Slashdot Mirror
Baby's First TSA Patdown
theodp writes "Is there anything cuter than baby milestones? Baby's first steps. Baby's first word. And now, baby's first TSA patdown. 'Well,' writes Anna North, 'it finally happened. Airport security officers gave a pat-down to a baby.' A post on the TSA blog defended the move: 'The child's stroller alarmed during explosives screening. Our officers followed proper current screening procedures by screening the family after the alarm...The [8-month-old] child in the photo was simply receiving a modified pat-down.' Hey, at least they didn't make a federal case of the 4 oz. of liquid found in the little tyke's Pampers."
Here's some nice TSA porn for all you regular folks.. Now get back to work!
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Osama Bin Laden is laughing in his grave. He obviously won, even in death.
1) Nationwide, how many times has the alarm gone off during explosives screening?
2) How many times have explosives been found?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
...is an embarrassment to America.
We really could be better than this.
A Muslim with an obvious middle eastern accent was waved on through because the random checks didn't single him out and because it would be politically incorrect to flag Muslims for extra screening.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Won't someone please think of the children? We need to protect them from the TSA!
You put security theater together with stupid people.
The TSA people really believe they are keeping everyone safe while creating targets for terrorists to attack.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be getting better.
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
I think we should be able to request a woman do our patdowns instead of a man.
The idea of some mustachioed 50 year old man grabbing my balls is a lot more offensive to me than a woman doing it.
The thing that bothers me most about the TSA responding to issues is the privacy of the people going through screening. I feel like the entire process should be treated as confidential, the number of people in the party, wether or not they had a stroller, what set off what alarm, how old the child was, etc. I don't feel like the TSA should be sharing that information publicly.
paul reinheimer
I'd be willing to bet the "explosive" they detected coming from the kid was the load that was left in his diaper. When kids explode is really messy!
Yes a terrorist can hide a bomb in a baby. A terrorist can also surgically insert a bomb into a baby if they wanted to.
They could also just detonate the bomb at the airport itself (remember russia?) and skip all of this.
All this stupid theatre does absolutely nothing, except give the 'terrorists' (and the general population) a little grope before they get blown up. Wouldn't want them to die unhappy would we?
Does France have such patdowns in their airports? What about Canada? What about Germany? Belgium? China? Japan?
Why is it we also have not heard of ANY foreign terrorist activities on airliners since all this started? Are the american airport patdowns such a deterrent they can stop a "potential terrorist" from boarding a plane in S Africa with a bomb or a knife?
This needs to stop. I really don't care personally, because I don't fly - but all the other people being displaced from the planes are filling up the trains, and I miss the extra elbow room.
Or checkpoints against drunk driving
Police cameras on the roads
"Zero Tolerance" in schools
Drug testing
ID requirements for just about anything, including purchasing cough syrup
When was the last time one heard "Go ahead, it's a free country!"
-----
Would George Washington taken his boots off?
Are you saying that a chiropractor is any less fraudulent than the TSA?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I'd just like to point out that a terrorist draws the line as using children to blow things up. No one would *ever* think to sacrifice a child for their religious views. They should obviously be allowed to pass through any security points without any problems!
... the kilogram of home-brew RDX in my backpack, surrounded by another kilogram of small iron nails oriented outwards and dripped in anticoagulant rat poison, explodes, peppering the meters-long queue and anyone nearby with poisoned shrapnel, ensuring that many victims bleed to death before the medics can get to them.
Good Job, TSA!
Sure, I'll die, but I'm going to take at least a hundred more people with me if I time the blast right. Nobody would pick me out beforehand, because I'm not through the security checkpoint yet, so it's basically risk-free. And I'd die if I bombed the airplane anyway, the queue at the checkpoint just makes for a cheaper and less risky target.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Seriously ... a pat down of a baby? TSA has gone too far if they are going to give infants (children are probably next) pat downs that can't even speak for themselves. Someone has to put a stop to the overzealous security czar that's known as TSA. If that had been my child, I would have been extremely outraged.
