TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
from the not-this-again dept
Back in April, we wrote about the TSA defending its groping of a 6-year-old girl, by saying that it was fine because it was their standard operating procedure. That, of course, made absolutely no sense to anyone outside of the TSA. Just because it's the way you normally do things doesn't make it right. At all. In fact, even the TSA's boss seemed to acknowledge last week that groping 6-year-olds is no longer standard operating procedure in most cases.Perhaps he can now turn his attention to groping 95-year-olds.
Yes, over the weekend a lot of people heard about the story of Jean Weber's 95-year-old mother, who is in the final stages of leukemia, and wanted to travel to Michigan from Florida, to spend her few remaining days with family. Except, once she got to the airport, she was apparently selected for extra scrutiny, including a patdown, and being told she needed to remove her adult diaper. She ended up being detained for 45 minutes.
The local TSA spokesperson defended the procedure by suggesting that if they didn't grope 95-year-old dying cancer patients and force them to remove their diapers, that the terrorists would plant bombs on such old ladies:
"TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability."But that's just the TSA spokesperson in Miami. Surely once this made its way back up to the top, the TSA folks in DC wouldn't go through the same mistake from April and claim this is perfectly fine because it's standard operating procedures... or would they? Oh, of course they would:
The TSA released a statement Sunday defending its agents' actions at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport.You know what? If that is "proper procedure," the procedure is wrong. It's time for someone at the TSA to admit that.
"While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner," the federal agency said. "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure."
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: groping, privacy, procedures, security, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's just really too bad that there is a much micro-focus placed on certain instances, and yet no work for the hundreds of thousands of people searched every day without issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where do you decide that the false security and the costs thereof outweigh what the organization ACTUALLY does for us? There's no metrics, nothing. The whole thing is a sham. ANd you bought it. Hook, line, and sinker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The closest you will get to metrics is looking at places in Africa and other third world areas that don't do very good security. It seems that most of the detected terrorist attacks start in places like that. Perhaps that is a good indication that the "security theater" is actually way more effective than anyone would like to admit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think the metrics about how they let guns past security are plenty for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet, almost all of the terrorist attacks come out of unprotected countries, into Europe, and on from there. Amazing, isn't it. Notice there aren't many terrorists choosing to start in the US? Wonder why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of the millions of bodies we see at the end of each and every year...oh wait...there aren't millions, nor thousands...unless you want to use a broad definition of the term "terrorism".
Yet the resources, time and liberties that are thrown at this issue are grossly disproportionate to other, real, measurable problems that exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where did the lockerbie bomb come from?
Where did the underwear bomber get on the plane?
Just three examples.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two of the three didn't happen as it is. The third one (Lockerbie) was a retaliation which could have been prevented if the US had NOT bombed Libya in 1986 or shot down the Iranian airliner around the same time (since we still don't really know which of the two was responsible.
How would you have prevmneted the terrorist attack on the King David hotel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funnily enough, it says something that the 9/11 hijackers couldn't just put a bomb in a plane - because of those security procedures, so they had to take knives on a plane - something that would NOT have been possible in Europe in 2001.
We have proportionate security without needing to destroy human dignity, without totally trampling on our rights, and without totally letting the terrorists win.
Yes a few things have got through security, and funnily enough, no-one has shown any proof that TSA procedures would have found those. Invasively strip-searching all passengers may prevent the very occasional incident, but why criminalise, insult, inconvenience and annoy the regular 99.99999% of your customers?
Seriously, all that the TSA will achieve is making the airport security queues themselves a prime target. Or they could just hit softer targets (i.e. public transport in Madrid or London, a night-club in Bali).
Honestly, some of this "count the bodies" garbage is nearly as bad as some of the post-9/11 paranoia where everyone in Nowhereville, Alabama (pop. 303 + dogs) seemed to think that 'the terrurists' were going after them personally. Notice how it seems to be discarded B-movie plot methods the terrorists are already reduced to using - shoe bombs and underwear bombs? I also suspect that any chemist worth his salt could tell you half-a-dozen ways to cause mayhem (and that's all you really need to do) within all the existing restrictions and searches.
