appropriations received a contribution from AS&E.
* Frank R. Wolf, Thad Cochran, also on the Appropriations committees, loves the on-time SAIC checks.
* Steve Rothman on Homeland Security says "SAIC Money, Why yes!"

There's more if you want to look into it more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 9:28pm

Re: Can companies administer gropes? Check the Political Contributors.
Just so it's clear, SAIC acquired Spectrum San Diego in January.

Here's the Press Release:
http://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/news.php?NewsID=18530

Also, the list provided is only from the 2010 election cycle and is only members of the House of Representatives.

The whole thing seems to be in response to the outcome of the 2008 election cycle. It's as if these companies had a solution to a non-existent problem. (SAIC in particular. They seems to have a lot of stuff conveniently happen around the Anthrax scare, and other things. They contributed quite a bit through their company and indirectly via PACs)

I find it humorous that SAIC is in San Diego, the same city John Tyner, the "Don't touch my Junk" guy is from.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00300418&cycle=2010

In the Senate,
SAIC made contributions to Bill Nelson, Chairman, Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Jeff Bingaman, Roger Wicker, Scott Brown, Richard Burr, North Carolina, and John McCain. These people are on the Armed Services "Emerging Threats" committee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:06am

In the spirit of Christmas this comment is issued:

The TSA is just like Santa, it just keeps giving :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:27am

Journalistic integrity of Mainstream Media?
If a story shows up in mainstream media, that Penn Jillette called the cops on the TSA, I will call bullshit on ANY journalistic integrity they might have had left.
Just so you know, Penn Jillette had an encounter with the TSA a few years ago, where he did indeed call the cops on a TSA agent, because he felt it was assault:

http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/penniphile/roadpennfederalvip.html

(note the date of the post: 11/13/02)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Hobbs (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 3:55am

Perhaps I just don't get it, but...
It seems to me that there is a serious problem with the way that transport security is being handled. I don't quite understand why the TSA places so much emphasis on airport security when there are so many other (better) options for a terrorist to target. How many people on the average domestic flight? 150? 200? How many people on an average commuter train at say 7:30 AM? 2000?

If I was a terrorist (and I'm not), and I wanted to cause as much carnage as possible, I would probably opt for a crowded passenger train in a tunnel (anyone remember London a couple of years ago?). In my experience (and I've travelled on trains in lots of big cities around the world), the security associated with boarding a train (especially a regular commuter train at peak hour in a big city) is negligible. Why ignore trains, which carry a lot more people than planes? I understand that there is a certain amount of fear and symbolism associated with plane hijackings - confined space, 30,000 feet in the air with nowhere to go, memorable images of gun wielding terrorists telling everyone to remain seated, etc, etc. And of course, we can't forget 9/11. But in a post-9/11 world, if your goal is maximum carnage and not a Hollywood action movie, wouldn't you target something with little to no security? It just seems weird.

Can you imagine if they tried to implement pat-downs for all passengers at Grand Central Station before they got on a train? It would be pandemonium. And yet, no-one even thinks twice if someone gets on a train with a backpack. Or even a suit case. Heck - I've done it heaps of times. There are no baggage checks, no scanners, no-one checking ID, nothing. But to get on a plane, you have to jump through all these hoops and be subjected to all kinds of inconvenience (and now humiliation). It seems that the effort being invested in airport security is completely disproportionate to the risk, when compared to the complete lack of effort being invested in securing other forms of transport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eugene (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re: Perhaps I just don't get it, but...
  Hell, why move your scenario to a different form of transport? Someone in a previous TSA article mentioned detonating at bomb in the security line of the airport. It would be perfect - all this retarded scanning holding things up, a busy day, crowded lines, nobody expecting a thing because who in their right mind would expect it while surrounded by security...
  
  So yeah. This whole effort is pointless and stupid. If anything, the TSA is putting us all in *greater* risk.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 6:50am

Thankfully there is nowhere I have to travel to that bad. So I am a lucky one. No flying for me. No traveling. I can't afford it anyway.
This proves to me that the terrorists are winning. We are acting in total fear. Of course if you are in the EU they can do whatever they want. As far as I can tell you have no rights in the EU or the UK. The officials there can do you any way they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim K (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 7:50am

Just say no!
I would never allow my child to go through that. The parent seemed to consent to it which boggles my mind. We teach our kids not to talk to strangers, and to never let a stranger touch them....but then to let a random TSA agent do a patdown? No sir. As for the backscatter machines, neither me nor my children will be going through any of them. Not sure what will happen if I ever go through an airport with them and get selected for "screening" because I'm not going to let the TSA scan or pat down my kids... or myself for that matter.

And with regards to the radiation "dose" being less than a chest Xray or high altitude flight, that's a matter of the TSA spinning the data. The "total dosage" is measured in the amount of radiation when spread evenly throughout the entire body. However, many experts point out that the backscatter machines only penetrate the skin. Therefore the actual "dosage" of radiation while being less than an Xray is actually concentrated on the skin and is thus actually a much higher dose.

To simplify I am making up numbers and measures.... if you get zapped with 300 gigawatts of radiation during a flight and weigh 150 lbs, your dose is 2 gigawatts per lb. If you are zapped with 150 gigawatts of radiation from a scanner that only penetrates 30 lbs of skin, the quantity of the dose may be half, but your skin is actually getting 5 gigawatts per lbs which is more than twice as much. Follow?

In other TSA spin, they love to quote that Johns Hopkins studied it and said its safe, but if you read the statement from one of the scientists at Johns Hopkins he very clearly states that they only measured the radiation produced by the machine and reported it to the TSA, they did not study its impact on people or state that it was safe/healthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2010 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: Just say no!
  Not sure what will happen if I ever go through an airport with them and get selected for "screening" because I'm not going to let the TSA scan or pat down my kids... or myself for that matter.
  
  You must be a terrorist. Terrorists like you should be caught and sent to offshore prisons for the rest of their lives without trial. Or maybe just summarily executed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Paul Hobbs (profile), 18 Nov 2010 @ 4:40pm
    
    Re: Re: Just say no!
    Not necessarily. He may be a witch. Only one way to tell. Does anyone have a spare duck and some really big scales?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 1:04am

Airlines, the only winning move is not to fly. When enough (more) airlines go out of business, the TSA will be shown the door. Then they can go get their old jobs back at Walmart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2011 @ 8:30am

Let me state the obvious; had that little girl been a Muslim dressed from head to foot in Muslim garb with only a slit to see out of.......that TSA Agent would NEVER have done that. What you saw happen on that video was done because that mother and child were NOT Muslims and NOT because there was any suspicion that either of them were a threat. Let me remind all that it was NOT white female adults nor white female children that attacked us on 9/11. That whole incident is absolutely disgusting.............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]