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."

Comments

Osama Bin Laden

[Anonymous Coward]

Osama Bin Laden is laughing in his grave. He obviously won, even in death.

Re:Osama Bin Laden

[snarkh]

The economic damage he caused to the US economy is several trillion dollars. While he may not have won the war, but he did cause overwhelming damage.

Re:Osama Bin Laden

[pnewhook]

What do you mean by winning? He showed how to cause great damage to super-powers (first USSR, after that the US) with relatively tiny resources. Btw, note that most of the economic damage to the US (e.g., the war in Iraq) is self-inflicted.

And most of the damage done to the USSR was also caused by the US. This was back when Reagan portrayed the Taliban and al-Qaeda (actually the precursor to them) as a religious group being persecuted for their beliefs by the big bad commies. So the US trained the mujahedeen and sent billions in weapons aid so they can fight the Russians. Russia eventually pulled out when they realized they could not compete.

If the US/CIA had minded their own business then the mujahedeen would have been wiped out by the Russians and all of this stupidity would never have happened.

2 questions for the TSA

[sootman]

1) Nationwide, how many times has the alarm gone off during explosives screening?

2) How many times have explosives been found?

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[bmo]

>2) How many times have explosives been found?

None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

Since the inception of the TSA, they have stopped *zero* hijacking/bombing attempts from the airport.

Biggest waste of money on security theater going.

--
BMO

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[Colonel Korn]

>2) How many times have explosives been found?

None. Ever. Even the underpants bomber made it through.

Since the inception of the TSA, they have stopped *zero* hijacking/bombing attempts from the airport.

Biggest waste of money on security theater going.

--
BMO

The parent should be modded to 5, and all Slashdot readers should be sure to spread this point as much as possible to everyone they know. The TSA has an $8.1 annual billion budget and has yet to have a single success.

We can't comment definitively on the deterrent effect mentioned by an AC reply, though our very limited data points make deterrence seem unlikely, given that 1) every attempted bomber in the last 10 years has successfully made it through security and 2) the 100% failure rate probably doesn't put much fear into the hearts of potential attackers.

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[countertrolling]

...has yet to have a single success.

HA! Tell that to the people who sell all those nice machines.. They're laughing all the way to the bank..

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[MightyMartian]

The Israelis haven't had a hijacking in decades, and they don't use full-body scans or anything of the kind. I listened a few months ago to an Israeli security expert who was literally scoffing at the TSA's methods, and stating what they need, rather than $10 an hour rent-a-cop types, they needed to pay some behavioural experts who can recognize potential threats. Trying to up the ante with technology is just a shell game, and as we've seen, doesn't seem to do a great deal if someone seems dedicated to blowing up an air plane.

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[MozeeToby]

Exactly, that's the same way that I know that this rock that I have bought keeps away tigers!

More seriously, lets say that your screening procedures are 99% effective with a 0.0001% false positive rate, both of which are horribly, massively unrealistic. And then let's pretend that there are 10 terrorists that try to get on an airplane each year in the US, which is almost definitely an unrealistically high number. There are an estimated 737.4 million passenger flights each year in the US. That means that for each terrorist detected you're going to hit 8200 false positives. Screening everyone in the country just doesn't work at a mathematical level.

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[dkleinsc]

George Carlin said it best, long before 9/11:

I’m getting tired of all this security at the airport. There’s too much of it. I’m tired of some fat chick with a double-digit IQ and a triple-digit income rootin’ around inside of my bag for no reason and never finding anything. Haven’t found anything yet. Haven’t found one bomb in one bag. And don’t tell me, “Well, the terrorists know their bags are going to be searched, so now they’re leaving their bombs at home.” There are no bombs! The whole thing is fuckin’ pointless.

And it’s completely without logic. There’s no logic at all. They’ll take away a gun, but let you keep a knife! (editor note: Not anymore) Well, what the fuck is that? In fact, there’s a whole list of lethal objects they will allow you to take on board. Theoretically, you could take a knife, an ice pick, a hatchet, a straight razor, a pair of scissors, a chain saw, six knitting needles, and a broken whiskey bottle, and the only thing they’d say to you is, “That bag has to fit all the way under the seat in front of you.”

