Is airport screening damaging children?

[TooPatient]

Yea, so I was thinking of designing something like this in the form of boxer briefs for the next time I have to fly

Love em.

Thanks for posting and sharing this.


Wonder if they make a matching bra...

 

[TooPatient]

As far as I can tell, random screening has caught no one that could properly be called a "terrorist", although it can boast that it has caught a bunch of people with nail files. The likely reason that some terrorists have been caught at airports would be because certain people are on watchlists or (gasp!) we are profiling, which from a purely statisical standpoint would likely be more effective at actually catching more bad people. I've not heard of even the rumor of a single case that was caught in a random search. (If anyone knows of one, please post.) We spend oodles of money on intel, yet we're randomly patting down every 4th granny with an oxygen tank? Effective NOT.

And I'm with some other posters in that if we're really so worried now that the danger of flying includes people with some sort of explosive implant that would require cavity search or vivisection to find, then maybe we should just all stop flying. Besides, other than the oogy mental factor, I fail to see how air travel warrants so much more attention than any other form of mass transit. More spectacular I guess.

Well said.

I like the suggestion of behavioral specialists who, in addition to profiling/watch-lists, would be trained to observe the subtle behaviors of people and search those who may actually have something to hide. This IS done in other countries (Israel for one, I believe) and is vastly more effective than all of these "security measures" that the REAL terrorists know how to get past anyway. Behaviors give people away. The way someone is standing/sitting, where they're looking, their facial expressions, etc, etc, etc tell a lot about who a person is and what they're doing.


How's this to inspire confidence in these "security measures" -- We have an acquaintance who collects knives. He didn't realize he had part of his collection in his carry on (thought he'd packed them in his checked luggage) until he got to the hotel. He made it through "security" at two different (major) airports and no one found the collection of knives (not talking little pocket knives here either). He's a good man who made an honest mistake..... so how many not-so-good men are also getting past "security"?

 

[megumic]

We have a right against warrantless suspicionless searches. There are very few and narrow circumstances under which our Constitution permits suspicionless searches - airport security is one of them. I am concerned that my right to privacy and right to not be searched because it is slowly being chipped away and encroached upon. How far will we let it go? It makes me very uncomfortable and this video in particular makes my stomach churn. I'm slowly beginning to think that the TSA's safety measures have become worse than that which it aims to prevent...

 

[monarch64]

So...do you submit to drug tests for work? Do you sign the form that says you'll voluntarily take a drug test?

This whole flying thing (being patted down, the whole shebang) just has me shaking my head: if you're willing to fly, why not just submit to some routine pat-downs...or don't fly. Same with drug tests: if you're willing to work, why not just submit your pee and be done with it? Do you really think the gov't cares THAT much about you, individually, to worry about your results?

I am terrible at debating this sort of thing, but feel as though it's worth debating (I know that makes no sense). I just don't understand how people voted into office all of these characters who have set forth these rules that everyone is so opposed to.

 

[ksinger]

So...do you submit to drug tests for work? Do you sign the form that says you'll voluntarily take a drug test?

This whole flying thing (being patted down, the whole shebang) just has me shaking my head: if you're willing to fly, why not just submit to some routine pat-downs...or don't fly. Same with drug tests: if you're willing to work, why not just submit your pee and be done with it? Do you really think the gov't cares THAT much about you, individually, to worry about your results?

I am terrible at debating this sort of thing, but feel as though it's worth debating (I know that makes no sense). I just don't understand how people voted into office all of these characters who have set forth these rules that everyone is so opposed to.

This country has been split in two for many years now, surely you haven't missed that fact? Not to mention that fact that no one "voted" for TSA rules, anymore than we vote for FAA rules. Those agencies are created, then do what they think should be done according to their mandate.

In any case, even the most politically aware person is unable to keep up with or navigate the complexity of government or the issues we deal with, and the issues seem to grow faster every day. And even if you could keep up with it, what can you do? Write letters? Yeah, I do that (Quixote that I am) and I'm pretty sure my pleas fall into the abyss. It's really not effective at all, and you could spend every waking minute doing it to no avail.