You can never stop everything, but at some point you have to decide when there's no point trying harder for no benefit, or where there are other social or economic costs. Even 1% of the effort going into the TSA could save many more lives from drunken driving or dodgy medications, and MANY more people die from those. Where is the sense of proportion? Where is the respect for your Constitution and human rights that your country fought so hard for?
It's a shame, but it's just another way that America comes to seem a joke to the rest of the (Western) world. Can't do security right in the first place, then over-react massively and disproportionately (it seems).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What fun is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or the only three that exist.
Because as far as I can tell those have been the only even remotely credible threats in the last 10 years. 10 YEARS! Billions of dollars and personal freedom and in 10 years we have manged to stop 0 out of 3 credible threats.
What a track record!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, you can name a few more examples, I get that. But we are talking about thousands of planes worldwide PER DAY, millions of pedestrians.
I am not advocating letting people walk off the street and onto a plane. But I am advocating for a smarter approach in terms of $$$, time and respect/dignity for all involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I go through a metal detector, pass my hand baggage through an xray machine, and if something comes up I get a pat down of my pockets (happened once in the many years I travel). While I'm sure there's profiling going on, there are no nude scanners, no invasive patdowns of my junk, no third degree like you get.
When you refer to "unprotected countries", are you referring to the third-world countries that initiate terrorist attacks? Is it a surprise that countries with political unrest are more likely to be involved in terrorist attacks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The procedure involves touching your genitals which by its very definition is invasive. Also, they put their hand in your underwear; how is that not invasive.
Would you let the creep behind the McDonald's counter put his hand down your pants before you were allowed to enter the restaurant? ... I didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or then fine you $10,000 if you decided to leave instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't need to wonder, because there's plenty of solid data on the fact that home-grown terrorists are relatively rare in the developed world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They have more important things to solve before they can even start to think about "security".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second TSA doesn't prevent shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
>Second TSA doesn't prevent shit.
prevent shit?
Wrong... TSA just snatched a soiled diaper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> you may find outrage.
How many individual cases does it take before it's an actual problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You, sir, are a sheep.
Number A: Nothing... NOTHING... reduces the "risk" of flying to zero other than stopping flights completely. Therefore any attempt to reduce that risk to zero is foolish.
Number B: Checking old ladies' adult diapers might reduce said risk by some infinitesimally small amount, but it is certainly not worth the emotional backlash from the public nor the trauma to the "victim".
Number C: That goes for feeling up kids too. Risk reduction way too small for the negative publicity and trauma to the child.
It all comes down to ROI (return on investment), these people have no understanding of ROI. The returns are much too small for the impact their "procedures" cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did I get that about right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Jeez, can I call a Godwin ruling on rape here? You may as well have tossed out "Hitler" and called it a day.
But, yes, as ugly as it is to say it, any attempt to reduce THAT risk to zero is also foolish.
It's simple math (the law of diminishing returns). At the point of diminishing returns on a graph, you get almost no return no matter how many resources you throw at it, which makes sense because as you approach zero (risk), the amount of resources you would need to get it there approaches infinity.
See? Simple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We are discussing the return of investment, the benefit per cost, of that particular attempt.
Example of ROI in this context:
We can reduce rape and murders by X% by putting cameras in everyones homes, in the bedroom, in the toilet, everywhere. Remember, a lot of violence occurs in the home.
But, and here it comes, X% is not worth the cost in privacy (and money). Benefit per cost ratio is too low. ROI not good enough.
Even though it would solve crimes and prevent countless murders and rapes we still dont have police cameras in our homes.
That's the argument. That it is a too high cost in privacy, freedom, dignity and money for how much it makes us safer.
X = counry specific, probably varies per state-equivalent sub-area as well, look it up for your own country and region if you are interested in exact figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ever notice how apologists seem to just love using those?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All that the "terrorists" need to do is send in enough individuals that get past the randomized screening (where enough == 1 or 2).
