TSA mess and the police

[C.Ann]

Gracias!

I didn't scroll through!! Ugh!!

Removed it from mine as well - even though I didn't click on it..

 

[LuvOrlando]

What was the title of that You Tube video again? Now that you guys removed it I couldn't find it to show my DH and he'd want to see that.

Thanks for taking care of this ahead of the curve

 

[CathrynRose]

Removed it from mine as well - even though I didn't click on it..

Thank you.

I'd grope you guys, but I think we're all against that. How about a hug?

What was the title of that You Tube video again? Now that you guys removed it I couldn't find it to show my DH and he'd want to see that.

Thanks for taking care of that

You're pushing your luck! **shake fist**

You'll have to Google. I got points once for describing how to get to a breast feeding video. Honestly.

 

[EMom]

Thank you.

I'd grope you guys, but I think we're all against that. How about a hug?



You're pushing your luck! **shake fist**

You'll have to Google. I got points once for describing how to get to a breast feeding video. Honestly.

The mental slippery slope just made me picture a TSA agent "checking" to make sure a b-feeding woman was really "packing" breastmilk in her girls and not some dangerous liquid. The method used to check.....Well, we can all imagine.

 

[bicker]

please list the operational objectives for which you are asserting that you have hard evidence to the contrary

No, I don't have hard evidence to the contrary (I assume you mean to disprove that the new procedures make us safer).

Whoa! You totally (presumably inadvertently) misread what I wrote. I asked you to list the operational objectives for which you are asserting that you have hard evidence to the contrary - not to provide that evidence. Let's start back from there.

It's not my job to have that evidence.

Fine: Let's start with you listing the operational objectives for which you are asserting that someone (not necessarily you) has hard evidence to the contrary.

The TSA is the organization that chose to make changes, therefore the burden of proof is on that organization to prove the need for the change, not the other way around.

Saying it a third way: List the criteria that you would apply in evaluating the proof that you would have them produce for you.


It seems you are either missing or overlooking the point you're replying to.

 

[C.Ann]

Thank you.

I'd grope you guys, but I think we're all against that. How about a hug?
.

Consider yourself groped - err - I mean hugged right back..

 

[bicker]

I do find it quite interesting that you didn't respond to my pointing out the "put down" in your post addressing me. Instead you chose to deflect to someone else. Interesting choice indeed.

Why? I told you that your assertion that the comment you referred to was a put-down was incorrect, and provided you an example of what a put-down actually looks like, by pointing to one that another poster posted.

It's the whole pot/kettle thing.

No, it's not because you were wrong about your assertion. You're trying very hard to cast in a negative light comments made that refute claims made that you favor. Instead of actually addressing those comments, you're simply trying to smear mud on them because you don't like them.

 

[JLTraveling]

Whoa! You totally (presumably inadvertently) misread what I wrote. I asked you to list the operational objectives for which you are asserting that you have hard evidence to the contrary - not to provide that evidence. Let's start back from there.

Fine: Let's start with you listing the operational objectives for which you are asserting that someone (not necessarily you) has hard evidence to the contrary.

Saying it a third way: List the criteria that you would apply in evaluating the proof that you would have them produce for you.


It seems you are either missing or overlooking the point you're replying to.

I'm not missing your point at all. You want me to discuss hard evidence (whether in my possession or not) that shows that the TSA regulations do NOT make us safer. I, in turn, am asserting that the burden of proof is on the TSA to produce evidence showing that the new regulations DO make us safer.

So I'll address your third statement, and list the criteria that I would use in evaluating the proof that TSA would provide. First, allow me to state the proof for which I am searching.

1) A detailed assessment of current and potential explosives that could be reasonably carried onto an aircraft and used in a terrorist attack against said aircraft, including a chemical analysis of each type of explosive, verified by at least three independent (not affiliated with the TSA) expert witnesses.