But back to the topic, this whole thing about frisking kids is hardly new, really, as the old article below shows. It also shows how monumentally inefficient and capricious the whole thing can become - HAS become.

Eight-Year-Old on TSA Terrorist Watchlist Gets Frisked
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/eight-year-old-on-watchlist/

I'm not opposed to searches, but I want them to be effective, not a sop to keep people lulled, to waste time and resources hassling the same (clearly non-hostile) people over and over and over again, or hostage to some sort of rabid PC-ness. Yes, someone MAY pack their baby with explosives, but what are the odds? If the odds are good enough, then maybe we should just detain ALL babies. Because it IS a game of odds, unless you change the odds with good intel.

And I'm always intersted to see the differences in the generations' expecation of privacy. When I was growing up, it wasn't even an issue - no internet, no Big Brother. The people who grew up in the shadow of 9/11 are pretty much "what's the big deal". The shift has been made to the base expectation of NO privacy. Fascinating, but I'm still personally creeped out by it all.

 

[megumic]

So...do you submit to drug tests for work? Do you sign the form that says you'll voluntarily take a drug test?

This whole flying thing (being patted down, the whole shebang) just has me shaking my head: if you're willing to fly, why not just submit to some routine pat-downs...or don't fly. Same with drug tests: if you're willing to work, why not just submit your pee and be done with it? Do you really think the gov't cares THAT much about you, individually, to worry about your results?

I am terrible at debating this sort of thing, but feel as though it's worth debating (I know that makes no sense). I just don't understand how people voted into office all of these characters who have set forth these rules that everyone is so opposed to.

Here's the thing - this has nothing to do with what government intrusions I will or will not voluntarily submit to. This is about our Constitution and what is says. We have special exceptions for things like employers drug testing, because an employer is a private entity -- they can search their employees' pee samples without a warrant if you want to work for that company.

However, the TSA is a government-contracted agency,and we have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

If the govt didn't care about ME, it wouldn't bother screening ME at airports or care if I stuffed 100 tampons in my underwear if they were sure it wasn't a bomb.

You may be appalled at my unwillingness to be searched at the airport, while I, however, am appalled at your willingness to give up a Constitutional Right.

 

[bee*]

So...do you submit to drug tests for work? Do you sign the form that says you'll voluntarily take a drug test?

This whole flying thing (being patted down, the whole shebang) just has me shaking my head: if you're willing to fly, why not just submit to some routine pat-downs...or don't fly. Same with drug tests: if you're willing to work, why not just submit your pee and be done with it? Do you really think the gov't cares THAT much about you, individually, to worry about your results?

That's how I feel too. I sign up to fly so I know what goes along with it. If I didn't agree to all that I just wouldn't fly. I don't think there was anything inappropriate in this video and I agree with others that the child didn't seem traumatised. The TSA agent is just doing her job. Yes I'm sure there are bad eggs in the TSA just like you can get doctors, nurses etc that abuse their positions too, the majority are just doing what they're trained to do. For the people that don't agree with it, what would you suggest they do otherwise?

 

[TooPatient]

So...do you submit to drug tests for work? Do you sign the form that says you'll voluntarily take a drug test?

This whole flying thing (being patted down, the whole shebang) just has me shaking my head: if you're willing to fly, why not just submit to some routine pat-downs...or don't fly. Same with drug tests: if you're willing to work, why not just submit your pee and be done with it? Do you really think the gov't cares THAT much about you, individually, to worry about your results?

I am terrible at debating this sort of thing, but feel as though it's worth debating (I know that makes no sense). I just don't understand how people voted into office all of these characters who have set forth these rules that everyone is so opposed to.

Here's the thing - this has nothing to do with what government intrusions I will or will not voluntarily submit to. This is about our Constitution and what is says. We have special exceptions for things like employers drug testing, because an employer is a private entity -- they can search their employees' pee samples without a warrant if you want to work for that company.

