TSA Continues To Embarass The Elderly With Unnecessarily Degrading Search Procedures

from the why-grandma-and-grandpa-don't-fly dept

Mon, Dec 12th 2011 1:11pm — Mike Masnick

The TSA is, once again, defending its screening procedures after reports came out of degrading and embarrassing searches performed on three different elderly passengers at JFK, each of which involved passengers with medical equipment that it appears the TSA did not know how to handle in a reasonable way. While the TSA emphasizes that it didn't do a "strip search" on any of the passengers, that seems to ignore the point that, in all three cases, the searches appeared to be highly inappropriate. An MSNBC story about all of this summarizes the three passengers' complaints:

In one case, Lenore Zimmerman, 85, of Long Beach, N.Y., said TSA agents took her into a private room in late November to remove her back brace for screening after she decided against going through a scanning machine because of her heart defibrillator.

"Zimmerman said she had to raise her blouse and remove her undergarments for a female TSA agent," said Schumer and Gianaris' letter.

[....]

In another recent incident, Ruth Sherman, 88, of Sunrise, Fla., was asked about a visible protrusion from her waist band, which she identified as her colostomy bag.

She was "escorted to another room where two female agents made her lower her pants for an inspection. Sherman raised concerns that the agents would disrupt her colostomy bag, causing pain and potential damage," the letter said.

A third woman, Linda Kallish, of Boynton, Fla., said that after she revealed she was a diabetic with an insulin pump in her leg, she was escorted to a separate room where she was told to remove her pants so the agents could check the pump, the letter said, without saying when that incident took place.

The letter discussed above came from Senators Chuck Schumer and Michael Gianaris, asking the TSA to have an "on-site passenger advocate." It seems like that would certainly make some amount of sense, though I imagine getting rid of security theater would be a better solution. But, in absence of that, having someone in authority who actually has the passengers' interest in mind seems like it could be useful.

Even more bizarre, however, is that while the TSA admits that its agents were at fault in the first case above, and should not have removed the brace, it still seems to recommend that passengers be the ones to bone up on the rules:

We recommend that all passengers familiarize themselves with security protocols and inform officers prior to screening if they have medical devices that require special screening. It makes things easier for everybody if all parties know in advance what to expect.

Yes, JFK personnel are receiving additional training as well, but should traveling by plane really require individuals to study up on what inhumane and degrading treatment they should expect before hitting the airport?

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: elderly, jfk, privacy, searches, tsa

47 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike C. (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:09pm

Management vs Employees
This is a typical situation where management crafts a policy without understanding the nature of what it is they are trying to control and expects everything to line up with their imagined scenarios. Until either (a) the TSA is abolished or (b) all screening exceptions are removed so that Congress and senior officials get screened as well, these sorts of problems will continue to happen.

In the end, this is why I've eliminated as much air travel from my vacation plans as possible. Between the unknown medical risks of being scanned, potential theft issues, groping issues, general unnecessary delays, etc, the increased speed of travel no longer seems to overcome the "hurdle" of driving or taking the train where possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re: Management vs Employees
  ...the increased speed of travel no longer seems to overcome the "hurdle" of driving or taking the train where possible.
  
  The TSA are increasing the height of that "hurdle" all the time:
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/02225414782/tsa-takes-security-theater-road-mobile-gro ping-teams-can-pop-up-anywhere.shtml
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/11465616440/tsa-de cides-terrorists-must-be-driving-partners-with-tenn-law-enforcement-to-randomly-search-vehicles.shtm l
  
  We might be able to walk to our destinations without all those hassles at the moment, but I'm sure they're working on fixing that too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:28pm
    
    Re: Re: Management vs Employees
    Actually, it's illegal to walk/bicycle along a hiway--and most of the time there aren't enough non-hiway roads to get from one major destination to another...
    
    I know this because I was looking at spending my vacation bicycling from Tempe, Az to Ventura, CA; which it turns out isn't possible on backroads.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Management vs Employees
      Actually in California it is legal to ride your bicycle on the shoulder of a freeway if there isn't a road nearby. I do it all the time through Camp Pendelton between San Diego and Orange County.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701, 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:25pm
  
  Re: Management vs Employees
  > (b) all screening exceptions are removed
  
  Removing *all* screening exceptions would be just as stupid as the security theater already in place.
  