2) A full scientific research report on each of at least 100 replicable scientific studies in which the backscatter scanners accurately identified at least one of the above named explosives. I would, of course, expect these trials to be conducted at different airports at different times of the day and year, and for the TSA staff at each trial to have no foreknowledge at all of the upcoming trial. I would also expect that each explosive would be hidden differently (in someone's underwear, strapped to someone's leg, etc.) in each trial, and I would expect a different person to carry the explosive material in each trial.

3) The same as #2, only using the enhanced pat-down technique rather than the backscatter scanners.

4) The same as #2, only using the detection methods in place before this latest round of screening changes (metal detectors, puffers, chemical swabs).

5) The same as #2, only using pre-9/11 security methods alongside trained explosive-sniffing dogs.

Assuming that the results of all of these trials are presented, I would then critically examine said results. First, of course, I would carefully read the methodology and participants section of each report, looking for procedural errors that could inadvertently bias the results.

Assuming that there were no procedural errors, I would then compare the data. Did the backscatter scanner and/or the enhanced pat down procedure ACTUALLY catch more explosives than the other procedures? If step 3, 4 or 5 caught as many or more explosives than 1 or 2, then it is a moot point. The new procedures are just for show. If 1 and/or 2 do catch more explosives than 3, 4, or 5, how many more? If 3, 4, or 5 catch 97 instances and 1 or 2 catches 98, the difference is statistically meaningless.

In order to think that the TSA has moved in a direction that actually keeps us safer, I expect to see results from the scanners and/or enhanced pat downs that are at least two standard deviations above the highest performance rate of 3, 4 or 5. Anything less could easily be explained by random chance.

A quick demonstration of statistical relevance: My dad had an infection in his chest wall, and rather than radical surgery, his doctor wanted to try an experimental procedure that involved using catheters to draw out the infection. The lung surgeon said it would never work. "I had a patient once that they tried that on and it failed." He had a sample size of one and a zero percent effectiveness. My dad decided to try the procedure, and it worked perfectly. All of a sudden--sample size of two and the success rate jumped to 50 percent. I want to see large samples and standard deviations to prove efficacy.

 

[emh1129]

I'm late to the party, but I support LuvOrlando 100%. My background is in psychology, and I write professionally about phobias. Both the scanners and the invasive pat downs are what is known as "triggers." A trigger is, simply, something that causes a portion of the population distress, fear, or discomfort. It could be because that person was previously molested. It could be because that person is touch-sensitive (have any of the moms of kids with autistic spectrum disorders weighed in yet?). It could be for absolutely no discernible reason at all. But it doesn't make someone "hysterical" or "panicky" or a "conspiracy theorist" to have a negative reaction to a trigger..

Mother of an autistic child here. And I agree with you and LuvOrlando.
I've been following the thread over the last few days, but my frustration was only growing. I do think there are some very legitimate concerns here.

We have airplane tickets that were purchased before these recent changes were made, and I honestly don't know what to do now. My son does *not* like to be touched by people he doesn't know. It might be a different story if I could hold his hand and talk/walk him through the entire thing, but from what I'm reading, this isn't possible.
I could just see him asking a TSA to stop touching him, the TSA agent not acknowledging him, and then DS reacting to what he (and I) deemed an inappropriate touch...pulling away, bolting, or shoving the agent's arm, etc.. . then all of us getting hauled off by TSA. I could just read the headlines now about how TSA saved the day by retaining an out-of-control 8 yr old with autism!

Also.. my daughter is not on the spectrum, but is very aware of private areas and that *nobody* should ever touch those areas. They are for her and her alone. The comments earlier in the thread about doctors/nurses are so irrelevent.. my daughter has known her pediatrician and RN since she was born. And they have never ever put a hand anywhere near her private areas. No need for them to. So those two people, whom we have a lot of trust in, don't even touch her like that. But she's supposed to feel okay with a random TSA agent doing this?
And I'm not going to tell her that it's necessary, that it's in her best interest, or that I have full confidence in the TSA agent. I don't know a single thing about that person other than their employer.

The number of formal complaints are growing each day and it will be interesting to see what comes out of this, if anything.

"Americans now must choose between a virtual strip search and a grope," said Chris Calabrese, a legislative counsel at the ACLU.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mon...gh-pat-down-procedure-expands-nationwide.html

 

[kaytieeldr]

Yikes!!!

