Outrageous!
 

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/mot...rch-adult.html

Has anyone else seen this story? A 95 year old woman with leukemia traveling with her daughter is forced to remove her Depends undergarment to be searched. I am so outraged I can barely write coherent sentences.

I read this last night and was FUMING!!!

Possible ass handing post!
 

I actually just finished reading it on Yahoo. My initial reaction was"wtf--r u serious". HOWEVER--after some thought though i was thinking that as much as i would hate that my child/granparent/elderly parent or even myself might have to go thru that i would prefer them/me to endure this(given it is very private and respectful and professional) than risk any possible attack. Sadly,the prospect of children or elderly being used to achieve a group or person's goal is not beyond the realm of possibility. I know very little about the attempts thus far,but i have heard of the shoe guy and the underwear guy--so it is not a stretch to assume someone would stoop to such a level as to use any group of ppl that are usually looked at as harmless.

AGAIN-- i stress it would be difficult to have happen,but as long as it is done in a very professional manner i would understand!

ETA--hell everytime Jo/we fly either her or Connor get picked for random searches--and as much of an inconvenience that is they/we deal with it bc we know its just a safety precaution!

I flew home to Buffalo in late October of 2001 with my oldest daughter who was 3&1/2 and a newborn who was 3 months. I still remember security making me strip down Sophia so they could check her diaper and disassemble her car seat. It was freezing cold in the airport and they wouldn't let me cover her with a blanket. I had an antiquated double breast pump since she couldn't nurse properly due to being severely tongue-tied and security threatened to take it from me. They didn't believe it truly was what I said it was. My experience pales in comparison to what this woman and her daughter went through. Shudder!!

If TSA had stopped one terrorist I might consider what they do as a safety precaution, but even TSA has admitted they would not have caught the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber using today's enhanced screenings. In both cases it was the passengers on the plane that stopped them.

Since 9/11 (the oft quoted reason we need TSA) planes have been outfitted with impenetrable doors to the pilots. That is the best security move possible.

If you don't already know the stories about the recent 'strip searches' where people have been told to remove their outer clothing to resolve issues, or the stories about silly items being 'voluntarily surrendered' (search plastic hammer), or the inconsiderate ways those in wheelchairs or other medical issues have been treated, please educate yourselves.

Our constitutional rights are being eroded by Homeland Security, TSA, the Patriot Act, etc. To treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent goes against our constitutional rights.

Andrea

This may piss some of you off....
 

Honestly, from the article it sounds like the TSA did as much as they could to preserve this woman's privacy. They didn't do this in public. They took her to a private room.

Yes, it's terrible that this woman had to endure this. However, I would not put it past a terrorist to "use" a senior in a wheelchair to further their aims. They use children...why not the sick and elderly.

Her daughter is offended that she was treated this way....and I understand. However, this same daughter didn't bother to ensure that her mother had a clean Depends, and a spare, while traveling. Somehow, I'm almost more offended by that lack of care and concern on the part of people who supposedly love her than I am by the TSA following security protocols.

Honestly Kobi? My mother has a colostomy bag. She has been pat-searched and asked what it was. It was very gently handled to ensure that it was, in fact, a colostomy bag. Period.

Tampons and IUDs wouldn't set off security alarms...so I sincerely doubt that would ever become an issue.

And I'm guessing that anyone who jammed an explosive or something metal up their ass would be subjected to the backscatter if the preliminary search didn't identify the problem.

I think that this kind of inflammatory rhetoric fans the flames....and doesn't help.

If we honestly believe that we want the TSA to search less thoroughly, and accept the corresponding decrease in air travel safety, then it's up to us to do that through our legislators - not to hassle individual TSA agents who don't write the regulations, or get people stirred up about (non-existent) cavity searches.

Respectfully, we do not have a constitutional right to fly.

You have a constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, covered by the 4th Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Generally, that's defined as a search without cause (setting off the metal detector at the airport is cause, being the random "lucky number" based on TSA regulations is cause, being in a wheelchair through security, unfortunately, is cause).....or searches beyond the body's surface.

If the TSA starts drawing blood, then they've violated the 4th Amendment.

More on the 4th Amendment here.

My first and foremost concern when flying is that I'd like to arrive at my destination safely.

I don't like being searched (although I seem to get the "lucky random number" search often...and have been patted down a lot until I learned not to fly in voluminous skirts), but I prefer it to being blown up in the sky.

I had my possessions swabbed on the way to the Bahamas last week, and my 13 year old son got pat-searched on the way back. In both cases, the TSA (in the US) and the security personnel in the Bahamas (with my son) were polite, professional and simply doing their jobs.

