TSA Frisks A Baby; Says The Stroller Set Off 'Explosives' Alarm
from the younger-and-younger dept
A few weeks ago, we wrote about the TSA groping a six-year-old and then defending it because it was "standard operating proecedures." Once again, the TSA is getting attention for a questionable patdown, this time going much, much younger, with a photo being shown of a patdown of a baby:
We reviewed the screening of this family, and found that the child’s stroller alarmed during explosives screening. Our officers followed proper current screening procedures by screening the family after the alarm, who by the way were very cooperative and were on the way to their gate in no time. The child in the photo was simply receiving a modified pat-down which doesn’t even come close to what the headline implies.I'm curious how the family being cooperative makes this okay? After all, didn't the TSA just admit that complaining about the TSA may subject you to further scrutiny? It seems like everyone who doesn't want to get that extra special attention is going to be friendly and cooperative.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lewis Black: "Hiding a weapon in the stroller is the dumbest thing! I mean, how long would it take an infant to find it? "Look mommy. What's this?" Bang!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2nd TSA Agent: "It's over three ounces! Call the bomb squad!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... come on...
These people don't like their jobs as much as you don't like their job. They don't make much money, and they are only doing it to be able to support their families, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not saying the TSA is killing people, or comparing airplane safety to genocide. I'm saying that YOU are ultimately responsible for your actions. Not your employer, not congress passing laws. Until the 1960's, it was illegal for black and white people to marry. Did that mean that it was morally OK for the sherriff to arrest a couple just for getting married? Authoritarianism doesn't work if subordinates refuse their orders.
By the way, if these people found this work so distasteful, and they are getting low wages, why not find another low-paying job? The pay would increase if they can't find people to do the job. Kinda ruins you argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, even the Army has rules against following orders that violate human rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Army has rules against that, but you will be immediately put in the Army's jail for refusing an order, and only after a (non-civilian)trial will you be possibly found not-guilty, if others find your orders were illegal.
The same is true of civil person leaving a job, you "can" do it if you want, but you still have to face the immediate consequences of being without a job (vs being in jail in the military). However, unlike the military, you do not even have a chance at 'justice' because you don't have the trial to look forward to. Potentially the moral justice might be a win, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh... No... You can be outspoken in the Army or any other military branch. You just have to know your battles.
And TSA agents make $13-$20 an hour in some places. It's not a minimum wage job, but it is a highly stressful one with what they have to put up with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We should stop the democratic process entirely as it is responsible for politicians, wanting to be re-elected, trying these asinine protection schemes on the American people. We should move the TSA employees out onto the tarmac with brooms to sweep up the bits of wreckage. What is your solution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Profiling based on factors such as race, country or origin and/or manner of dress is against civil rights. Profiling based on and individual's behavior is not.
Are you so fucking dense that you've missed this in the last year or two's discussions of the TSA and why what they're doing demonstrably does no good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
The profiling in question, which is more effective, is not racial in nature. It would be impossible for it to be, considering we're talking about Israel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the law enforcement community, this profiling is called behavioral or criminal profiling, and yes, it works very well. Pulling a person over because they are a particular race is illegal, and ethically wrong, regardless to the circumstances. However, pulling a person over because they are driving erratically, on the streets after 0200, and when you approach the car you smell a strong wiff of alcohol and the driver is slurring his speech and cannot stand up straight...well, that is behavioral/criminal profiling.
If TSA employed this better than the random, ridiculous process they have now, they would go a lot further in protecting the plane and its passengers from terrorists. However, implementing it isn't easy, and putting it to practice doesn't create the show that they call security now. TSA is about making people feel that they are secure (false-security) and not about making them secure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, many cases of that were done in the past and the courts specifically said "Hey idiots! You cannot do that!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct, being out after 2:00 isn't justification, but coupled with the driving erratic certainly gives the reasonable suspicion required to make a stop. I've often been out, in areas where there is a lot of drunks on the road, after 02:00 and have not been pulled over. Then again, I am not weaving all over the place and driving on the sidewalk either.
