The Cheap Thrill-Airport Security Measures run Wild

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Quote: Originally Posted by kyounge1956 As for the pat-down, the fact that I forget who at the beginning of the thread was threatened with arrest for demanding a woman to search his teenage daughter was enough for me. I am a spinster lady and I don't cotton to the idea of some man feeling me up any more than I do to superfluous radiation exposure. It is this Post #34. Yes, I remember reading it and wanting to do a bit of further research on that. Is it really true that TSA male agents are allowed to search women, so that there might be a fist fight among them for the "honor" when a nice looking woman comes walking down the line?

That is the one I meant. Reading it again it may be that the male agents were demanding to look at the daughter's scan, rather than do the pat-down search. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other, as far as I'm concerned. I doubt that the male agents would be fighting for the privilege of patting down my middle-aged person or of looking at my scan, but I think a female agent should be assigned as a matter of course, to screen or search female passengers (and male agents for male passengers). Michael B shouldn't even have had to ask for a woman agent, and the fact that he was threatened with arrest when he did ask is absolutely outrageous!

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 ... I think a female agent should be assigned as a matter of course, to screen or search female passengers (and male agents for male passengers)...

That's what I presumed, until the quoted post indicated otherwise. So, what is TSA's official policy? Does anyone know?

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound That's what I presumed, until the quoted post indicated otherwise. So, what is TSA's official policy? Does anyone know?

I replied to the above post as follows:

Quote:

In MichaelB's daughter's case, the procedures say: "If you are asked to undergo a personal screening you will be provided a security officer of the same gender except in extraordinary circumstances. In some cases you may have to wait for a security officer of your gender to conduct the screening. You will be advised if the wait will be more than a few minutes." (TSA: The Screening Process) But the supervisor can always claim there were the undefined extraordinary circumstances....

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound That's what I presumed, until the quoted post indicated otherwise. So, what is TSA's official policy? Does anyone know?

I don't know and in a way it doesn't make any difference. Whatever the official policy says, the agent threatened MichaelB with arrest for requesting that his daughter be screened by a female agent and the supervisor supported the agent's refusal of MichaelB's reasonable request. Whether it is an official policy that doesn't require a female agent to be provided for female passengers, or "rogue" agents who throw their weight around with no consequences for their bullying, I don't want to be anywhere around it.

[haha]

This entire issue is so weird. I don't think I have ever known a man who would want to touch an adult woman in an unwelcome way, let alone a child of either sex. Where on earth did the TSA dig up its agents?

Ha

[Moemg]

I would like to hear a TSA agents view on this . I find it hard to believe that they would look forward to patting down people especially the majority of people I see in airports . It's just a job and that is probably not a thrilling part of their job. I have worked in Nursing for forty years and I never heard a nurse say " Let me take care of that patient because he's hot " . When you are working with naked people day in and day out it loses it's sexual appeal and is just a part of your duties .

[brewer12345]

Well, we are seriously considering scrapping our planned summer flight to visit family and scope out our ESR location in CO in favor of a cross country RVing trip. If that works out, it may become a regular thing for us.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Well, we are seriously considering scrapping our planned summer flight to visit family and scope out our ESR location in CO in favor of a cross country RVing trip. If that works out, it may become a regular thing for us.

Brewer, trips in the RV are some of our kids' favorite childhood memories. Just don't plan on doing it without pharmaceutical assistance (for them or for you) once they are teenagers.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Brewer, trips in the RV are some of our kids' favorite childhood memories. Just don't plan on doing it without pharmaceutical assistance (for them or for you) once they are teenagers.

We are already there on the memory-making. We took an 8 day trip to te Finger Lakes region of NY this summer and it was great. So a longer (2 and a half week) trip has a lot of appeal. Since we could bring the dogs with us, we also would not have the expense and worry of dealing wth a pet sitter or boarding place (plus the dogs like camping, too). Part of the deal for us to relocated is that we are planning on making an annual (summer) multi-week RV trip out east to visit my family, so this would b a little bit of a test case

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha This entire issue is so weird. I don't think I have ever known a man who would want to touch an adult woman in an unwelcome way, let alone a child of either sex. Where on earth did the TSA dig up its agents? Ha

My earlier post about the possibility of male TSA agents clamoring to pat down female travelers was just a joke at TSA's expense, which is what everybody is doing nowadays. And about the imaging machines, I have not been traveling lately to see how that works. Are there separate machines for men and women? Hey, maybe it is more fun to congregate at the new machines that can see through people's clothes, but stop right at the skin level.