"If we honestly believe that we want the TSA to search less thoroughly, and accept the corresponding decrease in air travel safety, then it's up to us to do that through our legislators - not to hassle individual TSA agents who don't write the regulations, or get people stirred up about (non-existent) cavity searches."

Given media coverage surrounding other events involving the TSA recently, I believe the public (myself included) could be feeling a bit abused and manhandled - therefor heightening emotions involving personal privacy and space issues. While I completely understand the need for safety protocol and procedures in public transportation facilities, something about both the narrative and subsequent handling of this situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Again, this story comes on the heels of another situation involving an African American male who was removed from a plane due to his style of clothing, while another passenger (a white male) was allowed to travel wearing little more than a pair of black heels and a speedo. Most will say these two incidents vs the OP's story are like comparing apples and oranges, but the fact is that people are feeling sensitive and protective...especially when it comes to our elderly and children who are relatively helpless in these situations.

Personally, I would have been absolutely mortified had that been my mother. And speaking AS a mother - I have absolutely forgotten to pack extra diapers when traveling. I'm human after all!

The real problem is none of this actually makes us more secure. It only makes us look stupid. What has happened to rational thinking? Who needs Constitutional rights? Every person who supports this kind of stupidity certainly does not find value iin the Constitution.

The only way to do airport security is to do it the way Israel does. Each and every person who is in the airport is talked to by a fully and completely trained, well paid security person. When the really dangerous and useless full body scanners were put in airports, I watched an interview on CNN with a former head of Israil Airport Security. He actually laughed at what the US calls airport security. Funny that Israel is the most hated country in the world and nobody has hijacked a plane coming out of an Israili airport in what 40-50 years?

Sometimes the truth really hurts
 

I don't like it either. Where do you draw the line? I left my last job, A VERY GOOD JOB, due to EXTREME STRESS. I was employed by the 8th largest airline in the world, as a dangerous goods inspector. I did not work for the TSA. While I can not go into great detail about that job (FAA
security) I will tell you, in no uncertain terms, you would be shocked at the crap people try to pull.

This is a link I provided you with about a year and a half ago, one of my very first posts' here. Read on, and please open your mind to this subject.

http://bit.ly/czAUMW

Novelafemme...I totally understand what you're saying, and I do get that people are feeling sensitive and protective. I wasn't thrilled that I had to explain a pat search to my 13 year old and watch as he was searched.

At the same time, I infinitely prefer that we both arrive where we're going safely.

Toughy....I get that Israel has a better security system in place than the US does...and that our system is far from perfect.

My issue with your post is the part I've put in red. This isn't the first time I've seen you make such blanket statements about what other people believe.

It's crap Toughy...and it comes off as bullying. What you're saying there is "if you don't believe what I believe, then you're stupid and irrational"...and I'm calling it out.

For the record...I'm a firm believer in the Constitution. I debated for years about going to law school, specifically to study Constitutional law, because I love it. I love the freedoms that our Constitution guarantees us, and it pisses me off to no end that Bush played on our fears to erode our privacy and our freedoms.

I also prefer that my son and I not get blown up while flying.

Maybe that makes me imperfectly committed to the Constitution. Or maybe that just makes me a mother who loves her child.

Scary stuff Yellow band...thank you for posting it.

It also explains why my "voluminous skirts" used to get me a pat search almost every time I flew.

I think Ben Franklin said it best...“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

oh please with the bullying stuff.......Expressing an opinion is not bullying.

I am tired of folks willingly giving up Constitutional rights in the name of fighting terror. I find it to be irrational and our 'airport passenger security' measures are laughable, stupid and dangerous. One of these days someone is going to get full body scanned and pat searched and then get on the plane and blow it up or hijack it. The scanners don't pick up powder and you can hide all kinds of things in body cavities that will get past the scanners and pat searches. What's next? Take out your bloody tampon for closer inspection?

As you say Israel has a better system. So why don't we use a better system?

I agree (which may surprise you)...and that's a quote I actually love.

I totally agree when it comes to Homeland Security being able to check what books we check out of the library.....but less when it involves a bomb at 30,000 feet.

I'm not disputing that some TSA agents have gone too far, been disrespectful and more....I simply don't think it's unreasonable to try to ensure that public transportation (particularly in the air) is as safe as possible.

And, for those who would like to read more about the Israeli airport security discussion and why it may or may not scale (11.5 million annual passengers in Israel and 633 million in the US)....there's an interesting blog with both sides of the argument here.

The above needs to be repeated often. Was Ben bullying people????

Correct. Expressing an opinon is not bullying. Saying that "Every person who supports this kind of stupidity certainly does not find value in the Constitution" is no different than me saying "Every person who lives a gay lifestyle certainly has no morals."