Why is this idle? We only idly wonder at controversial and arguably ineffective security procedures being followed to the letter? Especially when "I was just following orders" are the dirtiest words a lackey can speak?
http://gizmodo.com/5688087/the-tsas-sense-of-humor-makes-me-nervous
A charge to freedom should not include wreckless behavior that endangers all those who enjoy said freedom. A douchebag drunk on the road is already on the road. They made a choice to endanger others. Police cameras on the road are not cameras in your house, and what would you have the police do? Go back to hoping someone in society helps identfy people for them because of their limited resources? Drug testing where? Private buisnesses or schools or what? ID requirements for drugs, what is the problem? If you can buy the drugs, you most likely have ID.
Well they didn't call me in the morning.
At least they didn't put the baby through the scanner...
Texas has had enough. Other states will soon follow. On top of states rights, there are individual airports excercising their "opt-out" privileges and replacing TSA with private security.
This morning CBS in Dallas/Fort Worth reports:
"The Texas House passed a bill that would make it a criminal offense for public servants to inappropriately touch travelers during airport security pat-downs.
Approved late Thursday night, the measure makes it illegal for anyone conducting searches to touch “the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person” including through clothing."
Source:http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/13/texas-house-bans-offensive-security-pat-downs/
If TSA ignores the new Texas law Texas has grounds to go to the US Supreme Court and challenge TSA's authority.
the flip side is, we aren't dogs... I dont have to smell your asshole to determine if you are a threat.
In November 2001 we were traveling and didn't realize that our return flight had been canceled. We were able to rebook but of course that gave us a XXX rating for risk (though we didn't understand that until later). But our 13 month old (and the rest of us) had to go through three different screens between the ticket counter and the gate, the last of which was a full pat down for all of us.
First I was screened, then our baby was made to stand away from both of us (since he wasn't screened and they were screening my wife) while my wife was being screened. This step took a long time, because of course the kid was screaming bloody murder about being kept from his parents, and several times he broke free and ran to his mother and if she moved (not reached, just moved out of her crucifixion position) or the kid touched her, the agent yelled at her and started over again. After about the third time when she got yelled at w/o moving, I was about ready to punch somebody but the supervisor intervened, patted down the baby and got him into my arms, at which point they could finish the stupid screen on my wife. This was the closest by far I've ever come to physical violence in my adult life. And it wasn't caused by a false-positive on an explosives test, it was because our flight was canceled.
"Terrorists could hide a bomb in a diaper, and we don't seem to have anything much better than pat-downs to detect it. "
Terrorists could just go to the next mall in kill 1000 people with a bomb. Or they could go to a train station and kill 500 people. They could just go to the next restaurant and kill 50 people.
What we really should be doing is just accept terrorists as a threat but not overreacting. We should spend our tax money for real things that are proven to save lives, like improving highways, get more police officers, improving hospitals and health care, invest in more public transportation.
We could even just give capital to the third-world countries, or invest in their education and infrastructure. Even that would reduce the risk of a terrorist attack way more then the stupid TSA. But instead we giving Millions of money to people to search babies, kids and some random people so we have a one in a million chance to find anything.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
hell, they didnt even walk me to the door!
"Convenience of flying"?
Are you fucking kidding me?!?
Lets see...if I want to go home and visit my parents, I can either:
(a) Pay $600 round-trip. Have to take a cab to the airport ($40) or park my car there for a week ($35). Rent a vehicle at my destination ($150). I have to arrive at the airport an hour and a half in front of my flight (minimum), which requires me to leave home 30 minutes before that. I realistically have around a 50-50 of being put through "secondary screening" and either pictured semi-naked or groped (that has been my average over around 50 flights). I then can take my 2 1/2 hour flight, wait 30 minutes at my destination airport for my baggage to show up, take the shuttle to the rental car facility (20 minutes), go through the counter (20-30 minutes) and finally be on my way. Then the reverse of it all basically coming home, except the rental car location is only around 5 minutes.
