Does anyone else feel like a criminal when going through TSA?

[Kennywood]

When I fly, I fly out of one of the Chicago airports (Midway or O'Hare). Security is rather tough but nothing out of the ordinary.

But I once had to go to Wyoming to do some training. I flew in and out of one of the smallest airports I've ever seen. When I left, though, I was scanned and patted down. All of my carry-on luggage was opened and swabbed for explosives. For some reason, that tiny airport had the toughest TSA security measures I've ever experienced.

 

[EACarlson]

I'll bite. What freedom was given up? I agree TSA and airport security has been reactive. I personally like some of the ideas presented in this thread. I'm not sure TSA has been successful, but a) it's kind of hard to prove a negative b) it's the current system we have (and as others have said other countries are MUCH stricter in their security methods), and c) I don't see it as giving up "rights" or "freedoms".

I believe PP was referring to all of the freedoms that have been willingly given up since 9/11 and the patriot act, not just in airport security.
I think that the ban on sealed drinks has been the closest for me in the airport space. I no longer have the option to do business with whom I want to business with, in some airports I can't get a diet pepsi or a gatorade after security. There is no security reason why I shouldn't be allowed to take any food or drink through security I want.

 

[china mom]

I have a CGM (Continuous Glucose Monitor) attached to my arm and I am unable to go through the full body security scanner due to the fact that it can destroy my monitor. I need to be hand scanned and patted down. After being patted down at least 3 or 4 times each time I fly it has become a real pain. I actually feel violated! I have notified TSA at least 3 weeks before each flight to have a TSA Support Agent escort me through security but have yet to have any assistance.

I fly all the time with a CGM and have gone trough metal detector and the full body scanner and have never had a malfunction. I have also had one go through x-ray in my checked bag and it worked fine when I used it.

 

[emmabelle]

In December my carryon got an extra screening. TSA opened my wheeler and it was all gifts that were in Disney and Universal bags. She started feeling one of them suspiciously. It was a Cat in the Hat that I bought for my grandson. She asked if she could swab him. Sure?

 

[china mom]

As someone who has personally conducted more than a thousand weapons patdowns and countless strip searches, I am more amused than than anything with abilities and thoroughness of TSA.

I have TSA pre so I usually go though the metal detector but once in a while I get sent through the full body scanner. Even with my medical device clearly marked on the computer screen, the agent patting me down usually does such a cursory pat down that they never find it. And since i am on an ECV, they usually ask me if I have any metal in me before sending me though the metal detector and my response is usually "yes, but it won't set it off" and it never does.

 

[sam_gordon]

I believe PP was referring to all of the freedoms that have been willingly given up since 9/11 and the patriot act, not just in airport security.
I think that the ban on sealed drinks has been the closest for me in the airport space. I no longer have the option to do business with whom I want to business with, in some airports I can't get a diet pepsi or a gatorade after security. There is no security reason why I shouldn't be allowed to take any food or drink through security I want.

Am I being too literal? How is the bolded any different than finding a specific drink at an arena/stadium? Most of them won't allow any outside food or drink and they have a contract with a certain vendor.

As far as the liquids, I believe it's because you can transport chemicals as liquids. "Sealing" a bottle would not be difficult. Now, you have a stronger argument if you (rightly) point out that you can bring seven 3oz bottles through in your quart size bag and combine them to get your 20 oz of a "normal" bottle. Multiple people can combine to bring as much liquid as you want.

I read a month or so ago they're rolling out (or maybe just testing) new scanners that will eliminate the liquid ban. I just did a search, couldn't find the exact article I had read, but others that at least hint that might become the "norm" (no timeline yet). https://www.google.com/search?q=new...i57j69i64l3.7127j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[EACarlson]

Am I being too literal? How is the bolded any different than finding a specific drink at an arena/stadium? Most of them won't allow any outside food or drink and they have a contract with a certain vendor.

Not the federal government making that decision. Also in most arenas/stadiums I've been to, you're allowed to bring in sealed bottles of water.