I knew it was only a matter of time before the t-shirts came out... Bumper stickers next - if not already....

The only "yikes" I can see on all but two of those shirts is they're offensive or insulting (or both) to people simply doing their jobs. The TSO doing your pat-down didn't make the policy.

The people who need to get the message - the executives, our elected officials - they're not going to see the shirt messages as passengers are scanned. For that matter, the TSA agents doing pat-downs aren't going to see them, either. Only the agents monitoring the scans will see them.

Pointless. Really pointless. And, again, offensive.

 

[JLTraveling]

Mother of an autistic child here. And I agree with you and LuvOrlando.
I've been following the thread over the last few days, but my frustration was only growing. I do think there are some very legitimate concerns here.

We have airplane tickets that were purchased before these recent changes were made, and I honestly don't know what to do now. My son does *not* like to be touched by people he doesn't know. It might be a different story if I could hold his hand and talk/walk him through the entire thing, but from what I'm reading, this isn't possible.
I could just see him asking a TSA to stop touching him, the TSA agent not acknowledging him, and then DS reacting to what he (and I) deemed an inappropriate touch...pulling away, bolting, or shoving the agent's arm, etc.. . then all of us getting hauled off by TSA. I could just read the headlines now about how TSA saved the day by retaining an out-of-control 8 yr old with autism!

Also.. my daughter is not on the spectrum, but is very aware of private areas and that *nobody* should ever touch those areas. They are for her and her alone. The comments earlier in the thread about doctors/nurses are so irrelevent.. my daughter has known her pediatrician and RN since she was born. And they have never ever put a hand anywhere near her private areas. No need for them to. So those two people, whom we have a lot of trust in, don't even touch her like that. But she's supposed to feel okay with a random TSA agent doing this?
And I'm not going to tell her that it's necessary, that it's in her best interest, or that I have full confidence in the TSA agent. I don't know a single thing about that person other than their employer.

The number of formal complaints are growing each day and it will be interesting to see what comes out of this, if anything.

"Americans now must choose between a virtual strip search and a grope," said Chris Calabrese, a legislative counsel at the ACLU.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mon...gh-pat-down-procedure-expands-nationwide.html

Thank you for sharing your concerns. Your story really gives a human face to all of this. How sad that in a free country a mother has to worry about her child being hauled off for reacting the only way he knows how to a highly invasive touch. How can this conversation possibly be taking place in the United States, in the 21st century?

The only "yikes" I can see on all but two of those shirts is they're offensive or insulting (or both) to people simply doing their jobs. The TSO doing your pat-down didn't make the policy.

The people who need to get the message - the executives, our elected officials - they're not going to see the shirt messages as passengers are scanned. For that matter, the TSA agents doing pat-downs aren't going to see them, either. Only the agents monitoring the scans will see them.

Pointless. Really pointless. And, again, offensive.

I don't think the shirts are pointless at all. Risky, perhaps, since the wearer is at the total mercy of the potentially-enraged TSA worker. But I'm sure that like in any workplace, people talk. I wouldn't be surprised to see the shirts appear on media broadcasts either. No, the executives won't see them in person, but I'm sure they'll learn about their existence very quickly.

 

[punkin]

I don't think the shirts are pointless at all. Risky, perhaps, since the wearer is at the total mercy of the potentially-enraged TSA worker. But I'm sure that like in any workplace, people talk. I wouldn't be surprised to see the shirts appear on media broadcasts either. No, the executives won't see them in person, but I'm sure they'll learn about their existence very quickly.

risky, very risky. I wouldn't wear one. These are people with enormous power over you. They can delay you, make your life difficult, put your name on a list that guarantees increased scrutiny every time you fly...and that's only the stuff they can legally do.

 

[CathrynRose]

Ohhh...I liked Moon Shot!

 

[C.Ann]

The only "yikes" I can see on all but two of those shirts is they're offensive or insulting (or both) to people simply doing their jobs. The TSO doing your pat-down didn't make the policy.
.

