TSA mess and the police

[LuvOrlando]

I'm really confused.

That was the title of the article, which I linked. I did that because Jennasis didn't intially include a link in her post (she added one a moment later, which I missed) so I thought you were asking for one. It wasn't until later that I realized you thought links weren't allowed.

Why do I need to be directed anywhere?

I misread you for sarcasm, my bad. Twice in a few minutes means poor judgment which means now is a good time to step away from the computer and let my thoughts settle.

 

[Magpie]

I would be all for each airport having their own police force. LAX has LAXPD. But never going to happen since most states want to lay off as many cops as they can to save money. Even if you redirected all the money for TSO into LEO it wouldn't be enough. Police training is very expensive.

As great at K9's are they can miss things. So thats not really the answer.

I'm thinking that the amount of hollering we're hearing now would be just as loud if the TSA started using dogs.

A lot of people don't like dogs. Some are allergic. Some find just being near dogs very traumatic. Some have religious objections to dogs. Having read multiple threads in which people say they don't want dogs allowed anywhere in public, I can just imagine their reaction to having a dog (evenly a highly trained TSA dog) sniff their crotch.

 

[Magpie]

I misread you for sarcasm, my bad. Twice in a few minutes means poor judgment which means now is a good time to step away from the computer and let my thoughts settle.

 

[kaytieeldr]

So everyone is on-board with a large increase in the price of airline tickets to implement a non-invasive search method for everyone (dogs, LEO's on planes etc)?

I'm not, but thanks for asking . I have a fear of dogs. I'd react badly to having a dog behaving assertively/aggressively near me... and very likely would be subjected to a secondary screening

 

[skater]

You matter of factly tell her the deal.

My DD15 is flying over the holidays without me. She will be with an adult but not a parent. I'm going to tell her that procedures have changed since last year and that this what she can expect.

I have no problem telling her the deal. We have a very open matter of fact relationship. It still doesn't change the fact that she may have to choose between a naked photo (and possibly too much radiation - I still can't get to the facts of that issue) and a stranger touching her. I still say its unreasonable and wrong.

 

[WDWMom]

The TSA will not say exactly what the machines can and cannot see, but it says the scanners do reveal all metallic and nonmetallic objects concealed between your clothing and skin. It does not detect items hidden in body cavities. TSA personnel view the image in a remote site.
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131328327/new-airport-security-rules-cause-traveler-discomfort?ps=rs

Thanks for answering.

 

[JLTraveling]

As great at K9's are they can miss things. So thats not really the answer.

But scanners and pat downs miss things too, and I'd wager a lot more frequently than dogs. Dogs are a non-invasive means of accomplishing security that is *at least* as good as we have right now.

I'm thinking that the amount of hollering we're hearing now would be just as loud if the TSA started using dogs.

A lot of people don't like dogs. Some are allergic. Some find just being near dogs very traumatic. Some have religious objections to dogs. Having read multiple threads in which people say they don't want dogs allowed anywhere in public, I can just imagine their reaction to having a dog (evenly a highly trained TSA dog) sniff their crotch.

I'm not, but thanks for asking . I have a fear of dogs. I'd react badly to having a dog behaving assertively/aggressively near me... and very likely would be subjected to a secondary screening

These two quotes make me wonder if you're both aware of exactly how dog screenings are conducted. The dogs don't get anywhere near the passengers. They just need to go generally "down the line," which is actually several feet away. If the dog alerts, it sits down in front of the person in question--still several feet away. It's not like police dogs going after the bad guy to try to bring him down. It's way less threatening to a person who fears dogs than a body scanner is to someone who's claustrophobic, simply because of the distance factor.

I've seen dogs outside the gates at Epcot, and all over the luggage coming back from a cruise. I've never seen or heard of anyone reacting negatively, but it is of course possible.

 

[skater]

I'm thinking that the amount of hollering we're hearing now would be just as loud if the TSA started using dogs.

A lot of people don't like dogs. Some are allergic. Some find just being near dogs very traumatic. Some have religious objections to dogs. Having read multiple threads in which people say they don't want dogs allowed anywhere in public, I can just imagine their reaction to having a dog (evenly a highly trained TSA dog) sniff their crotch.