Total: Minimum $785 and around 10 hours of my life.
(b) Pay $325 round-trip by car. Total travel time: 25 hours. I don't have to worry about what I pack, if I have a bottle of water or liquid medications, or any of the other bullshit. I'm travelling on comfort, with a 0% chance of being fondled without probable cause.
So I save 15 hours of my life flying, which costs me ~$460 more than driving, and with a likelyhood of getting fondled against my 4th Ammendment Rights at least one direction.
Yeah...REAL fucking convenient.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Why do people think this is something to be joked about?
Don't you see what's happening?
You don't care as long as you're not impacted right?
What will be your stance when you ARE impacted?
I have a hard time understanding how this could be news to anyone who has travelled with children in the last few years. While travelling from Canada through London to Amsterdam last year, our then 7 month old girl was given a patdown (at LHR IIRC). It was pretty comical, really. My wife stood her up, and my daughter stood there looking a little confused, like babies do, while some woman patted her down. I guess if I'd been a blogger with a sense of self importance, I'd have taken a photo and informed the world about it.
I'm sure ours can't have been an isolated occurrence. There must have been thousands of little kids given a patdown by now. Maybe it's not news because it didn't happen In America.
www.clarke.ca
First they cupped my balls,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't sexually repressed.
:-) Look in the mirror my friend...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
To continue your thought, the argument can be made that the loudest supporters of the TSA are overly nymphomaniac and likely sexually expressive. So a TSA touched you, it's not like they actually want to have sex with everyone they grope. What are you, a free love hippie, not having physical contact is a crime against humanity?
I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll
Personally I think the argument can be made that the loudest protestors against the TSA are overly neurotic and likely sexually repressed. So a TSA touched you, big deal. What are you, a Victorian schoolmarm, any physical contact is a crime against humanity?
That's not the point: the point is that it's an unnecessary procedure and, in the case of groping a baby or a 3-year-old girl and prohibiting someone of carrying water into the airplane, hyperbolically stupid. Some people are more sensitive to this kind of stuff, some people less, but they both agree that it's stupid and expensive!
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
America is safe so the tsa needs to have their budget slashed and these draconian measured ended. The US is suppose to be free right?
The sign should read "if we think you have a bomb or weapon, we will stick fingers in your butt".
I'm no islamic scholar, but I am thinking, that would be enough to deter anyone from trying.
Yes, I agree with you that if you screen, you have to do it to everyone, but are such severe screenings; i.e. a mandatory full pat-down even necessary in the first place? It probably wouldn't have caught the Underwear bomber (who is the supposed reason for the full-body scanners).
I suspect the real reason is to try stopping drug smuggling and to increase the security theater, but both won't work. (It's not like these measures have stopped drugs from getting into prisons)
There is no right to drive drunk. I'm not even sure which portion of the constitution could be used to justify that point of view. The typical view is that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Which coincidentally is another freedom that they've taken away, simply because a lot of other people don't want to go around getting hit in the nose by all those swinging fists.
I'm tired of everyone pissing their pants when it involves a child or a mother or an elderly person. How about when it involves any person? Why is it okay to dismiss the experience and violations of me, because I'm a middle aged single male? Why are we only concerned with the value of people's rights if they fall into the above exceptions?
If the TSA posted a list of "We will search/pat down all people except for the following people/items."
The TSA does post this information. They only search people who attempt to cross an arbitrary plane. Terrorists don't need to cross that plane to do harm.
Smart terrorist bent on doing maximum damage on a one-shot suicide run:
1. List all emotionally or financially valuable targets in your target zone, from day care centers and nursing homes to the largest skyscraper and largest sporting venue.
2. Eliminate hardened targets since there are plenty of soft ones on your list.
3. ???