The fact is, there aren't terrorist attacks going on all the time simply because there aren't terrorist attacks going on all the time. Otherwise, TSA would be giving us daily or weekly recaps of all the attacks they have thwarted. But they don't because they aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They understand ROI....
They aren't expecting a monetary return on their investment, they are expecting to manipulate the general attitude of the public a little at a time.... AND IT'S WORKING!!!!!
Each 'outrage' is offset by the standard excuses we see from the apologists here every day...
If you don't like it, don't fly...
If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about....
If your papers are in order, you can cross the border.... we might even let you back in when you come back....
Wake up people, we have been sitting in the pot of water for a while now, and while it may not feel 'that bad' right now, it's getting closer and closer to the boiling point every day....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason they don't?
Because the TSA is doing *exactly what the terrorists want them to do*. They are terrorists' best allies, doubly so because they're doing it at OUR expense, triply so because they have convinced the stupider among us that this is actually desirable and/or necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are certain risks associated with everyday life. Dying in a terrorists attack is next to nothing.
"hundreds of thousands of people searched every day without issue." Not without issue, without it making the news.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&hs=Mbv&rls= org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&biw=1920&bih=955&q=odds+of+dying&btnG=S earch&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't be serious? You could manhandle every single individual on the plane and still be at risk. Terrorists could swallow a friggin' bomb...feeling the guys jewels ain't going to change that (though it might set the bomb off early).
This is really a rather useless exercise and provides no security whatsoever to anyone. Bah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
this crap. We are no safer than them!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wastrel
I'm sure a .32 would do the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wastrel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wastrel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wastrel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
God, i can't believe i had to explain that to an adult.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Definition of RACISM
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist noun or adjective
You are thinking of either Religious discrimination or Islamophobia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Better to use an Israeli method like actually profiling people by how they act and other intelligence-based clues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Definition of RACISM
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist noun or adjective
You are thinking of either Religious discrimination or Islamophobia."""
Adj. 1. racist - based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
racial - of or characteristic of race or races or arising from differences among groups; "racial differences"; "racial discrimination"
2. racistracist - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
anti-semite, antiblack
No i made it clear that i was refering to Racism thank you very much. You are thinking of either your head in your ass, or just plain thinking retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Save your outrage for when you AREN'T being retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> Yea, Because that's not racist at all
I had no idea that "muslim" is now a race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Isn't picking on muslims specifically against your Treaty of Tripoli?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> your Treaty of Tripoli?
Depends on what you mean by "picking on". A lot of what falls under the definition of that term would be protected speech under the 1st Amendment, even if it were hateful in nature, and the 1st Amendment trumps a treaty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are part of what's wrong with Amur'ca.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
McVeigh also didn't hijack a plane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, proper Intelligence would help identify domestic and foreign threats.
It also highlights that Muslims are not the (only) 'enemy'.
Especially as under the rather broad terms of things like the PATRIOT act, you should be going after PETA and pro-Lifers just as hard as they /do/ have members who occasionally commit 'terrorist' acts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Aside from your comment being ignorantly racist, apparently you do not know as much as you think you do, seeing how you can't even spell "Muslim" correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> Aside from your comment being ignorantly racist
How exactly is it racist? Islam is a religion, not a race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, yeah. You, of course, are correct.
But, the term "Muslim" does tend get conflated with "anyone of Middle East descent" quite often, almost enough that calling someone a "Muslim" does have some racial overtones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
THAT'S racist.
and it's not just Muslims who wear robes and head coverings, so don't even try to use that crap as a cover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> and I'll show you why you are racist.
So you've already decided for me what I will and won't do? How nice of you. As long as you're at it with your psychic powers, why don't you clue me in on this week's lottery numbers as well?
> You don't see religion, you see "middle eastern",
> which is racist.
Who the hell are you to tell me what I do and do not see. If we did your little mall scenario, and you asked me to point out the Muslims, I'd say, "How the hell would I know who's a Muslim and who isn't?"
*That's* what would really happen, as opposed to your little fantasy scenario.