If the officer approached the car, and could not find further evidence of a crime, they would have to let the person go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First, People who work low income wages do not generally have time to try and find other jobs... the term is called "working poor", they are working, but they don't make enough to be able to go to the grocery store and buy the food they want/need without worrying if they have enough money (thats my personal definition of having enough money)
Secondly, "YOU are ultimately responsible for your actions" is true, but if you have a low income job and do not have any money saved up you are essentially an indentured servant.. And thats the point, They can't risk losing their job (especially in this market) because then they do not know if they will be able to provide for their family. (Personally, I believe this is why many companies pay working-poor wages, to keep their employees from being able to look for other jobs(or it might just be a nice coincidence for scum jobs, i dunno), I worked a job like this once) The moral question of: is it better to ruin someone else's 'rights'(which they have signed away by going to the airport and buying tickets... which is a whole other issue) or to allow your family to become desolate. That question I can not answer, and hope never to have to. So that is why I say the congressional members who approve/request this type of action be targeted (for political, legal action)
Third, Pay doesn't increase if you get a few desperate people to work a job when the majority of the rest of the people have a moral blockade against it. This is why we have TSA agents in the first place with low wages. The same is true of the Rat killers in India, it is a sacrilegious act to kill rats, but the job needs done, so people go against their religion to get a paycheck to provide for their families.
And about the Sheriff arresting those who are legally unable to be married... I think we have a huge legal battles over that right now with the LGBT community. Unfortunately, many of our laws are/have not meant to be _truly_ morally acceptable, they are meant to be morally acceptable to those in power and often are actually religiously acceptable reasons and cloaked in the guise of other reasonings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Killing rats is a valuable service as in it saves lives and helps prevent the Black Plague. TSA agents don't prevent anything.
Laws are meant to be morally acceptable to the majority of the population, not the small number of rulers. How many people do you think would say it's morally acceptable to pat down a baby? How many people do you think would say it's morally acceptable to waste tax payer money on something that does nothing positive for the tax payers. Immoral laws need to be removed and immoral powers need to be fought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We'll make sure that only approved people are on the train, then ride over 100 miles of unsecured and unwatched track.
In both cases (train and enhanced plane security), it's a waste of time and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I see your papers please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course I doubt that anyone (domestic) is intentionally working towards the downfall of the USA... it just struck me as interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DHS designates a 100-mile distance from the border as a "reasonable distance" to operate within. So, if you pass through the border with no issues, they can still pull you over. I've seen them also pull over vehicles that were leaving the US at the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I
When I read the blog entry, it had 33 comments, all but a single comment negative. That single comment pointed out that the terrorists the TSA defends against are so evil they wouldn't be afraid of putting explosives in a stroller, or hiding them on an infant. Every other comment pointed out logical, legal or ethical lapses on the part of "Blogger Bob" and the TSA contractors doing the "modified pat down" of the infant.
The committee that comprises "Blogger Bob" must have thick skin. Nobody I've ever met could withstand the withering criticism that meets every "Blogger Bob" blog post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sort of like the euphemism "Big Brother" from 1984. Big Brother is a friendly image. Comforting. On your side. Here to protect and help you. But in order to do so, BB must know everything about you, track you, and understand even your inner private thoughts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Brother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not willing to fly again
I understand the military and intelligence agencies are now using database assisted sockpuppet programs. So, Blogger Bob could be one of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just... wow. And they don't even realize that what they are doing is just plain wrong. Well, the law says it's ok, therefore it is ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just put him through the x-ray machine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the child’s stroller alarmed during explosives screening."
As Ross Anderson pointed out in his book Security Engineering, organizations often try to semantically shift the blame onto others for their own failings. So "Our screening process produces an unacceptable number of false positives" becomes "The stroller alarmed". Likewise "Ouyr security procedures were compromised by a scammer" in bank parlance becomes "Someone stole your identity."