4. Kill yourself and a bunch of other people and PROFIT!*
*SURPRISE: Instead of "72 virgins in paradise" you'll get what people with moral bankruptcy usually get.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
the argument can be made that the loudest protestors against the TSA are overly neurotic and likely sexually repressed
I think you'll find that the loudest protesters against this are people who care about the principle of the thing and not so much people who are otherwise known to be neurotic or sexually represent in any other part of their life.
I might agree with you in a way, in so far as I also have the impression that the sexual aspect of this may be exaggerated, and perhaps not very genuinely felt. It seems like a convenient angle of attack allowing to apply the arguments used in the context of sexual harassment. Those are rather widely respected, and of course they do very much apply in this case.
However I believe what's really driving the protest is the desire not to live in an authoritarian police state. That's exactly where you live, as soon as you enter a US airport though, and it looks like it may well expand from there. That's a much more complex argument to make though, and one which is no longer widely accepted.
Our officers followed proper current screening procedures by screening the family after the alarm
Gee, folks. They followed proper current procedures, so I don't see how they could have done anything wrong. What more do you want from the TSA? You have to follow procedure after all, and procedures are always right! I'd almost think you people would suggest that the procedures may be misguided, detrimental to our liberties, damaging to our Constitutional rights, or even criminal in nature, and I'm sure none of you think that, right?
Note: All responses to this comment will be logged for review by authorized agents of the federal government, as per proper current procedures.
Unfortunately, because of the perfectly rational like minded people that increasingly make the same choice, there has been a proportionate increase in the number of deaths as a result of using significantly less safe modes of transportation compared to flying for a larger percentage of their distance traveled annually.
There is no right to drive drunk.
Sure. But I would argue that if I'm sober, I have the right to drive from one place to the other, and not be forced to stop and have my car and belongings searched. That's why people have an issue with the checkpoints - for every 1 drunk driver you might catch, many more innocent drivers are subjected to a search. A search that you could reasonably argue is unconstitutional.
Except the whole security thingie is farmed out to private company that does not exactly consider security its top priority.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are an idiot. You sir, would qualify for a job at the TSA.
The point trying to be made is that since the TSA is almost totally ineffective (by all evidence so far) whether they include everyone or not in their searches is completely irrelevant to security.
Try this for size, the odds that your plane will be blown up by terrorists are estimate at 1:30million. The odds of getting cancer from the screening machine are also 1:30million. Its just the second option costs you a boat load of money and time and your privacy.
http://boingboing.net/2010/11/19/odds-of-cancer-from.html
TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
No, but there is a right to drive while you're not drunk, and there is a right to not be searched without any justification other than you're driving and it's a checkpoint.
When I see in the news that 600 people were stopped at a DUI checkpoint and 10 DUI arrests were made, it simply makes me think of the 590 people who had to endure their rights being trampled in order to arrest 10 people who were breaking the law. That is all.
I'd really be okay with it if they simply pulled people over, shined their flashlight at them and got a good look at their face, and let them move on if there were no obvious signs of intoxication or drinking (visual or odor) or containers of alcoholic beverages in the vehicle. But I wholeheartedly believe that mandatory sampling of bodily fluids (air is a fluid) without probable cause violates the 4th amendment.
Furthermore, requiring you to show them your ID before they have any reason to suspect you of a crime is exactly what is referred to by "papiere bitte".
In another words: "Bend over and take it like a man". And what does this "price" have to do with convenience? The point here being is that this searches are serving no purpose. Except for making money for those providing the equipment.
Limousine Liberals and the Pickup Truck right-wingers.
If they had let this cute little kid pass unmolested, just to have the 10 pounds of high explosives planted in his/her diaper go off on the flight and blow, perhaps, a ten hole in the side of an airliner at 35,000 ft., it would be accusations all the way around.
YOU PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP. The type of people the TSA is looking for are NOT the type of people who are above doing what I just described.
You don't like the time it takes for security, take a train/boat.
