TSA mess and the police

[LuvOrlando]

Huh? There is a lot in between LOL!

That was my point, I reject the notion I must be one extreme or the other. I'm only comfortable sitting happily somewhere in the middle of the road

 

[hambirg]

Okay - I feel violated when I read this thread. Should we shut it down?

Sure. . .after I get a free shot at feeling up your *****. Are you a tall man with a big shoe size?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

re: gloves and germs..

I always thought the TSA agents wore them to protect themselves, not us. Thus they aren't going to change them in between passengers as a medical or dental professional would do.

They don't want to get any potential hazards on their hands or catch yuckies from you. Didn't think it was to protect you from them.

YMMV though.

 

[CPT Tripss]

re: gloves and germs..

I always thought the TSA agents wore them to protect themselves, not us. Thus they aren't going to change them in between passengers as a medical or dental professional would do.

They don't want to get any potential hazards on their hands or catch yuckies from you. Didn't think it was to protect you from them.

YMMV though.

I always ask the TSAer to change gloves before they examine me or my possessions. Some are cool with that, others get all huffy.

You want to talk disease spread . . . think about all the unshod masses tramping around the check point. It would be interesting to take some swabs and pertie dishes for the floors and gloves.

 

[JLTraveling]

Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving and Black Friday! Just saw this today. It was written by a law professor at George Washington University.

Why the TSA pat-downs and body scans are unconstitutional
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112404510.html

It's long, so I won't quote the whole thing here. But here are some highlights:

Although the Supreme Court hasn't evaluated airport screening technology, lower courts have emphasized, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007, that "a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.' "

In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then, if they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands. He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose a reason to conduct a more probing search."

He goes on to discuss the difference between the US machines and those used in Amsterdam in regards to both privacy and radiation concerns. He also reiterates the evidence that shows that the scanners wouldn't have detected the underwear bomb in the first place.

The rest of the article talks about different Supreme Court rulings and lower court rulings that might be relevant...including one that struck down strip searches in schools. If you link to the strip search article, the girl in question was 13 at the time, so older than the TSA's "under 12" policy.

 

[JLTraveling]

This was one of the questions discussed at length upthread. Looks like a feminine hygiene product WILL show up on the scanner and trigger a pat down. Yay, discussing my personal hygiene choices with a TSA agent sounds like SO much fun

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333432/Humiliated-Female-passenger-subjected-patdown-sanitary-towel-showed-body-scanner.html

 

[OceanAnnie]

This was one of the questions discussed at length upthread. Looks like a feminine hygiene product WILL show up on the scanner and trigger a pat down. Yay, discussing my personal hygiene choices with a TSA agent sounds like SO much fun

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333432/Humiliated-Female-passenger-subjected-patdown-sanitary-towel-showed-body-scanner.html

I saw that! It reminded me of the issues C.Ann brought up. Seems like it wasn't so far fetched at all.

 

[rie'smom]

Just wanted to let you know that we had no problems with security flying out of New Orlenas or Orlando. The New Orleans TSO were super nice and I even joked with those in Orlando. I set off the alarm as I walked through the MCO scanner and I just had to walk through again-no problem.
It was a huge relief for us and I hope this allays the fears of others on the thread too.

 

[bicker]

All extremists.

I agree that the critics are simply engaging in cynical fear-mongering propaganda - that's really the only weapon in their arsenal that has a chance of being effective - and by effective, I mean prompting a change in policy from a policy based on reason and rational consideration of all the factors to a policy based on fabricated fear. Perhaps it is time to start pointing the kind of off-the-wall conspiracy-theory suspicion that critics have been directing at this policy at the critics instead?

 

[eliza61]

This was one of the questions discussed at length upthread. Looks like a feminine hygiene product WILL show up on the scanner and trigger a pat down. Yay, discussing my personal hygiene choices with a TSA agent sounds like SO much fun

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333432/Humiliated-Female-passenger-subjected-patdown-sanitary-towel-showed-body-scanner.html

LOL, spare me. not one tsa agent I've talked to (and yes, I know and talk to many) wants to know if you're on the rag or not.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Great to know the great minds of the TSA are so concerned with public safety.


http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25911785/detail.html

"TSA Worker Accused Of Assault Had Prior Record

Posted: 4:44 pm EST November 24, 2010Updated: 6:56 pm EST November 24, 2010
ATLANTA -- Channel 2 Action News has learned a TSA security worker accused of abducting and sexually assaulting a woman had previously been convicted of misdemeanor harassment and stalking.

Randall King remains hospitalized following a suicide attempt. Police said last Wednesday, King agreed to drive a woman home from the airport. Instead, investigators said King took her to a MARTA station parking lot and placed novelty handcuffs on her.