Last winter I flew out of a NH airport and was sniffed by a dog - that didn't bother me at all. (I can't remember how close the dog got to me). Also, people were randomly selected out of a line boarding the flight. Their bags were hand searched. This made me feel a little irritated, but not as incensed as what they're doing now.

 

[Magpie]

I have no problem telling her the deal. We have a very open matter of fact relationship. It still doesn't change the fact that she may have to choose between a naked photo (and possibly too much radiation - I still can't get to the facts of that issue) and a stranger touching her. I still say its unreasonable and wrong.

Well, you can tell her that the naked photo is hardly flattering, not identifiable as her, and is one of a million just like it (literally!). So even if they ARE storing the photos (which they say they aren't), there's no way for it to ever come back to haunt her.

No one will be leering at her. She's not even a superstar, so no one's going to try to somehow steal her scan.

You can tell her that the media says the radiation from the scan is apparently equal to two minutes of flight time. Unless, of course, you think it would alarm her more to know that she's being exposed to solar radiation the entire time she flies.

You can tell her that the pat down will be over her clothes, and in public, and that she will not be required to remove them. You can tell her that you'll be with her the entire time.

And finally, you can tell her that the woman who will be patting her down doesn't want to do this, any more than she wants to have it done. And, by the way, by the time your daughter gets to that woman, she'll have been patting down people all day. There's nothing about your daughter's rack that makes it any more special than the last person's rack. If anything, she'll just be grateful that your daughter doesn't have BO.

 

[Magpie]

But scanners and pat downs miss things too, and I'd wager a lot more frequently than dogs. Dogs are a non-invasive means of accomplishing security that is *at least* as good as we have right now.

These two quotes make me wonder if you're both aware of exactly how dog screenings are conducted. The dogs don't get anywhere near the passengers. They just need to go generally "down the line," which is actually several feet away. If the dog alerts, it sits down in front of the person in question--still several feet away. It's not like police dogs going after the bad guy to try to bring him down. It's way less threatening to a person who fears dogs than a body scanner is to someone who's claustrophobic, simply because of the distance factor.

I've seen dogs outside the gates at Epcot, and all over the luggage coming back from a cruise. I've never seen or heard of anyone reacting negatively, but it is of course possible.

I have no idea how dog screening are conducted, so thank you!

All I know is that some people object whenever dogs are around. I've read people objecting to dogs being in carriers near them - because the dog's dander might float out and contaminate their air. I've read people objecting to dogs using the same photo studio for pictures as their children - even if it's on a different day of the week and the studio was cleaned! Even just bringing your leashed dog to school to pick up your kids is a contentious issue.

 

[Sorsha]

I have no problem telling her the deal. We have a very open matter of fact relationship. It still doesn't change the fact that she may have to choose between a naked photo (and possibly too much radiation - I still can't get to the facts of that issue) and a stranger touching her. I still say its unreasonable and wrong.

And I still maintain - AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION - YMMV - that if my DD16 didn't understand that part of living in these times is the requirement that she be scanned/photographed/patted down /touched/etc for things like flying, attending concerts, pro sporting events, high security events, etc then I would have done my child a disservice and not fullfilled my obligations to her as a parent. By not teaching her that this is a part of life and no big deal I would have given her unnecessary reason for fear and paranoia.

So we don't emphasize that its a "naked photo" (ooh big scary noises) - nope, its just a "body scan" to be sure you - or anyone else in line - aren't hiding anything under your clothes. And it isn't a "stranger touching you" (more scary terminology) - its a "security pat down" - the TSA official is just doing their job feeling for hidden lumps under your clothes - and she is no more a "stranger" (official kid bad scary word) then the policeman or the doctor. Its all in the terminology. Why would you want to scare a kid by passing on your fears via your overly-paranoia laden terminology? Stick to the facts and don't freak them out.

 

[skater]

Well, you can tell her that the naked photo is hardly flattering, not identifiable as her, and is one of a million just like it (literally!). So even if they ARE storing the photos (which they say they aren't), there's no way for it to ever come back to haunt her.

No one will be leering at her. She's not even a superstar, so no one's going to try to somehow steal her scan.