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
If you don't like this:
- opt out each time
- and write your representant
- let the TSA agent know politely you are traumatized by their behavior
when it will fit through the x-ray machine?
The world is how you make it
Does anyone seriously bring a child through the airport these days? Travel by air is somthing that should only be done if there is absolutly no other choice.
Yes, but in France this is expected. They love their Polanski after all.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Or checkpoints against drunk driving
I don't have a particular complaint about this, so long as they're checking just sobriety with cause. (And really, you can tell a drunk person from "hello" to get probably cause.)
Police cameras on the roads
I know I'm a minority on this one, but I have zero problem with photo radar and red light cameras - it's more cost effective than paying officers to sit all afternoon on the side of the highway. (Or, if you prefer - it frees up officers to look into more important crimes).
"Zero Tolerance" in schools
Show me a school that actually has zero tolerance, and I'll show you an empty building - all "zero tolerance" means is that the administration either is very sneaky about how they do discipline, or that discipline is a yes/no proposition - either you get in no trouble or you get expelled. The whole concept is horse-hockey.
Drug testing
Very overused in my opinion - unless you can show imminent harm, why do you (as my employer) care what I'm hopped up on during the weekend? (It's Dr. Pepper and rum, if you're curious). If I'm driving truck all day, then yes, let's make sure I'm clean. If I'm a desk monkey, then what's the point?
ID requirements for just about anything, including purchasing cough syrup
Agree with you here - although most of us just hand over those loyalty cards anyway, so picture ID is pretty redundant.
There was a guy who was the subject of a nationwide manhunt in Canada... why? Becuase he purchased a large amount of fertilizer.... when they found him (he called them), they uncovered his plot to fertilize his crops.
Then you'd set a nice example of how to beat the system. Some terrorist could bring their/a baby on a flight and hide a bomb in their stroller/diaper etc..
Search the stroller, by all means. But let's take a moment and think about babies - where are they going to hide explosives? Asking the parents to change the diaper will pretty much cover the complete inventory of "where can you hide a bomb on a baby".
You don't even have to look in the diaper - it's pretty trivial to check if one is empty or full (as any parent will tell you)
Muzzies? really? are you really that stupid? DO you honestly thing the tiny few who commit the heainois acts have the correct view of the religion, and the billion+ that condemn these acts are doing it wrong?
Seriously, stop being an irrational twit.
And using disrespectful terms doesn't help at all. When someone does that, one of the very few idiots who are using a corrupt version of their religion just uses it as fodder for requiting disenfranchised kids.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sounds like this Texas law is about Texans not liking their private areas being touched rather than thinking about the implications for security?
I would have thought laws concerned about security would focus more on what people are carrying? (e.g. limits on volume of liquids, etc).
And if the law is about only letting security touch people where they feel comfortable, aren't you heading into hopeless territory where somebody could tell you that touching their belly, or under their arms (or any other place they might actually hide stuff) is offensive to them? Sounds like a legal nightmare to me judging what is 'inappropriate'. Some cultures might say any contact with a female traveller or an under-18 traveller is inappropriate.
Though if this gets passed in a few US states, will that mean that some states are more attractive than others for people to fly into and out of? I assume this includes international as well as internal flights?
i invite you go read the article on wikipedia about VIPR teams (which i may have uhm,, written.. )
SECURITY BROADWAY, Iron Curtain, Wednesday — In the wake of Transport Security Administration staff forcing a "full pat-down" on a three-year-old child, Catholic priests have been clamouring to work for the government department.
The TSA, which has apprehended only slightly less than one terrorist in its nine years of operation, welcomed the new recruits to the fold. "We need people with experience in dealing with young people," said TSA head John Pistole, "in telling people what to do and in making the innocent feel guilty. And the enthusiasm! They're not your typical bored minimum-wager, no way! Also, they have better uniforms."