> you have no way of knowing if they are Christian,
> Muslim, Pagan, or Hindu.
No shit, genius. That was my point all along.
> You see someone with skin darker than white,
> but lighter than black, and what them to be
> patted down.
Where do you get this crap? I didn't say anything about wanting anyone patted down. More completely made-up crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That stinking "race card" is stale and old. Grow up. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought it was hilarious in another forum recently where some guy was calling another guy a "racist" for being against gay marriage.
Apparently "gay" is also now a distinct race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and "Profiling" and "Racism" can go hand in hand. If the cops where to stop every Mexican that drove down the road to search for drugs, that would be profiling.
And Racist.
Do u understand now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's based on facts, not skin color. Precautions are not prejudices.
If Africans would have profiled white's for slave trading back in the day, I wouldn't have blamed them one bit nor would I have felt it was "racist".
Guess it's just a very different perspective. Even though I'm female and tend to be emotional at times, I struggle to allow logic to prevail in all things, and it just seems logical to me to apply standards that are based on factual evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You need to read more brother, read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enhanced patdowns and new scanners should be viewed as a violation of the 4th Amendment
http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2010/11/18/tsa-scans-patdowns-do-these-violate-the-4th-amend ment-maybe/
A passenger is given a devil's choice — have their 4th Amendment rights violated through a technological strip search, or have them violated as a result of an enhanced patdown that is like a strip search but with your clothes on.
My hope is that the crazy Tea Party folks finally get something back and take out the TSA. Most Americans aren't cowards, and most Americans don't want useless security.
After all, those who would chose safety over liberty deserve neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today's encounter
One small story, hopefully the mass of TSA agents start pushing back on that end while citizens pull on the other and drill it into the thick skulls of the fearful morons running the agency that there rules are ineffective, counterproductive and ultimately futile. The entire top 3 layers of management should be sacked and have someone with a brain on his or her shoulders put in charge with a sensible regimen, not this asinine security theater which has done nothing to make our country safer, costs billions of dollars a year that we don't have and reduces the individual liberties that this nation was founded upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Today's encounter
Does such a person exist in US government? Cause I'm pretty sure there isn't one in Canada's government offices...anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standard procedure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Standard procedure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Standard procedure
But from what I've seen at SAT before, the hot female agent is non-existent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Standard procedure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njUDcTZuax8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Standard procedure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obligatory....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obligatory....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obligatory....
It's like the /b/ of law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obligatory....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obligatory....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if it doesn't work then stop
as soon as the airlines realize that passenger counts are down and the true cause if it, they will lobby the government to get things changed.
i guess if we are going to have a corporate run government, we need to learn how to work within it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if it doesn't work then stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if it doesn't work then stop
> of treatment: stop flying!
Problem is they're now starting to do this crap in train stations, subways, boats, trucks, and in certain places, even private vehicles.
Looks like a bike is the only option you've got left.
For now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: if it doesn't work then stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: if it doesn't work then stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if it doesn't work then stop
To all the people who object to this type of treatment: stop flying TO THE US!
Take you business elsewhere. Take your holidays elsewhere. You're probably a terrorist anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: if it doesn't work then stop
And if I flip out and totally uppercut someone, it's straight to gitmo, do not pass court.
Radiation and/or groping when going home is just the last nail in the coffin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
""While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area,"
So who screens the TSA agents arriving for work?
Because there are terrorist organizations out there that would target poorly paid government workers who get no respect for having to fondle people...
And while they are all busy feeling each other up, we can go back to flying like we used to, but now with the more enforced doors like we had needed for a very long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome ot the UST... United States of Terrorism
Islamic Extremist aimed at our lives... the United States of Terrorist aim at our dignity, our self-respect and our self-determination - making us nothing more than cattle in shoots, being poked and prodded and told where and when to move.
Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.snorgtees.com/i-got-to-second-base-with-a-tsa-screener
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No system can be completely protected and have any degree of utility.
Every vulnerability they are tying to address existed decades before 911.