 

[sam_gordon]

Not the federal government making that decision. Also in most arenas/stadiums I've been to, you're allowed to bring in sealed bottles of water.

So you're ok with private businesses "taking away freedoms"?

And yea, the venue rules vary.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

And, nothing seems to be standardized even at the same airport or during the same trip.

They do that intentionally and they change things every so often too. I try to look for the signs that should tell me what I need to take out and listen to the TSA agents that are milling about the area giving directions.

I agree it can be confusing for first-time fliers and can be more of a guessing game for even seasoned travelers. I try to keep my liquids and electronics (which is usually just my kindle) with very easy access. Learn as you go basically.

 

[Mysterian]

I can't talk about GCMs, but TSA thinks I need to "leave the RPG at home", so I typically have to mail it to my destination.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Too many people in the regular lines seem to act like this is their first time at an airport and have NO idea what all is involved with the security checks.

I do agree there are people who have no clue although I think most of that IMO is because people don't take into consideration travel in general. I see people wearing things impractical for security, regardless of exactly what they will be doing. People who still have their winter coats on, those wearing complicated shoes, tons of jewelry on, etc.

 

[EACarlson]

So you're ok with private businesses "taking away freedoms"?

Yes, private business has the right to dictate just about whatever terms they want. If Delta decided I couldn't have a Pepsi on board that would be their right. It is my belief it is not a function of government to decide what drinks I choose to have in the airport or on board.

 

[JLTraveling]

So you're ok with private businesses "taking away freedoms"?

And yea, the venue rules vary.

Not the poster you were talking to, but yes. You've conveniently dodged the matter that I've brought up repeatedly about the TSA meaning that individual airlines no longer have the right to set their own standards and policies. I believe that every private business has the right to set whatever terms and conditions they like, and the free market will dictate whether those are successful. Private security contractors at the airport, same thing. If enough of the traveling public doesn't care for how they do their jobs, they will lose the contract. There IS no free market competition against the TSA. It's a government agency with unilateral decision making power, and they're in charge at EVERY airport. Previously, if you didn't like security at MCO, you could drive out of your way to fly from TPA. Now, no matter where you fly from, you're stuck with the same government overreach. And again, by it being a government agency, it violates the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure). The Constitution protects our rights against government overreach, not private entities.

 

[GreatLakes]

High value target security, like airports, will always be at least partially confrontational by nature. I don't really find it all that problematic and if someone has to pay me down go for it. This isn't a cavity search, you are doing a pat down.

I have to enter Federal buildings as part of my job and the security is very similar. I highly doubt anyone is getting their rocks off patting down my leg with the back of their hand but if they are, good for them I guess.

 

[sam_gordon]

Yes, private business has the right to dictate just about whatever terms they want. If Delta decided I couldn't have a Pepsi on board that would be their right. It is my belief it is not a function of government to decide what drinks I choose to have in the airport or on board.

Not the poster you were talking to, but yes. You've conveniently dodged the matter that I've brought up repeatedly about the TSA meaning that individual airlines no longer have the right to set their own standards and policies. I believe that every private business has the right to set whatever terms and conditions they like, and the free market will dictate whether those are successful. Private security contractors at the airport, same thing. If enough of the traveling public doesn't care for how they do their jobs, they will lose the contract. There IS no free market competition against the TSA. It's a government agency with unilateral decision making power, and they're in charge at EVERY airport. Previously, if you didn't like security at MCO, you could drive out of your way to fly from TPA. Now, no matter where you fly from, you're stuck with the same government overreach. And again, by it being a government agency, it violates the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure). The Constitution protects our rights against government overreach, not private entities.

Honestly, I don't have an answer for your airline "rights". But I still go back to there is no "right" to fly commercially. Yes, you have the right to travel. But nothing in that right says you HAVE to be allowed to fly commercially. Like I said, want to fly and not go through TSA? You're free to hire (or purchase) your own plane/pilot.

I see TSA as a "necessary evil". And before someone misconstrues what I'm saying, I don't think TSA (or their agents) are "evil". I think the vast majority of them are trying to do their jobs and get through their shift. I do believe there are some "poor" agents and some that see their role as a power trip.