TSA Worker Accused Of Assault Has Troubled Past

Investigators said he drove her 50 miles away to his home in Troup County and sexually assaulted her. The woman told police that King gave her a suicide note, his car and let her go, investigators said.

A spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration said privacy laws precluded him from releasing any background information on King.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Regan reviewed court records from Clinton County, Pennsylvania. According to the records, King was charged with nine offenses of harassment and stalking by communication in January 2001. A court clerk told Regan that King pleaded guilty and spent three months in jail for skipping a court appearance.

TSA has a long list of “disqualifying offenses” for employment at the federal agency that operates airport security. Those offenses include felonies, violent crimes, theft, and crimes involving security and transportation. Regan checked the list and found that it did not include misdemeanor offenses of harassing and stalking.

Brent Brown, a security expert who runs a company in Smyrna, told Regan that he believes a job candidate with a record of stalking should not be hired by the TSA.

“This type of misdemeanor, this is harassment. You’re putting a person in a public area. I would say that would disqualify him for employment,” said Brown.

Hogansville police told Channel 2 Action News that they have prepared warrants on the 49-year-old airport security worker but would not specify the nature of the charges."

 

[skater]

re: gloves and germs..

I always thought the TSA agents wore them to protect themselves, not us. Thus they aren't going to change them in between passengers as a medical or dental professional would do.

They don't want to get any potential hazards on their hands or catch yuckies from you. Didn't think it was to protect you from them.

YMMV though.

I was actually very impressed a couple years ago when a tsa agent made a point to tell me he put on new gloves before he searched my carry on.

I would definately request fresh gloves for a pat down .

 

[tsme]

Thanks Rie'sMom. That's a relief.

 

[rie'smom]

Thanks Rie'sMom. That's a relief.

You're welcome. While there I heard that MCO may hire their pwn security and opt out of having a TSA presence.

 

[MushyMushy]

TSA has a long list of “disqualifying offenses” for employment at the federal agency that operates airport security. Those offenses include felonies, violent crimes, theft, and crimes involving security and transportation. Regan checked the list and found that it did not include misdemeanor offenses of harassing and stalking.

Huh. Maybe I'm not so odd for wondering if they've had their child abuse clearances after all.

 

[JLTraveling]

LOL, spare me. not one tsa agent I've talked to (and yes, I know and talk to many) wants to know if you're on the rag or not.

So you're saying that feminine pads DON'T show up as anomalies on the scan/ become apparent during pat downs? That the article is incorrect?

I'm not trying to challenge you, just curious what you were told on this issue by the TSA agents that you know.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

So you're saying that feminine pads DON'T show up as anomalies on the scan/ become apparent during pat downs? That the article is incorrect?

I'm not trying to challenge you, just curious what you were told on this issue by the TSA agents that you know.

eliza61 is incorrect! Pads, diapers or adult diapers do show up on the scans and extra screening is needed.

I find it sad that people think this intrusive screening keeps them safe. Anyway, waiting for the next thing TSA is going to do in the name of security.

 

[kaytieeldr]

eliza61 is incorrect! Pads, diapers or adult diapers do show up on the scans and extra screening is needed.

Then the law of averages is truly skewed... or people are making a big deal out of nothing.
The new procedures have been in effect for almost a month. In all that time, of all the millions of air passengers, only ONE menstruating passenger has gone through the backscatter scanner and needed additional screening and been so traumatized she took her experience to the media? Really? Yes, I read the article; yes, I realize this passenger had been sexually assaulted some time in the past.

What I find difficult to believe is that no other passenger using pads or diapers in the last month went through the scanner and then still had to be patted down - and didn't complain about it. None. Not one.

 

[laurie31]

What I find difficult to believe is that no other passenger using pads or diapers in the last month went through the scanner and then still had to be patted down - and didn't complain about it. None. Not one.

I don't know. Out of the last 20 or so flights I've taken, I've had 2 Really Bad experiences with TSA, and 3 very nice ones. The rest were nothing out of the ordinary. One of the Really Bad ones was (IMHO) media-worthy bad, but I never bothered to write a letter to the TSA, much less actually go to the media. I figured it wouldn't do any good, and why waste my time.

I have not flown since the new measures went into effect, but I can only imagine that many women have flown with "Aunt Flo" and a percentage of these have been selected for extra screening. Most of them may not have been bothered by the idea, and those who were bothered may not have taken the time to complain about it to anyone. Even if some did write letters, how many letters of complaint actually make the news?

My guess is, that there are 100 letters of complaint for this one story that made the media, and for every letter there are 100 more people who were upset, but didn't bother complaining.

 

[bicker]

And my guess is that for every 100 people who were upset, there were 1000-3000 people who weren't. Some percentage of people are going to be intent on being upset, just because they don't like that these measures are in place, without any regard whatsoever to any objective actuality of offense. They just want to personally control the situation, even though the situation is in a public context.