Be clear. Your security measure failed in a way that hurt someone. If you lack sufficient respect for humans to be clear about that, you're going to get steamrolled in the emerging economy of human-to-human, as opposed to corporate-to-human, commerce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blogger Bob
"We reviewed the screening of this [child/invalid/sexxxy woman/prepubescent/quadruple amputee], and found that the [stroller/colostomy bag/breasts/Justin Bieber tee/hook(s)]alarmed during explosives screening. Our officers followed proper current screening procedures by screening the [see above] after the alarm, who by the way were very [cooperative/irate/confused/sexxxy/litigious] and were on the way to their gate in [no time/20 minutes/several hours/detained indefintely]. The [see above] in the photo was simply receiving a [modified/thorough/sexxxy/inappropriate/adequate] pat-down which doesn’t even come close to what the headline implies."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blogger Bob
But, the chances of a hot female TSA agent at SAT is slim to none. Now, on the return flight, from Vegas, that might be a possibility. Crossing my fingers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blogger Bob
1. These are minimum wage Neanderthals, hot quotient 0.
2. Any hot chick willing to grope random strangers can make a much better living at other, shall we say, "establishments" while add pretty much the same safety to air travel as the TSA grope points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blogger Bob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I won't dare making a Godwin point here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding...
Therefore the TSA were doing them a service, checking the stroller for any leakage or contamination, although classifying it as "explosives" is harsh.
"Biological Agents" perhaps...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't suppose they thought about sending the stroller through the security WITHOUT the kid in it FIRST...before they decided to look for a diaper bomb? Or send the kid through the scanner without the the stroller?
Nah. That would make too much sense and perhaps negate the need for a touchy-feely session.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh for crying out loud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You've never been through an airport with a family, have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just what in the world could a stroller contain to set off the alarm? PVC? Rubber? Other normal compounds found in a variety of products which now require a special pat down should the item offend a sensor or two?
I can't wait until we hear how "alarms" sounded because a tech wanted to grope that child. This will raise another set of alarms instantly.
Curious: I wonder if Greyhound and Amtrak have seen a greater rise in ticket sales thanks to news like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ugh, not Greyhound. I rode Greyhound from San Antonio to Dallas once, stopping at every little town with more than 20 people in it, and that was enough. ~20 hours to get there, when, if driving myself, would have been ~4.5 hours. Not to mention the bus stations were (probably still are) cesspools of humanity.
Amtrak? Maybe. At least to me, going by train just seems cooler than riding a bus. Just hope there are no derailments. You know, because that would make riding the train uncool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now it's only ~5.5 hours travel time. Looks like fewer stops along the way, and they might actually use I-35 instead of the back roads. One I checked has no transfers and only 2 stops.. Much better than before, and a refundable fare is less than $50. Could be worth putting up with the dregs of society at the station for a fare about 1/4 that of flying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The bubble blowing solutions sold in toy stores all over the western hemisphere are chemically similar to nitroglycerin explosives, to the extent that the current generation of explosives detectors cannot tell the difference without the sensitivity setting being reduced so far, the scanner cannot detect explosives residues, only large quantities of explosive material (which would permit someone with a vacuum sealing machine in their kitchen to make undetectable bombs if they wash the charges after sealing them). Security systems tend to err on the side of detecting residues, at a cost of vastly elevated false positives.
Even washing your hands won't get rid of detectable traces, and people have set off explosives detectors 2-3 days afterwards. If a bubble lands on a stroller and pops, few people will wash it off the stroller (it's basically soap, after all), which gives the stroller an even stronger residue than people's hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just logic
Besides, if the baby was a concern (had that diabolical terrorist look in his eyes), would it have been too hard to simply divert the parents and baby to a private area, explain the situation, and ask them to change the diaper (and dispose of the old one locally)? As a parent, I can attest that's probably a good thing to do immediately before a flight and most parents would welcome a semi-private area to do so.
That said, I still believe that effective security organizations, procedures, etc. can reduce security risks without introducing prohibitive costs, either monetary or to liberty. We'll have to try it someday.
NMM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't help thinking of historical precedents .... but ... Godwin's law you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most likely, something that left a residue on the stroller contained glycerin. Lowest bidder explosives detectors use the presence of glycerin and nitrates to detect nitroglycerin based explosives. If you have just one, it usually doesn't trigger an alarm, but having even trace residues of both will.
At the level of sensitivity required to reliably detect sealed containers of explosives, the nitrate residue on a diaper bag, combined with any number of lotions, or the bubble blowing solutions sold in most toy stores across the western hemisphere, will cause a false positive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That being said, if you want the system change, deal with the people truly in charge: the Airline Corporations. Of course, Americans are pushovers though; we'll hit $8 a gallon, get butt-raped by the TSA, and take an increase in insurance premiums as long as we can get home in time to spend time in front of the idiot box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder what would happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bah...
