TSA mess and the police

[emh1129]

Hi all -

As promised a quick review of the current situation:

1st - this was from a non-international airport

--> No obvious changes to the old security. The one person pulled out for a "personal check" was simply wanded not patted down.

Hoping my flight home out of MCO remains as painless as this was

Thanks for the update! Have a great trip!

 

[LuvOrlando]

Anyone else come across this little factoid yet?

"The former Secretary of _________________ , Michael Chertoff, represents Rapiscan, the company which is selling these scanners to his former department."

Just a coincidence, a random occurrence? Hmmm, I think not. The hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.... now a whole new and improved level of disgust is washing over me. Nice, what a complete and utter disgrace.

Please, no links and no specifics, the story should be just about everywhere by now so anyone who wants to find it can easily do so on their own. Also, remember the rules ok. We are talking about a very specific situation, no more and no less.

 

[OceanAnnie]

That's exactly how I feel about many of the 'anti' posts, such as the OP.

My post was a statement that I meant to apply to the board in general. It would be nice that kind of thing didn't happen at all.

I guess it's to be expected to a degree. We're all human.

 

[EMom]

Anyone else come across this little factoid yet?

"The former Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, represents Rapiscan, the company which is selling these scanners to his former department."

Just a coincidence, a random occurrence? Hmmm, I think not. The hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.... now a whole new and improved level of disgust is washing over me. Nice, what a complete and utter disgrace.

Please, no links and no specifics, the story should be just about everywhere by now so anyone who wants to find it can easily do so on their own. Also, remember the rules ok. We are talking about a very specific situation, no more and no less.

So the guy who insisted to our country that these machines were the be all and end all for our security needs is now making a TON of cash off them? Yep......Smacks of conflict of interest. He couldn't POSSIBLY have had an agenda for convincing the American people these machines were vital to our safety, could he have? $$$$$$$$$$

 

[LuvOrlando]

So the guy who insisted to our country that these machines were the be all and end all for our security needs is now making a TON of cash off them? Yep......Smacks of conflict of interest. He couldn't POSSIBLY have had an agenda for convincing the American people these machines were vital to our safety, could he have? $$$$$$$$$$

Yep it seems he quite literally has MILLIONS of reasons to have pushed this through.

Also, I have noticed this story is being picked up by people all over the world who view what is happening to us to be as disgusting as many of us do. Looks like it's not exactly the storm in a tea cup some would like us to believe. Go figure...

 

[WHIT1]

We have our upcoming trip next week and if I get patted down all I will say is YES , they are real, home grown and corn fed.lol Other than that I will do whatever has to be done to travel. Its only once a year for us. If it keeps us safe , then ok.

 

[JLTraveling]

Anyone else come across this little factoid yet?

"The former Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, represents Rapiscan, the company which is selling these scanners to his former department."

Just a coincidence, a random occurrence? Hmmm, I think not. The hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.... now a whole new and improved level of disgust is washing over me. Nice, what a complete and utter disgrace.

Anderson Cooper was talking about this last night. Apparently it's a barely legal relationship between Chertoff and Rapiscan, but a lot of people are debating the ethical implications.

 

[ccgirl]

Anyone else come across this little factoid yet?

"The former Secretary of _________________ , Michael Chertoff, represents Rapiscan, the company which is selling these scanners to his former department."

Just a coincidence, a random occurrence? Hmmm, I think not. The hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.... now a whole new and improved level of disgust is washing over me. Nice, what a complete and utter disgrace.

Please, no links and no specifics, the story should be just about everywhere by now so anyone who wants to find it can easily do so on their own. Also, remember the rules ok. We are talking about a very specific situation, no more and no less.

Nope. Not new, story has been around for a while. Just to be fair, there are two manufacturers of the scanners. Rapiscan manufactures the backscatter. They also manufacture WTMD. Also to be accurate, Chertoff does not work for Rapiscan. Rapiscan is a client of his security consulting firm. He is not making money off the sale of the scanners. He was employed as the Secretary of Homeland Security until Jan 21, 2009 and the Chertoff Group was formed on 02/02/2009. The first backscatter was not placed in a U.S. airport until the Fall of 2009 - after he left the White House.

Other parts of the world are already using the scanners as well. I read a thread where one flier said they would fly out of Canada to International destinations due to the stricter U.S. screening. However, if they are going to the UK I have no idea how they are going to get home since the UK uses these scanners as well, and as a UK resident put it "there is no opt out."