However, the TSA is a government-contracted agency,and we have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

If the govt didn't care about ME, it wouldn't bother screening ME at airports or care if I stuffed 100 tampons in my underwear if they were sure it wasn't a bomb.

You may be appalled at my unwillingness to be searched at the airport, while I, however, am appalled at your willingness to give up a Constitutional Right.

Megumic -- I agree with you mostly (like 99%)

An important thing that people are missing, and I'm not even completely clear how exactly it works myself, is that while TSA is a government-contracted agency it is the airports (which are, mostly I believe) PRIVATE and they have to meet security requirements but do NOT have to use TSA. In fact, there was a news story I saw a few months back about a couple of semi-major airports opting out of TSA in favor of having their own security.

(I'd really love more details on this because I feel that this is an important part of the TSA debate -- one way it is a government-agency clearly stomping on our rights and the other way it is private airports choosing to contract with the agency)

People need to push back and let airlines and airports know that they are NOT willing to be subjected to TSA -- choose to go to an airport that doesn't contract with TSA, use smaller charter services, etc.
If the airports can choose to not have TSA then they need to set up different, more affective, less invasive security.
If they are required to use TSA then..... I don't know. At that point they are stomping on our rights and where does it stop?

 

[megumic]

So...do you submit to drug tests for work? Do you sign the form that says you'll voluntarily take a drug test?

This whole flying thing (being patted down, the whole shebang) just has me shaking my head: if you're willing to fly, why not just submit to some routine pat-downs...or don't fly. Same with drug tests: if you're willing to work, why not just submit your pee and be done with it? Do you really think the gov't cares THAT much about you, individually, to worry about your results?

That's how I feel too. I sign up to fly so I know what goes along with it. If I didn't agree to all that I just wouldn't fly. I don't think there was anything inappropriate in this video and I agree with others that the child didn't seem traumatised. The TSA agent is just doing her job. Yes I'm sure there are bad eggs in the TSA just like you can get doctors, nurses etc that abuse their positions too, the majority are just doing what they're trained to do. For the people that don't agree with it, what would you suggest they do otherwise?

Anyone who shares the opinion that you note above equally shares in allowing our government to impede Constitutional rights. We have too far rationalized airport security,ineffective airport security at that, at the behest of our Constitutional rights. But what is next? This is just the beginning of a slow encroachment on our rights and just going along with it is compliance in allowing the govt to violate our Constitutional rights.

 

[megumic]

So...do you submit to drug tests for work? Do you sign the form that says you'll voluntarily take a drug test?

This whole flying thing (being patted down, the whole shebang) just has me shaking my head: if you're willing to fly, why not just submit to some routine pat-downs...or don't fly. Same with drug tests: if you're willing to work, why not just submit your pee and be done with it? Do you really think the gov't cares THAT much about you, individually, to worry about your results?

I am terrible at debating this sort of thing, but feel as though it's worth debating (I know that makes no sense). I just don't understand how people voted into office all of these characters who have set forth these rules that everyone is so opposed to.

Here's the thing - this has nothing to do with what government intrusions I will or will not voluntarily submit to. This is about our Constitution and what is says. We have special exceptions for things like employers drug testing, because an employer is a private entity -- they can search their employees' pee samples without a warrant if you want to work for that company.

However, the TSA is a government-contracted agency,and we have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

If the govt didn't care about ME, it wouldn't bother screening ME at airports or care if I stuffed 100 tampons in my underwear if they were sure it wasn't a bomb.

You may be appalled at my unwillingness to be searched at the airport, while I, however, am appalled at your willingness to give up a Constitutional Right.

Megumic -- I agree with you mostly (like 99%)

An important thing that people are missing, and I'm not even completely clear how exactly it works myself, is that while TSA is a government-contracted agency it is the airports (which are, mostly I believe) PRIVATE and they have to meet security requirements but do NOT have to use TSA. In fact, there was a news story I saw a few months back about a couple of semi-major airports opting out of TSA in favor of having their own security.