And if you didn’t take a weapon on board, relax. After you’ve been flying for about an hour, they’re gonna bring you a knife and fork! They actually give you a fucking knife! It’s only a table knife, but you could kill a pilot with a table knife. If might take you a couple of minutes. Especially if he’s hefty. But you could get the job done. If you really wanted to kill the prick.

Shit, there are a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with. You could probably beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times. Or suppose you just had really big hands, couldn’t you strangle a flight attendant? Shit, you could probably strangle two of them, one with each hand. That is, if you were lucky enough to catch ‘em in that little kitchen area. Just before they break out the fuckin’ peanuts. But you could get the job done. If you really cared enough.

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[MoonBuggy]

If there were terrorists with the will and capability to bomb a plane, but who were put off purely by the probability of being caught by the TSA, don't you think the would've attacked one of the many, many other totally unguarded areas of our infrastructure? Airliners are big, flashy, somewhat fragile targets, but I don't understand how so many people seem to have decided that they're the only targets.

If someone was willing to blow themselves to pieces for a cause, but couldn't because of the TSA (something I find unlikely to begin with), it's mind-boggling to claim that they'll just sit back, accept it, and become a productive member of society. If anything, it would create a lot more panic to show that we're at risk everywhere, from the subway to the supermarket to the airline security queue. If terrorism were actually an appreciable threat within the US, we'd see some evidence of it. The TSA are fighting an enemy that is vastly few and far between, and even so they're doing a terrible job of it while encroaching horribly on our civil liberties; terrorism just isn't the threat that people make it out to be.

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[bmo]

You know what deters hijackers now?

The fact that the passengers will beat him to a bloody pulp.

That's what stopped the shoe bomber. That's what stopped the underpants bomber. It sure as fuck wasn't the fucking TSA.

Old rules are gone. "Sit tight and this will all be over and everyone will go home" doesn't exist anymore. Not since 9/11. Now it's "beat the piss out of him and sit on the bastard until we land" as exemplified by the last incident where a passenger went nuts this past week, tried to open the door (lol!) and the passengers beat the piss out of him.

TSA is underpants-on-head useless.

--
BMO

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[_Sprocket_]

Mission accomplished. I have been deterred from flying.

I've got a big Disney fan in the household. We used to make at least one vacation stop at Disney World each year. This year, we've canceled our initial plans. A big part of that is not wishing to go through Security Theatre.

I understand that big tourism like Disney theme parks are struggling with disappointing numbers in current times. What a pity they have additional pinch points further restricting income flow.

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[MoonBuggy]

I'm inclined to agree with the poster who said that the Israeli system probably wouldn't scale to the entire US. That's fine, though, because the situations are very different - Israel actually has a genuine and significant threat from terrorists [or freedom fighters, depending on your point of view. I'm staying out of that debate.], whereas the US quite simply does not. As I've said in a couple of other posts: airlines may be a tempting target, but they're hardly the only one. If there were really any appreciable number of terrorists with the will and capability to strike within the US, we'd be seeing attacks against any number of other totally unguarded parts of the infrastructure.

The fact that the TSA haven't actually found any bombs means, pretty much by definition, that they aren't catching any terrorists. The fact that nobody's attacking any other areas where people congregate implies that the TSA isn't acting as a deterrent - if that were the case, at least some of those deterred from attacking airlines would attack other targets instead.

Re:2 questions for the TSA

[bmo]

Someone mod this up.

Scariest question to ask any Airport operator: How long would it take to evacuate the airport for a bomb scare?

You won't like the answer.

--
BMO

Airport security...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is an embarrassment to America.

We really could be better than this.

Re:Airport security...