 

[PaulaSB12]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ra-body-searching-crying-3-year-old-girl.html


Seemingly the pat downs are getting to intimate for people's liking, don't blame them myself two especially

It has also emerged the TSA is being sued for a an incident at the Corpus Christi airport when a woman's breasts were exposed.

An unnamed 23-year-old college student was allegedly singled out for 'extended search procedures' before flying in 2008.

'As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff's blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs' breasts to everyone in the area,' the Amarillo Globe-News quotes the lawsuit as saying.

'As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated.'
The suit said the woman filed an administrative claim against the TSA, but when they never responded, she sued.

The suit also claims staff joked about the woman's breasts.

'One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that 'he would just have to watch the video,' the lawsuit said.


The suit said the woman filed an administrative claim against the TSA, but when they never responded, she sued.

The suit also claims staff joked about the woman's breasts.

'One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that 'he would just have to watch the video,' the lawsuit said.

Elsewhere at least two passengers, including a 54-year-old Missouri City man, have complained about airport staff putting their hands down the front and rear of their pants - as invasive new screening measures are increasingly criticised.
Thomas Mollman, 54, said he experienced the controversial 'pat down' when he was trvelling through security at Fort Lauderdale Airport.

Mr Mollman, who was wearing shorts at the time of the search, said he was subjected to a 'groping' by a TSA officer, and he believe his experience was tantamount to sexual molestation.

He said: '[The officer] put his hand in between my underwear and my skin and did a 360 all the way around, touching certain sesitive points in the back and the front.'

He added: 'This was an assault. This was no different than a sexual assault.'
Why on earth do you need to grope a man's reproductive organs to make it safe for people to travel?

 

[sbell111]

Don't believe everything that you read in the Daily Mail. They are tabloid journalism at it's worst.

 

[Huggles]

"Don't believe everything that you read in the Daily Mail. They are tabloid journalism at it's worst."

Oh yes, very much selective journalism. Sometimes they even slip up and contradict themselves within the article.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

So, I didn't read every page of this thread, but I thought that I would throw in my point of view. I have very little concern for the new screening process. First, I know that the TSA screeners are just as uncomfortable about this as we are. Second, by the time their discomfort wears off, they will have moved into the "clinical" mode, in which they will not even notice us as individuals.

The radiation from the flight is of significantly greater concern than that from the more "dangerous" scanners. You receive as much radiation in 2 minutes of flight time above 30,000 ft as you get from the scan. So, if you are willing to risk the flight...

Now, the pat downs. IMO, they went this route (public and more uncomfortable) on purpose to get people to submit to the scans. They will not admit it. The scans are obviously the best way to ensure that we catch dangerous materials or weapons. A pat down, even this "diligent", can easily miss things. So, IMO, the pat downs changed to get people to submit to the scans.

Since flying is a choice, I do not consider this an infringement upon my freedoms, even though I have to fly very frequently for work.

JMHO

 

[ccgirl]

PaulaSB12 - the "incident" with the college student was in 2008, long before the "new" measures started last week. I would agree that there should be some sort of formal complaint and investigation in place for agents that did not follow proper protocol. I can only comment on what my DH experienced, and I observed, in that the new enhanced pat down was not invasive.

I have a question for you. I had read an entry from another UK resident in another thread regarding the full body scanners in the UK and that you cannot "opt out" that all fliers need to go through them. My question is.... are they in all airports and is it indeed true that you cannot opt out?

Thanks.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Nope. Not new, story has been around for a while. Just to be fair, there are two manufacturers of the scanners. Rapiscan manufactures the backscatter. They also manufacture WTMD. Also to be accurate, Chertoff does not work for Rapiscan. Rapiscan is a client of his security consulting firm. He is not making money off the sale of the scanners. He was employed as the Secretary of Homeland Security until Jan 21, 2009 and the Chertoff Group was formed on 02/02/2009. The first backscatter was not placed in a U.S. airport until the Fall of 2009 - after he left the White House."

OK, I'll take your word for it that the guy is not a direct, hand to mouth, sort of employee. But also to be fair, the water is pretty muddy when it comes to consulting. Most consultants are legitimate but it's an easy way to bypass all sorts of legal entanglements. I, for one, have a hard time believing that the guys influential connections had nothing to do with the way things turned out.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Anyone else come across this little factoid yet?

"The former Secretary of _________________ , Michael Chertoff, represents Rapiscan, the company which is selling these scanners to his former department."

Just a coincidence, a random occurrence?