(I'd really love more details on this because I feel that this is an important part of the TSA debate -- one way it is a government-agency clearly stomping on our rights and the other way it is private airports choosing to contract with the agency)

People need to push back and let airlines and airports know that they are NOT willing to be subjected to TSA -- choose to go to an airport that doesn't contract with TSA, use smaller charter services, etc.
If the airports can choose to not have TSA then they need to set up different, more affective, less invasive security.
If they are required to use TSA then..... I don't know. At that point they are stomping on our rights and where does it stop?

TooPatient, you're right. TSA is simply one agency that performs such security. They basically have a monopoly on the "market." I agree with you, the more push-back that comes, the more airports that will consider and employ other security agencies and measures. Actually, it's my understanding that airlines can choose to have whatever security measures they wish -- but you can imagine nobody (except maybe me...) would fly on the airline that didn't use advanced security measures.

I too do not know a lot about this, just some general background out of personal concern regarding back-scatter scanners, but a good resource is a blogger by the name of John Tyner - his blog is called <insert title here> and he personally had a run-in with the TSA that he recorded. You can google him if you'd like.

 

[bee*]

So...do you submit to drug tests for work? Do you sign the form that says you'll voluntarily take a drug test?

This whole flying thing (being patted down, the whole shebang) just has me shaking my head: if you're willing to fly, why not just submit to some routine pat-downs...or don't fly. Same with drug tests: if you're willing to work, why not just submit your pee and be done with it? Do you really think the gov't cares THAT much about you, individually, to worry about your results?

That's how I feel too. I sign up to fly so I know what goes along with it. If I didn't agree to all that I just wouldn't fly. I don't think there was anything inappropriate in this video and I agree with others that the child didn't seem traumatised. The TSA agent is just doing her job. Yes I'm sure there are bad eggs in the TSA just like you can get doctors, nurses etc that abuse their positions too, the majority are just doing what they're trained to do. For the people that don't agree with it, what would you suggest they do otherwise?

Anyone who shares the opinion that you note above equally shares in allowing our government to impede Constitutional rights. We have too far rationalized airport security,ineffective airport security at that, at the behest of our Constitutional rights. But what is next? This is just the beginning of a slow encroachment on our rights and just going along with it is compliance in allowing the govt to violate our Constitutional rights.

Well again I ask what do you suggest they do?

I'm not from the US so I don't know in what other way your rights are being compromised by your government, but I don't see what else they can do in this situation.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

We have a right against warrantless suspicionless searches. There are very few and narrow circumstances under which our Constitution permits suspicionless searches - airport security is one of them. I am concerned that my right to privacy and right to not be searched because it is slowly being chipped away and encroached upon. How far will we let it go? It makes me very uncomfortable and this video in particular makes my stomach churn. I'm slowly beginning to think that the TSA's safety measures have become worse than that which it aims to prevent...

Just wow.

 

[zoebartlett]

I also thought it was very appropriate that the TSA agent in the video on the first page said what she was going to do while searching the child. The child's mom was present, and of course I think that's appropriate too.

I don't fly too often, but I don't mind being screened. I don't have children but I don't think I'd believe that their rights would be infringed upon if they were searched as well. I am comforted in thinking that flights are safer now because of the screenings that are put in place. I do think there can be a fine line between what's appropriate and what crosses the line, and I think more training for the TSA agents could be beneficial.

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

Children pick up emotions from their parents. If the mother starts making noise and calling the search "groping" and throwing her attitude around, the child will be stressed. If the mother is calm and accepts the screening as a normal part of travel, most kids are going to be fine. Of course, there are small children who are shy and might throw a fit, but oh well. I'm sure the security worker will be much more traumatized by the experience than the child!

