Senator Tweets About 'Very Uncomfortable' TSA Pat Down: 'OMG'

from the love-pats dept

Tue, Mar 12th 2013 11:04am — Mike Masnick

A few years ago, we wrote about how many elected officials in Congress get to skip through airport security when they fly -- which might explain why they're not so concerned with the intrusive nature (and lack of effectiveness) of today's security theater at airports. It turns out that this only applies when they travel with law enforcement. At other times, if they're traveling alone, they do, in fact, have to go through the standard TSA process, and it appears that Senator Claire McCaskill was not too happy about her latest experience:

Today in my airport screening, test on my hands was positive. Got private, more aggressive pat down. OMG. #veryuncomfortable
— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) March 11, 2013

She later said that this sort of #veryuncomfortable and "OMG" experience is something she's gone through frequently due to the fact that she has a metal knee.

Of course, the real question is whether or not this will actually change anything at all. As some have pointed out, Senator McCaskill has been criticizing such pat downs for years (while also arguing in favor of "full body scanners") and it hasn't changed much. In some ways, it just feels like another piece of the theater act.

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: claire mccaskill, pat down, security theater, tsa

29 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 10:04am

She got lucky. She didn't get a cavity exam. Maybe metal knees aren't a turn on for TSA agents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2013 @ 2:34pm
  
  Re:
  I'd give her a cavity exam... probably twice
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 10:47am

"test on my hands was positive."

The test for explosive residue was positive? And all she got was an aggressive pat-down? They still let her board?

Sounds like she still got the VIP treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AzureSky (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 2:41pm
  
  Re:
  not really, that test detects many brands of lotion as explosives and the people doing the tests know it, they once took away the airport wheel chair i was using(sever arthritis) and made me use another because it had "explosive" residue on it....ROFL.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Mar 2013 @ 4:40am
  
  Re:
  the tests they use are actually extremely sensitive- they are tripped if the bag in question has been used in the past to transport drugs/explosives ( they are that sensitive because the same level of drug residue can indicate concealment of drugs). Hence why you are subjected to further scrutiny- it's to check why the test turned up positive. If you simply used the bag to transport drugs during a trip to the Netherlands, for example, the test would trip, but it doesn't block entry into the US. Similarly, at the border, they are less bothered by if you've used explosives in the past as to if you're going to blow up the plane. ( Immigration might care, but that's not the TSA's problem)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Harrill (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:10am

The real reason the TSA doesn't work
Presented without comment, cause it would be redundant: http://consumerist.com/2013/03/11/undercover-tsa-inspector-gets-through-airport-security-just-fine-w ith-fake-bomb-in-his-pants/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:10am

Nothing but a Theater Act to get more Votes.I await their actions in reigning in the losers at the TSA.
When the Politicians truly do something real then I will believe it but until then it is business as Usual.

I fly very rarely and would rather take a train or rent a car.I have cut many plans.............things I could of done.
I hate the TSA !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:27am
  
  Re:
  She just won reelection, so she doesn't need to publicity to get more votes, not for another 6 years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:12am

Okay, which lobbyist's gear was she smuggling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TasMot (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:16am

But where are the terrorists
After 12 years of "travelers are criminals" treatment at the airport, they still haven't caught any terrorists. They've thrown away lots of toothpaste, water and soda pop (I can still see the trash can full of these hazardous materials right next to the screening area where it makes me feel so much safer). But no terrorists! There are plenty of stories of airports being emptied after someone self-reports that they brought in a gun, but no terrorists. Oh wait, I know "See its working, no terrorists". But they still don't seem to be able to catch the people who "accidently" have a gun and aren't even trying to hide it. How are they going to catch the ones that are trying to hide them. Its actually quite easy to break down a gun into pieces and hide the pieces in the clutter of a regular suitcase. Never mind, I remember now, "Just trust them, they know how to grope every ones' genitals without my help".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:20am

Actually, the real question is: Why do you allow cyborgs into the senate!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liz (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  Even though there is a "Social Conservative" struggle here in the United States, this country does remain fairly progressive with regards to the individual. There are openly gay and transgender people holding public office, as well as a number of cyborgs in government positions. Even though some have elected to have minor modifications such as pacemakers, artificial hearts, and hearing implants (ocular implants are in development). There are a few who are on their way to full cybernetic conversion.
  