So why do you think I said, "Yikes!!" ????? Because regardless of how I feel about this issue, I would not wear one.. If someone else wants to, that's their right, but I find them offensive and/or insulting as well..

And you know that there will also be bumper stickers - if not even more offensive and/or insulting - and no - there will not be one on my car..

 

[kaytieeldr]

What you're describing here is not the representative government of a free people. What you're describing is Stalinism. Trust your government. Don't think for yourself. Quell the rebellion. Dispose of the dissidents. The ordinary citizenry cannot be expected to understand such complicated issues, so we will do the thinking for them. Free debate is based in hysteria.

Stalinism? Really? I can't speak for the rest of the population, but I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. Do I agree with the new procedures or think they're necessary? Still neutral.

I've been planning a domestic vacation for a number of months. I purchased plane tickets over the summer. I could use alternate transportation, but it's a lonnnnnnnnnnng trip except by plane, so I'm keeping my tickets (well, that and that they're nonrefundable ). No, I haven't been through the scanner or had the front-hand patdown YET, nor have I ever been taken into a private area for more intense screening. I've had, as far as I know, every other type of check: metal detector, if Logan's Terminal C had puffers at any point that too; I've been wanded; I've been patted down several times...
I CHOOSE to fly on commercial airlines*.
Security screening is a requirement of commercial air travel.
Therefore, I must undergo security screening any time I fly on a commercial airline.

WHAT the security screening is doesn't matter to me. Really.

*As opposed to earthbound travel; not to be confused with private jet travel being an option, as my bank account doesn't allow that

The media is sensationalistic and not to be trusted.

Weak attempt at sarcasm aside, the majority of the time the media ARE sensationalistic and not to be trusted. That sells. Facts don't.

 

[kaytieeldr]

So why do you think I said, "Yikes!!" ????? Because regardless of how I feel about this issue, I would not wear one.. If someone else wants to, that's their right, but I find them offensive and/or insulting as well..

And you know that there will also be bumper stickers - if not even more offensive and/or insulting - and no - there will not be one on my car..

I honestly didn't know, and I apologize for thinking you agreed with the messages on those shirts!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jodifla]

Mother of an autistic child here. And I agree with you and LuvOrlando.
I've been following the thread over the last few days, but my frustration was only growing. I do think there are some very legitimate concerns here.

We have airplane tickets that were purchased before these recent changes were made, and I honestly don't know what to do now. My son does *not* like to be touched by people he doesn't know. It might be a different story if I could hold his hand and talk/walk him through the entire thing, but from what I'm reading, this isn't possible.
I could just see him asking a TSA to stop touching him, the TSA agent not acknowledging him, and then DS reacting to what he (and I) deemed an inappropriate touch...pulling away, bolting, or shoving the agent's arm, etc.. . then all of us getting hauled off by TSA. I could just read the headlines now about how TSA saved the day by retaining an out-of-control 8 yr old with autism!

Also.. my daughter is not on the spectrum, but is very aware of private areas and that *nobody* should ever touch those areas. They are for her and her alone. The comments earlier in the thread about doctors/nurses are so irrelevent.. my daughter has known her pediatrician and RN since she was born. And they have never ever put a hand anywhere near her private areas. No need for them to. So those two people, whom we have a lot of trust in, don't even touch her like that. But she's supposed to feel okay with a random TSA agent doing this?
And I'm not going to tell her that it's necessary, that it's in her best interest, or that I have full confidence in the TSA agent. I don't know a single thing about that person other than their employer.

The number of formal complaints are growing each day and it will be interesting to see what comes out of this, if anything.

"Americans now must choose between a virtual strip search and a grope," said Chris Calabrese, a legislative counsel at the ACLU.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mon...gh-pat-down-procedure-expands-nationwide.html

This is a really great post. Thank you for making it. I think parents with autistic children will be very, very nervous and upset about these changes and the potential they have to wreck trips. First, you have to try to explain to your autistic child the varying machines, the children have to be VERY STILL, and if they are not, they have to try and subject themselves to what many autistic children have a very difficult time with, intrusive touch. And touching places other adults would be in JAIL for in any other circumstance.