  What are you going to do with the federal agents who are flying armed? Have them go through the screeners, which would then sound an alarm and draw everyone's attention to the agent as he/she shows the TSA their badge and paperwork, and which would serve to advertise to everyone in the terminal who the air marshals and FBI and Secret Service agents are?
  
  Of course there should be exceptions from screening-- that's just basic common sense and OPSEC-- just not for all the folks who are currently enjoying it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:18pm

DON'T FLY! IF you continue to fly then you give up your rights! With the current way the TSA deals with passengers, I would not fly if my life was on the line. These turds get not 1 cent from me while they allow these agents to continue to treat us CUSTOMERS as terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re:
  I suppose I could quit my job (which requires flying several times a month).
  
  Instead, I intentionally opt-out of the stupid body scanners, insisting on the metal detector + pat down.
  
  I go through this several times a month (to and from my destinations), and usually it's just an annoyance. So far, most of the TSA agents have been reasonable about the process - but I noticed the last guy I got was a bit more "rough" with his hands than most.
  
  I want to make sure they know I strongly disapprove of their stupid scanners, and they're gonna have to pat me down every single time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2012 @ 1:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Agreed. If they're going to scan me, they've got to have the sand to do it the old fashioned way. If I'm going to be violated, dammit, I want to look the person in the eye who is doing it.
    
    I may want to make snide comments to them about taking me out to dinner afterwards, or asking if my wife can join.
    
    "So, do you come here often? Yeah, you know what I mean, *wink*. I'll bet you do."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re:
  These turds get not 1 cent from me while they allow these agents to continue to treat us CUSTOMERS as terrorists.
  
  Ummm, hey Einstein. Guess what? Some of the customers are TERRORISTS. But it's kind of tough figuring who's who without the "I jihad" t-shirts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Existential...
    Have you ever met a terrorist?
    
    Do you any evidence they actually exist?
    
    Or do you only know what you've been spoon-fed Fox News and CNN?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701, 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Existential...
      > Do you any evidence that terrorists actually exist?
      
      Yeah, there's a huge hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and a blank spot in the Manhattan skyline.
      
      > Or do you only know what you've been spoon-fed
      > Fox News and CNN?
      
      Nope, I've seen both with my own eyes.
      
      Moron.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Misoc, 12 Dec 2011 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Existential...
        ter�ror�ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
        
        1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
        
        US government officals are responsible for 1,000,000 civilians dead in Iraq and endless drone attacks.
        
        You decide who the TSA should be searching
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Existential...
        > US government officals are responsible for 1,000,000 civilians
        > dead in Iraq and endless drone attacks.
        
        That's cute and all, but it's a complete non sequitur in regard to the question that was asked.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - xebikr (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Existential...
        "Yeah, there's a huge hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and a blank spot in the Manhattan skyline."
        
        Both of which could have been prevented if only we had been in the habit of humiliating the elderly prior to the attacks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - el_segfaulto (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 3:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, keep living your life terrified of the terrorist boogeyman. 9/11 was a tragedy, but one that will not happen again and the TSA has nothing to do with that fact.
    
    Pre-9/11 - A hijacking occurs, the passengers know that if they just go along and don't make any noise they'll get a trip to Cuba and a cool story.
    
    Post-9/11 - A hijacking occurs, the passenger know that they will be stains if they don't actively resist.
    
    All of the (pathetic) attempts to blow up planes after 9/11 got past the TSA and were stopped by passengers. We had a perfectly fine screening process before 9/11 and I see no reason why we can't go back to that.
    
    And finally...the TSA would NOT have prevented 9/11! None of the terrorists had freakin' bombs on them. A simple lock on the cockpit door would have saved us a lot of time, money, harassment, and civil liberties.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Beta (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Some of the people who walk down streets are terrorists. Are you in favor of searches of everyone who walks down your street?
    
    The basic question is what you're willing to give up in exchange for how big an increase in safety. The TSA searches represent a huge expenditure of money and erosion of personal rights in exchange for a moderate protection against a laughably narrow range of threats of vanishingly small probability.
    