Mr Pistole reiterated the patriotic duty that drives the TSA in their work. "Fondling little girls' genitals is vital to protecting America from TERRORISTS. Remember: if TSA staff can't finger your daughter, the TERRORISTS have won!" He then strangled a kitten for our photographer.
Cardinal Bernard Law returned to America from the Vatican especially for the opportunity to create government-funded child pornography with the new "naked" scanners. "It's top quality stuff, too. The tears, the pain — the things that make this sort of thing really worthwhile."
"They were nasty men," said three-year-old TSA molestee Mandy Simon. "But it clearly demonstrates the iron necessity of the holy Jihadic destruction of the West. Allahu akbar! Daddy? I done a boo-boo."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
This has been described over and over, perhaps best in Alan Greenspan's book "The Age of Turbulence".
The dot-com crash of circa 2000 and the 9/11 attacks led to a minor recession. Unemployment did not rocket up, the stock market did not crash that badly, and it recovered, and so did the bond markets. Many attribute this partly to Greenspan lowering interest rates on treasury funds so everyone could borrow cheaply for a while. There is absolutely, positively no economists who would tell you that 9/11 caused "trillions of dollars" of damage to the economy.
the crash of 2008 had nothing, whatsoever, in any way, shape, or form to do with al qaeda. and that crash is what cost trillions of dollars. the crash of 2008 was related to the Synthetic CDO market, the fraudulent mortgage market, the CLO / private equity market, and a bunch of other stuff. but it had nothing at all to do with 9/11.
is about like linking saddam hussein to bin ladin.
there is absolutely zero, not one shred of evidence that those two events are linked.
there is not a single credible economist in the entire world who would link 9/11 to the financial crisis of 2008.
the only way they are even tangentially connected is that 1. the country was preoccupieid with iraq and afghanistan so that 2. they stopped paying attention to the financial markets for a few years, the crucial ones being 2005, 2006, and 2007 when most of the synthetic CDOs were pumped out. some would also argue that Greenspan made interest rates too low in the early 2000s.. but he did that not only because of 9/11 but because of the dotcom bubble crash.
i dont think that even fringe economists would link 9/11 to the crash of 2008. hell i dont even think 9/11 truthers link 9/11 to the financial crash of 2008.
jesus im sick of these fucking tigers attacking me.
just curious as to what the point of all this stuff is.
Amtrak property. actually he temporarily banned the TSA VIPR teams from Amtrak property.
so yeah. if you read the web forums about this, people are invariably outraged. i mean you have to dig for a while before you find anyone who has posted on the web that this was a good idea.
the head of the Amtrak police is named John O'Connor.
you can read about VIPR by checking wikipedia, i uhm just wrote an article and it could use some help from the public!
and rummage through your computer and your bathroom then, you know, that only teaches the terrorists that they can make bombs inside of their houses.
number two: get your hands off my kid
number three: get your hands off my balls
number four: you are under arrest.
... was using "alarm" as an intransitive verb:
'The child's stroller alarmed during explosives screening...
NEWSPEAK
Actually, and I'm am an adament 4th supporter, and agree that our rights are being smacked to shit right now...but I have to disagree with your statement.
Getting a drivers license is not a "right". And as part of the contract of the privlidge of having a drivers license is that you agree to submit to roadside inspections, whether for vehicle safety or sobriety or whatever else your state allows.
You are not being searched or seized, merely delayed. Anytime that the 4th comes into play in these cases, there is (or should be) probable cause.
But the TSA is a different beast...we are directly being searched and having items siezed without probable cause, and with no formal or even semi-formal "contract" in place ala Driving & sobriety checks.
I realize that they are both similar...but seriously, one is annoying while the other is downright illegal.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The coroner is going to have a field day on my corpse.
After they measure the shape of the hole in my skull they will have to come to the conclusion I facepalmed my skull in.
You are not being searched or seized, merely delayed.
Having a testing device inserted into a body cavity (mouth) and requiring you to submit a bodily fluid for analysis (air) is not considered a "search" according to your definition?