The other thing that's just revolting is there's definitely a sense that TSA is trying to "punish" people who opt out of the machines. Again, I had no problem with the machine I went through, other than it took a really long time, and these machines will make flying irrelevant. The security lines will be hours long if you make each individual go through it; you might as well drive.

But now that I read other experts talk about the fact that the disagree with the government about the backscatter machines, and that subjecting children and pregnant women to these machines could be a real problem, as well as people like FAs and pilots, who have to go through them all the time, it gives me greater pause about the safety of these machines.

 

[surfgirl]

for all you who promise not to fly until it goes back to the old way... please, please follow through! It will make flying cheaper (since so much less demand) for the rest of us.

I think there are people who just like to get their knickers in a twist. (okay, I just wanted to say that because we've had a 20 some page post without the term "knickers" !)

I've been through it, so first hand experience here. I believe to equate it to 'groping' is crying wolf. I believe if you prepare your children for what will happen and stand there next to them and talk them through it, they will be accepting of it. (I can't speak to special needs or autistic or on the spectrum or social anxiety etc).

I love to travel to Europe. I will be sad when the day comes that I can't do that. I don't consider these measures draconian enough. They may reach that point, but in my mind, they haven't.

Do I discount the abusive personal experiences ? I'll agree they probably happened, but I also think the reason they are a story is because they are the extremes. Does anyone else believe that the media likes to sensationalize things ?

As to terminology, maybe some of the pat downs become 'abusive'. However, 'assault' or 'groping' or 'fondling'. I think calling 10-30 seconds of pat downs with those terms is watering down the strength of those terms.

 

[LuvOrlando]

for all you who promise not to fly until it goes back to the old way... please, please follow through! It will make flying cheaper (since so much less demand) for the rest of us.

I think there are people who just like to get their knickers in a twist. (okay, I just wanted to say that because we've had a 20 some page post without the term "knickers" !)

I've been through it, so first hand experience here. I believe to equate it to 'groping' is crying wolf. I believe if you prepare your children for what will happen and stand there next to them and talk them through it, they will be accepting of it. (I can't speak to special needs or autistic or on the spectrum or social anxiety etc).

I love to travel to Europe. I will be sad when the day comes that I can't do that. I don't consider these measures draconian enough. They may reach that point, but in my mind, they haven't.

Do I discount the abusive personal experiences ? I'll agree they probably happened, but I also think the reason they are a story is because they are the extremes. Does anyone else believe that the media likes to sensationalize things ?

As to terminology, maybe some of the pat downs become 'abusive'. However, 'assault' or 'groping' or 'fondling'. I think calling 10-30 seconds of pat downs with those terms is watering down the strength of those terms.

You are welcome then, I'd gladly give up my 4 seats and my hotel room for 4 and my 4 tickets to an amusement park and my table for 4 at the restaurant for you. But here is a question for you to think about. How long do you think that stuff will be open for you if the seats next to you are empty? You are 1, I am 4, my behaviors carry more weight than yours so my demographic is extremely important, even if we are inconvenient. Still, enjoy, the reduced traffic might actually be good for a while that is until the belt tightening begins then it might not be so much fun.

 

[C.Ann]

I honestly didn't know, and I apologize for thinking you agreed with the messages on those shirts!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you.. I really appreciate - and have a lot of respect - for someone who is willing to apologize when they have made a mistake - or misconstrued something I have posted..

I don't have an issue with the scanners at all (I'm too old to worry about radiation at this point - LOL) - I just have an issue with the new pat downs.. But that certainly doesn't mean I would stoop to wearing something like that - or putting a bumper sticker on my car..

And I would not want to be the first wise guy that walks into an airport wearing one of those shirts... That's just antagonizing people and going out of ones way looking for trouble.. If someone is bold enough to do that, I wouldn't have much sympathy for them over whatever the consequences might be that followed.. If they go out of their way looking for trouble, then they can't really cry, "Foul !!" KWIM?