Best thing they ever did was lock the cockpit door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cowardly society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think that enough effort has been put into making the aircraft itself more secure. For example, someone with a small explosive can probably open a hole on the side of the aircraft and send it crashing down, which is stupid if you take into consideration that some military-grade aircraft can take a might pounding from anti-aircraft guns and still make it home (mostly) in one piece. You Americans are good at making guns and armour right? Time to put some of that knowledge to good use.
Aircraft should also have some sort of inconvenient mechanism for crossing sections (also, more sections). Sort of two doors where only one of the could be open at the time (to slow down the process of crossing between sections). The pilot should also have a master locking control that locks all inter-section doors. Worst-case scenario is: terrorist kills off everyone in one section. A bit of a bummer, but it is on par with some idiot walking into a public place and start killing people indiscriminately (something which you can't stop, but at least can contain).
But there is also work to do on the ground. There should be effective mechanisms to detect guns and explosives on passengers/luggage. And I mean sensors! Pat-downs are ineffective and inefficient: you can't pat everyone down, and it only takes one slip-up to cause a disaster. And let's be honest here: If I can tell that a planet that is a bajillion light-years away is inhabitable, why can't I scan a guy and tell that he is carrying a gun?
These are just some ideas. I don't care if you find them stupid, as long as it sparks some sort of debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is due to fundamental design differences. A fighter is 90% aircraft and 10% people. A 747 is 90% people and 10% aircraft. In addition most of our aircraft can not take a pounding. the A-10 being the exception, not the case. One solid missile strike and any aircraft in the US arsenal is toast.
This is a bad idea. More compartmentalization would mean much much longer waits for passengers during boarding.
The whole point of a hijacking today, is to take over control of the plane. Locking the cockpit doors solves this issue. without access to the cockpit, the terrorist can't hijack the plane.
What are they going to do, threaten to kill a hostage every 10 minutes until the pilot lets them fly the plane into another building?
We've had this technology for years, its called a metal detector. Despite being a plastic pistol, even a Glock has to have a metal barrel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes. Every time someone brings up the locking of the cockpit door, I wonder why any terrorist wouldn't do this to force his way in. No one ever addresses this point, this hole. Doesn't matter how well the door is locked if the terrorist starts killing people unless the pilot opens it.
Not that I like the TSA - I hate it, and I think that it should be shut down. Completely. It's just no one seems to see the flaw in relying solely on a door for protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Every time someone brings up the locking of the cockpit door, I wonder why any terrorist wouldn't do this to force his way in. No one ever addresses this point, this hole.
Because it wouldn't work.
Doesn't matter how well the door is locked if the terrorist starts killing people unless the pilot opens it.
Except, the pilot on a regular commercial flight wouldn't do that, so yes it does matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a) save billions from a useless thatrical performance that would make South Park look worthy of an Oscar: and
b) actually do something about possible terrorists.
It's observation-based, but also based in psychological profiling, rather than any other profiling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now that air travel if F-ed-up they will create mass casualties on trains, subways and sport events... if we continue to be afraid we will be groped in the future more than just at airports.
Freedom of religion? yeah right!
It really showed what most of us Americans really stood for.
"forget those Muslims they are all terrorists and not real Americans" a month later ..."oh wait! why am I getting raped by the TSA I'm Amu'rican!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I personally would not consider flying in today's mentality of grope to fly. Quite simply, I resent it, don't have to put up with it, and am not going to go through the process. If I have to go somewhere I will drive.
I have yet to see the bonafide terrorist caught by the TSA. If memory serves me correctly every terrorist that has been caught, has been caught by the passengers on the plane, not at the check points.
What I see is a new boondoggle government arm with nothing to do but spend more of the government's money (our tax dollars) with nothing to show for it but irate fliers.
From start to finish it smacks of "papers please" mentality on a brutish level. When a new PR disaster comes along, the upper management comes out with some BS trying to justify it by making it sound like it is procedure. All that is, is CYA because once again they have screwed up because of a lack of applying common sense.