    Honestly, it's as if you think there's a secret terrorist cell someplace where people say "let's kill a bunch of Americans exactly the same way we did last time-- oh, wait, we can't, never mind, let's do nothing." I don't know who's stupider, the fictional terrorists who can't think of a crowded place to set off a bomb, or the citizens willing to give up everything for protection against them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - el_segfaulto (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Smartest thing I've read in awhile. Take an extra intarweb out of petty cash.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        SOPA and PROTECT IP make taking an extra intraweb out of petty cash because Beta may, perhaps may, possibly, while of of his mind or otherwise impared link to some entity on his intraweb or the other intraweb that possibly, perhaps, just might, be could be or ought to be infringing a hollywood copyright, as any links to terrorism must because they've made more than enough movies and tv shows about terrorism that simply being one, these days, would be infringing.
        
        I know it all leads in circles but that's the whole point. Get people so dizzy they can't tell the difference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris, 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    EHH! WRONG! You've been watching entirely too much Fox News. There are not terrorists aboard or even trying to get aboard planes on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis. We are not in any more or less danger of a terrorist attack than we ever have been.
    
    What we have is ridiculous spending of tax dollars on smoke and mirror tricks to make the public believe we are safe from terrorist attacks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 3:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    All for yur safety nerd
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:27pm

TSA = The Stupid Asshats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:29pm

And being prepared means nothing...
After all, remember this story about a woman who brought with her material explaining everything for the TSA... and was promptly ignored and gro... felt u... enhanced chest patted to feel the implants.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111003/12305416186/tsa-force-breast-cancer-patient-to-submit- to-patdown-refuse-to-let-her-show-id-card-about-implants.shtml

Wait... come to think of it that was JFK too. Way to keep up the high standards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:33pm

Ron Paul has publicly stated that he would get rid if the TSA. Stop whining about it if you are going to vote for a candidate that supports TSA security theater. Voting for a candidate that supports it means you support it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  What I hate about all these comments about "Ron Paul has said X" is that, from my experience, the politicians always say they will do X...then proceed to not do it. Case in point, in Ireland, the Opposition (what we call the major political parties that are not currently in office) kept stating that "If elected, we won't increase taxes, or do X and Y" etc etc". Of course, once elected, they proved to be even worse than the previous government, and that was almost fucking impossible to achieve.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd rather vote for someone who says they'll do something than someone who remains noncommittal, like every other Republican candidate, or someone who has the power to put a stop to it and does nothing, like Obama. Ron Paul is the only choice in 2012.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - another mike (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I go by what they've already done. That's their record. Paul is already a Congressman, where is his proposed bill to abolish the TSA? The President doesn't control funding or appointments to office. That's Congress' job. If he's going to get rid of the TSA, he needs to do it now while he's still a legislator.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - aluminum falcon, 13 Dec 2011 @ 9:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:Another mike
        sorry been busy with finals and life.
        Over summer, Paul introduces a bill that from what I have seen doesn't end the TSA but would force the TSA to follow laws regarding assault and the like and also the bill would of made the TSA treat everyone the same regardless of their political standing (such as congressmen) http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1796&Itemid=60
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aluminum falcon (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 3:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The only thing is that Paul (even his critics admit) that his voting record in office has been consistence with his election platform.
    
    Either Paul is the worlds most honest politician or the world's greatest actor for keeping it up for so many years.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701, 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: Lies
  > Ron Paul has publicly stated that he would
  > get rid if the TSA.
  
  Yeah, and Obama publicly stated he'd get rid of Gitmo, too.
  
  Anyone who believes anything that a politician tells them is a special kind of fool.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:33pm

think it through
'...Senators Chuck Schumer and Michael Gianaris [are] asking the TSA to have an "on-site passenger advocate."'

What authority would this person have? Who would pay this person's salary? What kind of behavior would get this person fired, and by whom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:36pm

passenger advocate must be paid by other dept
What good is a passenger advocate at the airport who is beholden to the TSA for his/her paycheck. That's like having a privacy advocate at ATT paid for by the NSA. I'd like to represent myself, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dementia (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re: passenger advocate must be paid by other dept
  I would rather there not be a need for anyone to represent me or anyone else. The TSA is not a deterrent, it simpnly a political response to try and show that something is being done, when in actuality, nothing is being done, other than the dismemberment of the constitution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:03pm

The passenger advocate would be Dennis Leary, and he'd be paid to merely say "Shut the Fuck Up! Next!" "Shut the Fuck Up! Next!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:15pm

The letter discussed above came from Senators Chuck Schumer and Michael Gianaris, asking the TSA to have an "on-site passenger advocate."