Babies or TSA agents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bah...
I'll go with both...... But just to be clear.. I'll put up with a good groping from a TSA agent long before I'll ever fly from Florida to Hawaii again next to a "Golden Corral buffet groupie" holding a just hatched, colicky, biological "dumb bomb" in her lap the whole way....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bah...
I am however, taking a jab at a system that will let a burger eating fat ass with a 3 month old make everyone's life miserable, while man's best friend has to be sedated and stuffed into a hold under the pilot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wore it to every holiday party too.
http://laughingsquid.com/tsanta-claus/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh come on
Anyone who bleats something here about "feeling up a baby" is either seriously sick themselves or have a really warped idea about how many people in this world are pedophiles to the point of finding infants sexual; that kind of "sick" is extremely rare. The searches are bad enough, let's not sensationalize them further with that kind of unworthy argumentation. Just because someone is male and pats down a baby to make sure some conscienceless adult hasn't used the child to get something through a checkpint doesn't automatically mean the male is sexually gratified by the act or even thinking along those lines. Let's argue the idiocy of searches from factual sensible points of view, not a knee-jerk "omg they fondled a baby" bullshit routine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why aren't these pedophiles being arrested?
What a sick society what we have that allows perverts like this to GET PAID for molesting children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why aren't these pedophiles being arrested?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why aren't these pedophiles being arrested?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have one question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It causes odd terminology problems when describing political positions, relative to the rest of the world, where liberals want MORE freedom, not less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see that it would be too far out of the realm of possibilities for a stroller, wheelchair or even crutches to be packed with explosives. So search away! After all we have had guys packing their shoes and UNDERWEAR! Remember their point is not to blow the plane up but to bring it down and that doesn't take to much explosive in the right location.
Either except that these people have a job to do and you are going to have to face it for the ability to fly or get in your car and pay $4 a gallon. You have choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devious
If you capture a providence, place someone terribly cruel in charge and leave for a few months. When you get back, show that you have an open ear for people to complain. Allow them to complain to you and you behead the person you put in power, winning over the people. You can now place restrictions on them that seem tame compared too what you saved them from.
Sounds like the TSA is going to be beheaded soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voice of dissent
They didn't just eyeball a baby and say "Hey let's be pedophiles! yum yum".
A quick test came back for possible explosives, you check the people who came in contact with that in a reasonable manner. Are there any strange bulges on the baby, no, okay great, just had to check. Being blind to bias makes you better at security. If a test comes back positive, you investigate further and make sure. They didn't deny them access because the test came back, they did a follow up.
And the accusations that they they only agreed out of feelings of pressure just don't hold up. No parent, No parent anywhere would say "I think TSA is molesting my child here, but I want to get on a plane so I'm not going to say anything." This isn't fascist pressure, this isn't threats that they will be tortured or locked up, it's plane ride. Sorry but that just doesn't add up to "I'm scared for my child, but am afraid to speak up."
I also have to seriously question the racial bias here.
If this had been a dark skinned Muslim family in traditional garb, I suspect TSA would get applauded for their thoroughness, but no they were white so this is a terrible breach.
I am not happy with many many things that the TSA has done, they amount to the illusion of security, or even worse, less security than before, but this really seems like a semi-reasonable approach to potential threat detected. Are their improvements, certainly, but this isn't evil, and this isn't pedophilia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor TSA agents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
Did we miss the part where the TSA prevents people from bringing weapons and explosives onto airplanes? And then the people who want to bring explosives on find new ways to do it, and then the TSA has to prevent those, as well?
I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that since 9/11 we have had a definitve lack of exploding airplanes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA
Yes we did all miss that, because it's never happened. The TSA has not detected and stopped a single act of terrorism.
They have however failed repeatedly at picking up items during testing, so there's no gaurantee that they would prevent people from bringing weapons and explosives onto planes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's win-win. They make sure you're not carrying anything illegal, and you can get a free medical checkup. Think how many tumours this will turn up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is only going to get worse...
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3743/tsainstructions1a10900x.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA are doing their job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]