Best check your ticket for it's beginning location; you'll find you are in a Banana Republic. The TSA gets to play the role of the monkeyman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh. "That" vulnerability.
Too bad the woman hadn't the foresight to fill it first.
... have we enough of this sh*t yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's what this police state of a nation has become. Our leaders should be *proud* that they took the most free nation in the world and are degenerating is to a third-world nation of control. Eventually thought, it will all fall apart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"..Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As mentioned before, a single gun won't do much good. You only have finite bullets, and passengers are incredibly much more likely to risk their lives to bring someone down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point is, hiding things in an adult diaper of a supposedly disabled person is a tactic that has been used before.
Also an important fact being left of of this story was that the woman had soiled herself, and the urine created a kind of a gel inside the diaper (as the diaper was designed to do, as not to leak). The gel looked like, well a gel, on the scanners. They had to search her to make sure it wasn't an explosive gel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Riiggghhhttt...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of a Monty Python test for a witch logic.
TSA: She looks like one.
[Crowd indistinctly shouts]
TSA: Bring her forward!
Old Lady: I'm not a terrorist.
TSA: But you are dressed as one...
Old Lady: They dressed me up like this. [Crowd murmurs]
Old Lady: And this isn't my nose. This is a false one.
TSA: [inspects the nose and confirms] Well?
Crowd: Well, we did do the nose.
TSA: The nose?
Crowd: And the hat. She's a terrorist!
Crowd: Burn her!
TSA: Did you dress her up like this?
Crowd: No, no, no! [beat] Yes, yes. A bit. But she's got a wart.
TSA: Why do you think that she is a terrorist?
Crowd: Well, she turned me into a newt.
[Crowd gives him a disbelieving look]
TSA: A newt?
[Silence]
TSA: To be sure lets groping her anyways… after all it is the policy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standard Procedure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Standard Procedure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101115/11033711873/tsa-threatens-to-sue-guy-for-not-agreei ng-to-having-his-groin-touched-by-tsa-agents.shtml#c311
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The xray machines that are used to "backscatter" had the xray warning labels never put on the machines. They were shipped with the unit but at the request of the TSA were never put on them. Naturally during the installation, somehow they were never put on the machines to warn users of the possibility of exposure.
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/23445?c=federal_agencies_legislative
Later when questioned, they were supposedly all checked. However the company the TSA claimed to do this job, made it clear they don't do measurements and are not responsible for calibrations.
http://www.tsa.gov/research/reading/xray_screening_technology_safety_reports.shtm
Some independent checks turned up xray exposures way above what was supposed to be. Worse the tests were rigged.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m17.1.html
A warning was supposed to be given the TSA gropers not to stand beside the machine because of the increased risk of cancer. Now there are reports that there is a possible link to groupings of cancer with the TSA gropers and these machines.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/27/2012226/Cancer-Cluster-Possibly-Found-Among-TSA-Workers
Sorry for the links to another sites. I have nothing to reveal as far as linkage to them other than reading news articles.
All of this info is available for searching. Please don't take my word for it.
It looks more and more like we are dealing with a group that really doesn't care about the health of anyone, they are worried about justifying their presence there. It fits with the rest of the rig-a-mo-role of we are doing it by the book but the book got thrown away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad BAD TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selective screening...of old ladies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selective screening...of old ladies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is MOST likely to be a terrorist:
1. a 95-year old woman in a wheelchair wearing a diaper?
2. A 4 month old baby?
3. A 10 year old with a stuffed toy?
4. a 20-50 year-old male/female of any nationality with no identifying characteristics? (remember, racial profiling is a no-no!)
Eliminate the most obvious 'non-terrorist' types and screen those who fit it.
That would solve a lot of the crap that goes on in airport security checkouts and save time.
I'm just waiting to see the first lawsuits against the TSA for improper checking/groping/harassment to be filed in court.
This just can't go on forever without being forced to be sued over.
Although I'm sure that the gropers in the TSA are having a field day. Legalized "cop a feel"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheap Adult Diaper by BM Healthcare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]