But the TSA is a different beast...we are directly being searched and having items siezed without probable cause, and with no formal or even semi-formal "contract" in place ala Driving & sobriety checks.
Absolute bollocks. The exact same arguments you used to argue that the DUI checkpoints are okay work just as well for the TSA. You ARE entering a formal contract when you buy a plane ticket. It still doesn't give them the right to perform unreasonable searches without probable cause. Neither does having a driver's license give them the right to perform unreasonable searches without probable cause.
I realize that they are both similar...but seriously, one is annoying while the other is downright illegal.
They are both downright unconstitutional.
Geez, they could have bought Skype for that!
What I can't figure out is how we are buying all these new scanner machines and patting down everyone that can't or won't go through them BUT we don't seem to have the technology or extra money to get a machine that will scan you with your belt and shoes on.
I think people would applaud spontaneously when told by TSA that they could leave their shoes on and, no, the belt can stay on the pants. But millions of dollars later, you can't leave your shoes on and you now have to remove your belt.
(Bulky jewelry and clothes with grommets could be left on your person for version 2.0 of the scanner machines for another few million.)
The people in the United States are free. As long as they do exactly as they are told.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
The TSA groping is "optional", and intended for those that do not wish to use the new full body xray machines. So the
terrorist with a Bomb-On-Board should probably choose the grope line. I'm betting that there are even some terrorists
out there that can figure this out. What this means for us, the grope option will soon go away and we will have to visit
the x-ray machine if we want to fly.
I find it incredible that poll after poll finds "most" americans are not bothered by the full body x-ray machines. Is the news
media lying to us or is the slashdot crowd just more upset over this than the average american?
You want to grope me? Knock yourself out. Just be prepared for some colour commentary on my part ("Ooooh yeeaah. Cup those balls!", "How much for a happy ending?", etc.). It makes my regular business travel that much more entertaining.
However, you do not touch my children. Ever.
We recently had to go on a family vacation, and were randomly selected for an enhanced security screening. The agents wanted to pat down our two children, and we flat out refused. They insisted, and the TSA agents' delivery tone was the standard issue "You are going to do as we say, Citizen" intonation that law enforcement officers are coached in, but I'm immune to it after having had spent my early life in the military.
I slowly, clearly and forcefully replied, "Listen very carefully. If you lay a hand on any one of my children, I will have you arrested for sexually assaulting a minor. Do not touch them. You do not have our permission."
One scoffed: "Sir, we have to subject them to a pat down."
"Wrong. Officer?" (waving to get the attention of a LEO that was posted in the screening area)
He walked over and matter-of-factly asked, "Sir? Is there a problem?"
"If either of these people touch my children, in any way, I will officially press charges of assault, sexual touching of a minor, and anything else that is applicable."
He genuinely perked up at this point. (He must secretly hate the TSA as much as the rest of us), "Understood, Sir." Turning to them he said, "He's not joking. I'm not joking. Don't touch their children. If you need to see what's under their clothes, the parent will disrobe them in a private screening area removed from public view. Clear?"
The TSA agents were far more cooperative and humbled after that, for some reason. We were waved through after the parents were given a good one over, along with everything else we were toting through. But they didn't touch the kids, or ask to see them disrobed.
I'll take my chances. Rather that than subject myself and my family to such ridiculous searches.
You are not being searched or seized, merely delayed.
Having a testing device inserted into a body cavity (mouth) and requiring you to submit a bodily fluid for analysis (air) is not considered a "search" according to your definition?
I realize that I'm a sample size of one, but I have never had a testing device inserted into a body cavity, requiring me to submit a bodily fluid analysis without probable cause. And yes, smelling alcohol in your vehicle is probable cause of a crime being comitted - DUI, to be percise.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Thus highlighting the insane policy of the USA's Federal government to trade security theater on an already lower risk for increasing use of higher risk activities nation wide as the economics of time and convenience of various modes of travel are altered.