[Dunbal]

Hah, my wife was just applying for a non-immigrant visa today because her old one expired. Now you have to submit an online application. There are about a million questions, all the buttons are counter-intuitive (usually continue goes on the right and back goes on the left), and the website says it will log you out after 20 minutes of inactivity, which is false. It logs you out after 15 minutes - activity or no. Considering that these forms take far more than 20 minutes to fill out (list the exact dates of your last 5 visits to the US please, never mind that US immigration likes to stamp wherever the hell they feel like it in your passport), it's a major hassle. We were logged out no less than three times during this process.

And don't forget, you need to give travel dates (even if we're not sure when we plan on going to the US in the next 10 years) and name/address of a contact person in the US (I'm sure I have the name and address of the guy who works at the hotel I'll be staying at...). Oh and of course the "trick" questions where they try to "catch you out". My favorite was "have you ever participated in torture/extrajudicial killing". I wonder how many American government employees actually would not be allowed a visa... but I digress.

Put it this way - I'm glad I'm Canadian and don't have to do this crap every few years but America - if you don't want tourists why don't you just say so? I mean, the Mexicans will still keep jumping the border fence anyway no matter how many questions you put on that form, but we law abiding people can take a hint.

Re:Airport security...

[interkin3tic]

We really could be better than this.

We could, but there's a major roadblock: citizens who are terrified that terrorists are out to get them and vote for whoever promises they'll stand between the terrorists and the voters' family. Common sense policy in national security that follows that quote about freedom vs security will always fail because of their paranoia, if they can vote.

What we NEED to do is KILL OFF ALL THE PARANOID PEOPLE!

...but they probably are expecting that...

While we're at it...

[tripleevenfall]

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.

Re:While we're at it...

[Combatso]

Careful what you wish for, you will get a 50 year old mustachioed woman grabbing your balls... and she hates men.

Re:While we're at it...

[StikyPad]

Leave my wife out of this.

privacy

[PktLoss]

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.

*sigh*

[Haedrian]

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?

We are not alone

[poptones]

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.

Re:We are not alone

[dbc]

More to the point.... does Israel? I've flown in and out of Tel Aviv 3 times on business. They take security seriously -- and have for much longer than the USA. You get a thorough interview from a well-trained, intelligent professional. No pat downs. They *gasp* profile. Israeli airport security is not theater, it is effective, yet it is not degrading. Fly in and out of Israel once and you will want to strangle everyone associated with the TSA.

Re:We are not alone

[horza]

I can talk about Nice, France. On the way in they will X-ray your bag. They may or may not ask you to remove your belt or your shoes, it's pretty random (they never ask me but I've seen it happen). There is one person for every two lines who will to a cursory pat-down of anybody that gets 'beeped' when walking through the X-ray doorway. It's definitely not intrusive.

England security is awful to the point I avoid going back when possible. It's not just being treated like a potential terrorist, and having to strip off my shoes and belt like some kind of prisoner, but the insane queues this produces. In Nice I bank on about five minutes to go through security, so I allow ten minutes to be sure, but try going through a London airport during the summer...

My sole trip via New York the only thing I found objectionable was the finger-printing. Being an affluent white middle-class male I had no experience of the TSA, only passed a few laid-back quite cool security guards. I broke my US boycott due to a promise to a friend. I really enjoyed the trip, and the people were great, but the security theater is still off-putting.

Phillip.

Re:Papiere bitte.

[sauge]

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?

idle?

[locallyunscene]

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?

Re:idle?

[tobiah]

because it's not tech news.

Re:Meanwhile in line...

[elrous0]

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?

Texas vs. TSA

[Picass0]

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.

Re:Texas vs. TSA

[3vi1]

It's incredibly weird to see a story on Slashdot where I agree with the way laws are being implemented or enforced in Texas.

Maybe there's hope for us yet.

toddler's first pat down, November 2001

[awilden]

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 are not the biggest threat

[devent]

"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.

Re:Meanwhile in line...

[elrous0]

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.

Why pat down the Baby...

[Stregano]

when it will fit through the x-ray machine?