You can tell her that the media says the radiation from the scan is apparently equal to two minutes of flight time. Unless, of course, you think it would alarm her more to know that she's being exposed to solar radiation the entire time she flies.

You can tell her that the pat down will be over her clothes, and in public, and that she will not be required to remove them. You can tell her that you'll be with her the entire time.

And finally, you can tell her that the woman who will be patting her down doesn't want to do this, any more than she wants to have it done. And, by the way, by the time your daughter gets to that woman, she'll have been patting down people all day. There's nothing about your daughter's rack that makes it any more special than the last person's rack. If anything, she'll just be grateful that your daughter doesn't have BO.

I'm completely aware and capable of telling her all that. You don't have to worry - I've been taking good care of my DD and meeting her needs for a long time . I know how to comfort her and prepare her for the world - really.

What I won't do is lie and tell her I trust the media when they say the radiation is OK (IMO, the jury is still out on that one - remember all the other things that were supposed to be safe?).

I also won't lie and tell her for sure that no one is leering at her (probably not, but no guarantee).

I also won't tell her that just because the TSA agent might not like what she's doing, makes it OK. It doesn't make it any less of an invasion of privacy. Some of us don't like to be touched in private places! And 16 is still very young.

And, finally I won't lie and tell her its OK to throw the constitution away to suit our need to have an illusion of safety.

 

[rie'smom]

I'm not, but thanks for asking . I have a fear of dogs. I'd react badly to having a dog behaving assertively/aggressively near me... and very likely would be subjected to a secondary screening

My fear is being felt up by a stranger so maybe you can now understand why I don't like the groping search.

 

[skater]

And I still maintain - AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION - YMMV - that if my DD16 didn't understand that part of living in these times is the requirement that she be scanned/photographed/patted down /touched/etc for things like flying, attending concerts, pro sporting events, high security events, etc then I would have done my child a disservice and not fullfilled my obligations to her as a parent. By not teaching her that this is a part of life and no big deal I would have given her unnecessary reason for fear and paranoia.

So we don't emphasize that its a "naked photo" (ooh big scary noises) - nope, its just a "body scan" to be sure you - or anyone else in line - aren't hiding anything under your clothes. And it isn't a "stranger touching you" (more scary terminology) - its a "security pat down" - the TSA official is just doing their job feeling for hidden lumps under your clothes - and she is no more a "stranger" (official kid bad scary word) then the policeman or the doctor. Its all in the terminology. Why would you want to scare a kid by passing on your fears via your overly-paranoia laden terminology? Stick to the facts and don't freak them out.

You have no clue about what I've told my DD. I won't sugar coat what it is though. It is a stranger touching you . Yes, the TSA official is doing their job, but again, its still an unreasonable search. If she does something to cause a police officer to search her, then she'll understand that there is just cause. When she needs to go to the doctor, she understands the need to be touched. Why change terminology to hide the truth? I am giving her the facts. She also knows how to research this issue on her own and has done that.

Sorry for you that you think I'm paranoid. You can think what you want . My kid is not scared - she's uncomfortable and if she was scared, its not because of me. She knows how to think for herself and she recognizes when people use "terminology" to cover up the truth. She knows that "enhanced" pat-down means they can go inside your waist band.

I for one, am thankful she's an independent thinker. You can judge me all you want, but we're OK. The small glimpse you have into my family from my posts give you zero idea of what we're like on a daily basis and zero insight into our daily conversations.

 

[WDWMom]

I'm thinking that the amount of hollering we're hearing now would be just as loud if the TSA started using dogs.

A lot of people don't like dogs. Some are allergic. Some find just being near dogs very traumatic. Some have religious objections to dogs. Having read multiple threads in which people say they don't want dogs allowed anywhere in public, I can just imagine their reaction to having a dog (evenly a highly trained TSA dog) sniff their crotch.

Not to be rude, but what are some religious objections to dogs??? I've never heard this and I am just curious?

And to ask again, can you have a TSO of the oppposite sex pat you down if you wish?

 

[WDWMom]

I'm not, but thanks for asking . I have a fear of dogs. I'd react badly to having a dog behaving assertively/aggressively near me... and very likely would be subjected to a secondary screening

I'm the exact opposite. I'd probably try to pet the dog and tell him/her what a good dog it was. I do know not to pet them though.