"People who claim they can see through women are missing a lot" - Groucho Marx

I am sure that not all TSA agents are lechers or molesters, but the agency should realize that it should not give the public any doubt. Incidences as reported in Post #34 greatly add to the uneasiness of travelers.

A friend of mine who had a knee surgery, hence carrying some metal parts in his body, has to be patted down every time he flies. He hates flying because of that, and says it was humiliating, but has to do some infrequent traveling for his work. He has not traveled through airports with the new imaging machines for me to ask if he would mind that less.

Still, I am glad I have no plans nor the need for air travel in the next few months. Hopefully, things will quiet down some.

[BigNick]

It seems to me that people are losing a sense of proportion here.

Yes, the intrusive patdown is bad, and probably unconstitutional, and should be scrapped. But it's not like it's going to be broadcast on national TV. A million other people will be experiencing the same thing on the same day. There will be no sharp edges, rectal probing, or other severe humiliation.

Yes, there's no reason to expose yourself unnecessarily to radiation, but if you worry about that, I hope that you chose your current home location more or less exclusively on the basis that it had the lowest background radiation in the country. One scan is described as being equivalent to 10 minutes typical US background radiation. Let's say thats off by a factor of 150 and that you in fact get a day's extra radiation. But this map shows that you can get several hundred days' extra radiation per year just by not living in the right place.

You're really going to miss out on a trip to see your family, or a vacation in Paris or Australia, because there's some stupid bureaucracy, a momentary feel of your clothing, and a 3/4 hour wait, before getting on that plane, and exposing yourself to all of the germs, recycled air including some from the engine exhausts and radiation that that entails?

Again, again: I am firmly against these security measures. But they are a reason to complain, not a reason not to fly.

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha This entire issue is so weird. I don't think I have ever known a man who would want to touch an adult woman in an unwelcome way, let alone a child of either sex. Where on earth did the TSA dig up its agents? Ha

The usual places. Ads on pizza boxes...

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigNick Again, again: I am firmly against these security measures. But they are a reason to complain, not a reason not to fly.

Speak for yourself. If all people do is complain, nothing will change.

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigNick It seems to me that people are losing a sense of proportion here. Yes, the intrusive patdown is bad, and probably unconstitutional, and should be scrapped. ... Yes, there's no reason to expose yourself unnecessarily to radiation, but if you worry about that, ... ...Again, again: I am firmly against these security measures. But they are a reason to complain, not a reason not to fly.

Sure, easy enough for you to say--you can just wear this on your next flight with the appropriate undergarments and demand a patdown instead of the scan, and you'll be ushered right on through

[Keim]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Speak for yourself. If all people do is complain, nothing will change.

I don't know about that, Brewer. I'm certain there are some lawyers out there looking to make a name for themselves by arguing this issue to the Supreme Court.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigNick ........... There will be no sharp edges, rectal probing, or other severe humiliation. ...............

We've had the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber. Does anyone not believe we'll soon have the cavity bomber? I'd argue that the TSA needs to start coming up with a counter strategy and, no, it does not include latex gloves.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover Does anyone not believe we'll soon have the cavity bomber?

I believe a good engineer can solve just about any problem, but lighting the fuse (and keeping it lit) will be one heckuva challenge...

[BigNick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover We've had the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber. Does anyone not believe we'll soon have the cavity bomber? I'd argue that the TSA needs to start coming up with a counter strategy and, no, it does not include latex gloves.

I agree. But that's not where we are today. (The absurdity of the current situation was illustrated the other day when the TSA announced that cavity searches are not on the agenda; I don't suppose "the Government is not going to stick a finger up your backside" is something anyone ever expected to hear from a Federal agency.) The day when that happens, the airlines and airports will revolt; for now, they seem to be on the edge. But I stick by my belief that while everything should be done to reverse this cr*p, it's not a reason not to fly.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords I believe a good engineer can solve just about any problem, but lighting the fuse (and keeping it lit) will be one heckuva challenge...

This could not be done electronically? (But, yes the image one trying to light the fuse is pretty humorous)

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigNick .........But I stick by my belief that while everything should be done to reverse this cr*p, it's not a reason not to fly.

I agree, but I'm arguing for them to be more proactive, which I think takes the form of (gasp) profiling, interviewing via a more professional and trained staff, with targeted searches