As for the thoroughness of the search, that is the standardized search. If she has to do the search, she should do it right. The fact that she is on camera while doing her job means she is going to be extra thorough not less thorough! She's not going to lose her job for following the rules.

 

[megumic]

We have a right against warrantless suspicionless searches. There are very few and narrow circumstances under which our Constitution permits suspicionless searches - airport security is one of them. I am concerned that my right to privacy and right to not be searched because it is slowly being chipped away and encroached upon. How far will we let it go? It makes me very uncomfortable and this video in particular makes my stomach churn. I'm slowly beginning to think that the TSA's safety measures have become worse than that which it aims to prevent...

Just wow.

I have just as many national security concerns as the next person. If the TSA were in fact halting terrorists and catching them before the act could be done, then the TSA would be a success. However, out of the recent terrorist attempts, it has been passengers like you and me whom have stopped the terrorists after the individual had passed through security. To me, that means the TSA and its measures are not protecting us -- it is the TSA and the government failing to protect us.

Plus, you have to consider airport security measures. Everyone must pass through a metal detector. Then, about 1 in 4 or 5 people are randomly selected to pass through the back-scatter scanner and/or receive a pat-down. How is this effective when somewhere between only 20-25% of people are actually being thoroughly examined? That's a pretty high chance that an underwear bomber is passing through security undetected.

Like I say above -- slowly beginning to think. I'm not there yet, but I find the TSA's measures and actions to be such a violation without evidence-based results that it blows me away that we continue to accept this. I believe in standing up for the rights protected by our Constitution.

I think too many people are simply willing to accept that the TSA is protecting us and doing everything they can to make us safer. If everyone would take a good look at the facts it would become clear that that is not the case, and it is happening at the expense of our liberty. To me, that is the "Just wow."

*edited for poor grammar. oops.

 

[MonkeyPie]

Those of you up in arms about it - what do you suggest? Those of us with families out of state/country just never see them again? Never fly, ever? Pfft. Sorry, that is incredibly unlikely to happen.

Until REALISTIC, possible options come into play, this is what you get.

 

[megumic]

A few alternatives to the current back-scatter scanners and/or pat-downs...feel free to do your own research on these and their effectiveness:

- millimeter wave scanners (the most touted alternative)
- explosive trace-detection portal machine (blows a puff of air over your body and detects trace amounts of prohibited material)
- bomb and drug sniffing dogs
- human intelligence (i.e. a someone suggested earlier observing human behavior a la Israel)

Just some ideas for y'all to chew on. Also it's important to note, that the former head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, has advocated for how important these backscatter scanners are for our national security. What he didn't mention, is that the scanners are also important for his bank account, as his security consulting agency includes a client that manufactures the backscatter scanners. It's no trick that Homeland Security began ordering these back in 2005 during Chertoff's term. He left office in 2009 for using his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

 

[packrat]

How's about sealed off bomb rooms and you go in, they close the door and push a button..if you've got a bomb on you it automatically detonates.

 

[autumngems]

Having just put my 94 year old mother-in-law on a plane yesterday. I can say my hubby was not amused. They felt around her breasts and everything, I mean they patted EVERYTHING, really. She can barely walk people, two people had to hold her once they got her standing out of the wheelchair, I don't think she was much of a terrorist. Since my husband was escorting her to her gate and he didn't put his wallet in the little bowl because he forgot, he got searched too.

 

[swingirl]

Has anyone seen them grope a Muslim woman wearing a hijab head covering or a Catholic nun? What do they do with babies in diapers? What do they do with obese women in dresses? Do they put their hands between the thighs and separate the flesh? I don't understand how touching one's collar and waist band is more reliable than looking between folds of skin and fat? Like butt cracks?

 

[megumic]

Kind of like on the backscatter scanners -- how can you tell the difference between a tampon and a stick of dynamite?

On at least one occasion I am aware of, a woman was subjected to further patdowns because a sanitary napkin appeared on her body scan. And some think this is not a violation of our right to privacy??