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.
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
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?
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?
Not to mention if you do it near the naked-body-scanners you'll damage something worth a few million dollars.
So by that logic, pat down brown people at the airport, and pat down white people near abortion clinics?
You think that patting down a random person who doesn't even come close to fitting the profile of a modern terrorists, while completely ignoring the guy behind her who does is a smart way to approach screening, do you? Because us morons think that taking a more focused approach might be in order. Profiling works to catch serial killers, so why not use it to screen for terrorists too?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Well they didn't call me in the morning.
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.
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
It isn't any more outrageous just because it is a baby.
Do you really think someone with the will and desire to kill a few hundred or thousand other humans would be reluctant to use a child to accomplish that goal?
(I'm not supporting the pat downs in general, just pointing out that there is nothing less risky about children; and most of them do have a guardian to speak for them, hopefully TSA procedure would have allowed the family to walk away rather than have the baby inspected)
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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
Profiling != Racial Profiling.
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.
Tim McVeigh was one attack, involving only two terrorists, that killed 168 people. Muslim terrorists have killed TENS OF THOUSANDS of people over the last 20 years, with attacks that happen on a DAILY BASIS (there was one this morning that killed 80 Pakistanis, and the day isn't even over yet).
Got YOU.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
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.
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.
Now you're just spouting some tired old "Well, you support evil dictators too!" shit, because you know damn well what religion the suicide bombers who are going to walk into some police station, or mall, or marketplace tomorrow (and the next day, and the day after that) and blow themselves up after screaming "Allah Akbar!!" will belong to. And it damn sure isn't Buddhism.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
when it will fit through the x-ray machine?
The world is how you make it
6 murders, 5 attempted murders, 9 bombs/arsons, 1 anthrax threat (hoax letters with white powder mailed to 554 clinics).. in the US, in the last 20 years,.
If they're not above that, why do you think they're above body packing (including surgical body packing)? After all, it's a suicide mission so it's not like they're afraid of a bad outcome from the surgery. Shall we have the TSA perform exploratory surgery?
All we know for sure is that the only 2 times since 9/11 people have tried to get explosives on a plane, they succeeded. They were prevented from detonating by a combination of their own incompetence and passenger intervention.
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
I've already commented so I can't mod you. Which is a shame because I think you're absolutely right. Put simply, terrorism is not that big a threat - and even when it is, the single worst thing you can do is declare "war" on the terrorists. It doesn't work because as a rule, armies aren't really trained to deal with guerilla warfare. Police are better because they're generally locals who know the area and know who's likely to be a troublemaker - but you don't often find effective police forces in countries where you've just gone and destroyed the entire government machinery.