  However don't let this idyllic vision of our country direct your focus away from the darker side. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has yet to gain a reasonable foothold within our system. In fact, it appears that any measurable form of intelligence seems to be lacking on a grand scale.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 4:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There are openly gay and transgender people holding public office, as well as a number of cyborgs in government positions.
    
    Indeed, even this guy got elected.
    
    (come on, it had to be done!)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:52am
  
  Born on the ides of March.
  Military service has always been a good prelude to entering the senate in the Republic. The fact that your military service may have made a cyborg out of you only adds to your perceived patriotism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jd2112 (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re: cybogs in the Senate?
  Easy. In her last election her opponent was Todd "legitimate rape" Akin.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:26am

Look at me, I'm one of you! I'm relatable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:29am

So one of the nobility almost got treated like one of the commoners... you'll excuse me if I not only fail to sympathize with her 'suffering', but hope the same happens to all the others in power who 'see nothing wrong with TSA procedures' due to never having to experience them themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bergman (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:46am

It's surprisingly easy to false-positive an explosives detector
They don't actually scan for the complex molecules of the actual explosives, just for key components that are far easier to detect.

A good example of this, is that they scan for nitroglycering, dynamite, etc by detecting nitrates and glycerin. Someone who has both on them will false positive the detector.

Blow bubbles with your grand children, then change a diaper, and you have enough nitrate and glycerin residue to set off the detector even days later, even if you wash your hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 12 Mar 2013 @ 11:55am
  
  Re: It's surprisingly easy to false-positive an explosives detector
  Nitrates? What about sausage?
  
  Will Hans get the 3rd degree from the TSA if he's recently made a batch of homemade bratwurst?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 4:53pm
    
    Re: Re: It's surprisingly easy to false-positive an explosives detector
    Not to mention that soil and vegetables contain nitrates. I don't know if the concentration is high enough but theoretically you could test positive for nitrates after gardening or cooking. Combine with hand lotion and voila, free hand job.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 12 Mar 2013 @ 12:17pm
  
  Re: It's surprisingly easy to false-positive an explosives detector
  Blow bubbles with your grand children, then change a diaper
  
  Key lesson learned for today. Do not have grandchildren or babies. Too dangerous. Even the TSA thinks so:
  
  http://i.imgur.com/roNfT.jpg
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 12 Mar 2013 @ 12:13pm

In some ways, it just feels like another piece of the theater act.
Everything feels the same to the TSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Applegate, 12 Mar 2013 @ 12:14pm

If highly trained guards in a semi-sealed environment can't keep prisoners from smuggling contraband around in prisons (where they do body cavity searches), how can the TSA possibly expect to be effective in an Airport with a line in a hallway?

/rhetorical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2013 @ 12:26pm

OMG, I do it anyway
I always opt-out of the scanner and go for the patdown.

Sounds to me like this lady is going to even more strongly push the scanners, cuz OMG, she doesn't want another patdown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ShellMG, 12 Mar 2013 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re: OMG, I do it anyway
  I have to go for the patdown (or in my case a prod-down *ouch!*) because of a medical implant. I have a medical card but TSA screeners just blink at it and move on.
  
  I do a lot of driving these days.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2013 @ 1:42pm

That's probably the closest she'll ever get to "getting laid". She's the ugliest troll on the face of this planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 12 Mar 2013 @ 4:26pm

Pat-downs vs body scanners
Senator McCaskill has been criticizing such pat downs for years (while also arguing in favor of "full body scanners")

Which bemuses me, as I consider a pat-down to be much less intrusive than the body scanners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
special-interesting (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 1:35am

Where is the basic trust we shared as Americans gone? What lovable societal meem was lost when the TSA entered the scene.

Degrading into conspiracy theory: A direct result of DEA policy of supporting foreign suppliers of drugs.

If one was really against terrorism then they would remove all the laws regulating drugs including prescriptions. This would remove any monetary support for gangs, hoodlums, most terror cells, gangsters, motivation for many bank robberies and the development of new drugs based on societal use. (don't laugh as many current drugs were first found by individual use and its success as such)

In all that we consider the feelings of an elected representative's feelings about being searched with the scrutiny to find even a hidden jump drive.

-two page rant tossed into campfire-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vox Populus, 13 Mar 2013 @ 6:53am

Smoke and Mirrors
If they really wanted to increase airline flight security, they'd use bomb and drug sniffing dogs at the security checkpoints instead of the "random" pat downs and body scans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]