I also think we need SOME kind of security other than locked cockpit doors and relying on passengers to overcome hijackers.

As far as your 4th amendment claim, has it not been challenged properly or does the court system disagree with you?

 

[GreatLakes]

Not the poster you were talking to, but yes. You've conveniently dodged the matter that I've brought up repeatedly about the TSA meaning that individual airlines no longer have the right to set their own standards and policies. I believe that every private business has the right to set whatever terms and conditions they like, and the free market will dictate whether those are successful. Private security contractors at the airport, same thing. If enough of the traveling public doesn't care for how they do their jobs, they will lose the contract. There IS no free market competition against the TSA. It's a government agency with unilateral decision making power, and they're in charge at EVERY airport. Previously, if you didn't like security at MCO, you could drive out of your way to fly from TPA. Now, no matter where you fly from, you're stuck with the same government overreach. And again, by it being a government agency, it violates the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure). The Constitution protects our rights against government overreach, not private entities.

The TSA is there to keep our skies safe. If one airport was allowed to be more lax with security that is where terrorists would go. That isn't to say at least some of the TSA isn't security theater, they are, but the government should be applying uniform rules to the airports. Since flying is a privilege and not a right they aren't taking away anyone's rights.

 

[JLTraveling]

Honestly, I don't have an answer for your airline "rights". But I still go back to there is no "right" to fly commercially. Yes, you have the right to travel. But nothing in that right says you HAVE to be allowed to fly commercially. Like I said, want to fly and not go through TSA? You're free to hire (or purchase) your own plane/pilot.

I see TSA as a "necessary evil". And before someone misconstrues what I'm saying, I don't think TSA (or their agents) are "evil". I think the vast majority of them are trying to do their jobs and get through their shift. I do believe there are some "poor" agents and some that see their role as a power trip.

I also think we need SOME kind of security other than locked cockpit doors and relying on passengers to overcome hijackers.

What about the security measures that I suggested upthread? There's a gaping gulf between "no security" and "government security." The TSA is only a "necessary evil" because people lost their freaking minds after 9/11 and the couple of failed attempts since (underwear bomb? shoe bomb? They didn't freaking work.) So rather than apply logic and common sense, the government decided to quell the masses with a bunch of security theater.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Not the poster you were talking to, but yes. You've conveniently dodged the matter that I've brought up repeatedly about the TSA meaning that individual airlines no longer have the right to set their own standards and policies. I believe that every private business has the right to set whatever terms and conditions they like, and the free market will dictate whether those are successful. Private security contractors at the airport, same thing. If enough of the traveling public doesn't care for how they do their jobs, they will lose the contract. There IS no free market competition against the TSA. It's a government agency with unilateral decision making power, and they're in charge at EVERY airport. Previously, if you didn't like security at MCO, you could drive out of your way to fly from TPA. Now, no matter where you fly from, you're stuck with the same government overreach. And again, by it being a government agency, it violates the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure). The Constitution protects our rights against government overreach, not private entities.

From a brief research what I could find is in 1973 a circuit court ruled that 4th amendment is suspended while undergoing airport security.

I'm pulling from a blog I'm reading but this is what it says the ruling advised "The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

Now in 20+ years since we've been undergoing more rigorous screenings I've yet to see someone win a suit that would effectively reverse a 1973 decision but that, like many things in court, could change.

 

[MillauFr]

Don’t like TSA? Simple, don’t travel by air.

Not possible. We live in Seattle. It would take a week to get to Florida.

 

[MillauFr]

What about the security measures that I suggested upthread? There's a gaping gulf between "no security" and "government security." The TSA is only a "necessary evil" because people lost their freaking minds after 9/11 and the couple of failed attempts since (underwear bomb? shoe bomb? They didn't freaking work.) So rather than apply logic and common sense, the government decided to quell the masses with a bunch of security theater.

It does seem like security theater but since no large terrorist attacks have occurred in the last 20 years they must be doing something right.