Old news. Ethical? Eh. Legal? Apparently. Write your persons in Congress. Complaining here isn't changing anything. I take that back. It's not changing the minds or opinions of anyone who disagrees with your point of view. It may be changing the opinions/actions of people who were on the fence. Maybe not. Oh, wait. All the "anti" posts apparently did change the course of action of one poster who was originally going to simply report her next airport experience, but is now going to take some truly juvenile action in a futile attempt at a protest.

At a certain point, you reach a such a frenzy while trying to impress upon everyone why YOU are correct, why their position is flawed, why your arguments are superior that you fail to realize you have crossed over the line and are now a source of humor. Oh well, I'll take a chuckle where I can get it.....Even if you don't mean to be amusing.

You're missing bicker's point. I won't insult you the way you attempted to insult him; I will simply quote a line from a movie I like: "Sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna. Never will." (Working Girl, 1988).

Simply because YOU (any 'you', not specific to EMom) assess yourself a certain way, doesn't make it fact. It also doesn't mean anyone who doesn't know you, who's never encountered you, to whom you're no different than the other 15,000 passengers trying to get through that checkpoint that hour, can reasonably be expected to trust that simply because you SAY you're 100% safe/the least likely person in the world to attempt to bring forbidden items onto the plane, that the statement can be believed.

 

[skater]

We have our upcoming trip next week and if I get patted down all I will say is YES , they are real, home grown and corn fed.lol Other than that I will do whatever has to be done to travel. Its only once a year for us. If it keeps us safe , then ok.

Its good that you can fortify yourself mentally lilke this. I could probably do it for myself - but how do I reconcile it for my 16 yr old DD?

I wish I could believe an "enhanced" pat down will keep my DD safe, but it won't. Nobody has been able to explain how this new system will keep us any safer. The DHS officials make no sense to me - one minute they use the underwear bomber as an example for why they need this system and the next minute, another "official" is claiming this wouldn't have stopped the U-bomber. It reminds me of one of the books I read in high school - 1984/ Animal Farm (who can remember ). The real bad guys will find another way to get past this. Again, its the non-criminals who pay.

 

[skater]

But the TSA has always been able to do pat-downs. This isn't a matter of putting power in the hands of the little guy. I agree there've been some sensationalistic reports on the recent pat-downs, but there've been some reasonable reports right here on the DIS, experienced by posters with whom we're familiar.

I don't think it's reasonable to compare TSA Agents with mall security officers. I think the qualifications are different, the training is different, the oversight and supervision are different... the mall security incidents cited (not pasted here, see post 730) likely occurred with no other officers in the area, i.e. no supervision, and based on an obvious lack of training or caring regarding what's legally permitted.

Ahhh, but the pat-downs are now "enhanced."

Obviously, mall security officers are not the same as TSA agents, but the concept of too much power is similar. What about Kent State? What about the occasional police officer who abuses his power? I just think we need to be careful about how much power we put in their hands.

What happens if you don't want your child to go through the scanner? And then, you notice the enhanced pat-down is a little too much. Do you just stand there? Do you ask for a supervisor? What if the supervisor is not helpful? What power do you have? If you try to walk away, they could fine you. Do you really want to give up all your rights when you buy that plane ticket?

 

[skater]

Thing is, the men and women who are serving in Afghanistan will understand more than most, the need for such searches as THEY are the ones who have dealt with suicide bombers and IEDs during their deployment.

I am not afraid of flying nor am I running away, I am merely carrying on my life confident in the knowledge that the Govt puts in place what it thinks is required. I am not looking over my shoulder at all times, instead I continue my life as normal, taking care of my family and travelling by whatever means is required.
I take it that you don't approve of the Govt assessed levels of alert either?
Surely being afraid ( you imply fear of molestation of your children) of the TSA searches (home security) is worse than being afraid of implied threats of terrorism?

I could be wrong, but my gut feeling is that many soldiers would rather keep our right to not have unreasonable searches forced upon us. Many soldiers feel that they're fighting for our freedoms. Also, do you really trust the govt. that much? What if someone is in power you don't like or trust? And personally, I don't think the new methods really keep us safer. I'm happy to keep the old metal detectors and un-enhanced pat-downs.

 

[skater]

I would absolutely submit without question, same goes for my kids.

I have no problem with it being a level 2 search, if they have a REASON to suspect me then so be it. I am not ok with it being the default.

Because then it becomes a reasonable search.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Because then it becomes a reasonable search.

Precisely!