Good idea: Transparency and accountability.
Bad idea: Easily bribed "advocate".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:22pm

I'm thinking of putting a sticker on my suitcase. A TSA logo surrounded by the words: "Fire the scum"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beta (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:58pm
  
  Re:
  In English or Arabic?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    French
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 2:26pm

The TSA is a rogue department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
william (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 3:51pm

That's right TSA.

It's not because that your agents are incompetent, misfit high school drop outs that you found on the street randomly who doesn't receive proper training.

It's the people being push overs and bend over whenever the agents tells us to. I mean, it's totally our fault that we are such sissies and our rights are being violated by people who get paid by tax money.

I apologize for being spineless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Nemesh, 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:44pm

Driving 1600 miles this Christmas
I am driving from Seattle WA, to Las Cruces NM this fall instead of flying. I prefer to endure a 28 hour drive rather than the impersonal, rude, and downright NASTY treatment I get when I fly. Between the TSA's Gestapo tactics and the fact that I have to LEAVE the airport terminal to enjoy a cigarette, I have decided that if I have the choice, I will drive myself, even if it costs more money and time. I will fly again once the TSA is abolished, or if I have no other choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:10pm

All We Need Is One Colostomy-Bag Bomber ...
... and all you snivelling, lily-livered cowards will be screaming to know why Homeland Security let innocent Americans die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:50pm

Let me see now. I have a pacemaker, metal heart valves. The two of them make me audibly go tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-toc.

Does all of this screening mean I have to strip off in the middle of an airport just to prove that I'm not a bomb?

Hmmm, stuff your private room, how about right here, right now? Let's get to it!

(Same crap happens in Canada, and I threatened a screener with that and he decided to take the medical evidence that such things were actually inside me along with his little picture of my insides and outsides rather than have to suffer through that. I did have to talk to a very nice RCMP officer in the lounge as I waited for the plane to get going who thought it was the funniest thing she'd heard in years. I'm probably on Air Canada's no fly list now but I don't care as I don't fly on them, made that mistake once and never will again.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:28pm

But but but someone might call me soft on terrorism and I will loose my position of power if I point out the obvious - the TSA is a bad idea that has run it course.

It was created in a vacuum when people felt we had to do something. So rather than say this whole thing is crap, we add another layer of people who can fail to do their job of making the first tier of people do their job they way we intended, and then we can create a 3rd tier of oversight to the issue. How many more layers do we add before we just admit we are putting more more shit on the shit pile?

They used DHS funds to buy $900 snowcone makers in Michigan, and a whole bunch of failed tech sitting in warehouses. More tech keeps arriving because they have never considered adding a simple clause to a contract of - If your item does not work as promised, your paying us back and taking your tech back.
We never hold them accountable for these things, and when you try you get promises of investigations and such, but do we yet have answers to the radiation dose from pornoscanners? Do they have a system in place to make sure the pornoscanners are working correctly and not delivering a dose outside of spec? I'm tired of the "great idea" with no follow through, how can you hand billions to a company with untested unvetted machines using radiation on people and not have the simplest question of - is this dangerous? - answered in a clear rational way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
argh, 12 Dec 2011 @ 11:02pm

check the frigging bags
So what should happen? I say don't touch my leg, there's a colostomy or catheter bag there. And TSA is going to wave me though and say "we care and see you must have a tough life"?

Get over it. These are allexception cases which have turned out to be non-issues so far. BUT, if the TSA were to allow someone through who blew up the plane with a bag they claimed was full of human waste, you'd all attack them saying they should have know better and we should shut the incompetet boobs down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:59am
  
  Re: check the frigging bags
  And to whom are these non-issues? You? GFY, you fascist apologist and shill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Guy, 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:22am

The answer to all the world's problems
It is astonishing that we are at the point where we consider creating more expensive bureaucracy to limit another out of control bureaucracy a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amy Trenton, 15 May 2013 @ 8:48am

I hate reading stuff like this. I believe the elderly should be treated with utmost respect, and not degraded. Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]