 

[jrmasm]

You have no clue about what I've told my DD. I won't sugar coat what it is though. It is a stranger touching you . Yes, the TSA official is doing their job, but again, its still an unreasonable search. If she does something to cause a police officer to search her, then she'll understand that there is just cause. When she needs to go to the doctor, she understands the need to be touched. Why change terminology to hide the truth? I am giving her the facts. She also knows how to research this issue on her own and has done that.

Sorry for you that you think I'm paranoid. You can think what you want . My kid is not scared - she's uncomfortable and if she was scared, its not because of me. She knows how to think for herself and she recognizes when people use "terminology" to cover up the truth. She knows that "enhanced" pat-down means they can go inside your waist band.

I for one, am thankful she's an independent thinker. You can judge me all you want, but we're OK. The small glimpse you have into my family from my posts give you zero idea of what we're like on a daily basis and zero insight into our daily conversations.

You say you won't sugar coat but I think (bold for emphasis) your choice of words are overly dramatic. I'm sticking with 'body scan' and 'pat down'. That's is why I don't think it's going to be such a big deal for my teen. I'm not giving her any reason to worry or be upset so she probably won't be.

 

[rie'smom]

Well, you can tell her that the naked photo is hardly flattering, not identifiable as her, and is one of a million just like it (literally!). So even if they ARE storing the photos (which they say they aren't), there's no way for it to ever come back to haunt her.

No one will be leering at her. She's not even a superstar, so no one's going to try to somehow steal her scan.

You can tell her that the media says the radiation from the scan is apparently equal to two minutes of flight time. Unless, of course, you think it would alarm her more to know that she's being exposed to solar radiation the entire time she flies.

You can tell her that the pat down will be over her clothes, and in public, and that she will not be required to remove them. You can tell her that you'll be with her the entire time.

And finally, you can tell her that the woman who will be patting her down doesn't want to do this, any more than she wants to have it done. And, by the way, by the time your daughter gets to that woman, she'll have been patting down people all day. There's nothing about your daughter's rack that makes it any more special than the last person's rack. If anything, she'll just be grateful that your daughter doesn't have BO.

Neither are the people in the 35000 scan pictures that the TSA has on file.

You don't know this.

You don't know this either.

 

[jrmasm]

I'm the exact opposite. I'd probably try to pet the dog and tell him/her what a good dog it was. I do know not to pet them though.

We have bomb sniffing dogs at work. Whenever I see them I have the hardest time not saying hello and giving them a pat.

 

[Sorsha]

Sorry for you that you think I'm paranoid. You can think what you want . My kid is not scared - she's uncomfortable and if she was scared, its not because of me. She knows how to think for herself and she recognizes when people use "terminology" to cover up the truth. She knows that "enhanced" pat-down means they can go inside your waist band.

I for one, am thankful she's an independent thinker. You can judge me all you want, but we're OK. The small glimpse you have into my family from my posts give you zero idea of what we're like on a daily basis and zero insight into our daily conversations.

As I said, just my opinion, and your mileage may vary. I am glad your daughter is an independant thinker, and I am glad you guys are able to have good conversations. Not judging at all.

Its just that I have found - and this is NOT directed at you at all, just what I have found in my dealings with people around me - and granted, I live in a HORRIFICALLY conservative area (Tea Parties on every corner ) that generally when teenagers are very uncomfortable with something that most other teenagers take for a "fact of life" sort of thing it is not because they are an independant thinker, but because they have, from the time they were very small, heard their family members rant and rail against the establishment, against the government, against whatever-the-hot-issue of the moment is, so the child has just grown up to be naturally fearful of these things without really knowing why. It just must be bad and scary because mom and dad have always hated it so.

Trust me, my child goes to school with teens who won't use "new money" (the bills printed with the colors) because the government has planted tracking devices in them, who swear that there is no global warming but if there is it is caused by chemicals dropped into the atmosphere by the government by airplane contrails... it goes on and on... for some of them, tinfoil hats are not a joke but a way of daily life... so I am a wee bit sensitive of any suggestion that our children be frightened into anti-govenrment sentiment. Absolutely NO reflection on YOU!!