It's crap Toughy.

Express your opinions, but please stop with the "every one who doesn't agree with me is X"....that's the dynamic that silences people.

And...for the record...I question that Israel's system is scalable here. They have 11.5 million passengers a year...we have 633 million. Israel's total air travel is comparable to the air traffic at the Sacramento regional airport according to an expert on airport security cited in the link in my post above.

Extending Israel's measures to only major airports in the US wouldn't work...because terrorists would simply divert to regional airports. Israel has one major airport and a small handfull of smaller airports. We have over 100.

Further, we have issues hiring quality police, fire and other personnel all over (again, cited in the link above)....TSA agents don't come up the standard we want now....finding the level of personnel and paying them sufficiently to come to Israel's standard would probably be problematic at best, not to mention raising the cost of air travel even higher than it is now.

Getting through security in Orlando can take hours now....what would it be if we took time to personally interview every passenger? I hate to think.

I'm not saying that we can't take and use some of their ideas, but I doubt we can replicate their system exactly at the scale we would need to in order to be effective.

And, see? I expressed all of that without saying "anyone who doesn't understand the concepts of taking a business structure to scale and return on investment is clearly an idiot."

No...I don't think that Ben was bullying people. I think we was expressing a principle.

I also think that Ben was talking about bigger things when he talked about "giving up freedom."

We have the freedom to travel. We even have the freedom to fly around the country when and where we see fit. We simply have to submit to some basic security measures (as imperfect as they are) to do so.

We don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater either...that's for safety reasons. Kind of like flying.

And....I find it odd that you advocate Israel's far more restrictive security measures on one hand while clutching Ben's quote in the other.

I believe we do have a constitutional right to fly:

"The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

As to the daughter not having a spare Depends.... It is against TSA policy to allow one to access your personal items until all issues are resolved. So there may have been a spare Depends but not accessible.

In addition, per the Depends website:

Q: How often should I change my DEPEND® Brand product?

A: That depends on you and the extent of your condition. However, DEPEND® Brand products use more super absorbent polymers (SAP) to ensure they can withstand multiple wettings of varying amounts. This means you don't have to change them as often as less-expensive, non-premium brands.

Since it was not a long flight, it is quite possible there was no thought that an additional Depends was needed.

Andrea

Thanks for this Andrea. I wonder if it's as specific to assert that we have a right to a certain form of travel though. If someone doesn't want to subject themselves to airport security, there is also the train, bus, car, etc.

Not trying to be difficult, but it is a personal choice.

I choose not to travel by bus because it's slow and makes me feel sick. I prefer to fly, even with the security measures. It's my choice.

And you may be right about the Depends issue....although the article said that she did not have a spare. It may be as Novelafemme pointed out, and have been forgotten. It still bothers me.

TSA has begun searches at train stations (Amtrak officials are pushing back), bus stations and subways. I believe the program is called VIPR.

There are people who must travel for work and can not avoid flying. In this economy, it isn't reasonable to tell someone to find another job if they don't like being patted down almost every time they go through airport security because they have a metal pin in their leg or a colostomy bag or they just will not subject themselves to the scanner that may or may not produce cancer causing radiation.

It is now being reported that there were spare Depends in the checked luggage. Please note, the 95 year old woman was not without her mental capabilities so it was not her daughter's decision whether or not her mom should have a spare Depends. The 95 year old woman was a seasoned nurse and quite capable of deciding for herself what her needs were. Perhaps the daughter suggested a spare Depends and mom made the decision not to carry one. And the truth is, if the TSA had not required the Depends be removed, it is quite possible a spare one would not have been needed.

Andrea

Thanks Andrea, I had not heard about this program. Here's a link and, yes, I do find this disturbing, especially the part that is extending their examinations to immigration status.

I believe that the TSA's searches need to be completely restricted to concerns regarding physical safety....and it's one of my biggest criticisms of the Israeli-style screenings. I have more issues personally with people questioning me about where I'm coming from, where I'm going, where I went to school, my nationality, etc. than I do about a pat search for weapons.

Using face-to-face communication with a passenger is far more than: where are you flying and why are you going and when will you be back. There are very proven techniques to ascertain if someone needs a closer look. That is what the 'well trained' part means.

I have no issues with metal detectors and wands and looking at your carry-on baggage. It's a perfectly reasonable thing and is not invasive

Taking off your shoes is stupid. No disposable lighters was stupid, especially when you could have 3 books of matches on the plane. No more than 3oz of any liquid/gel and it has to be in only a quart size baggie is stupid. Poorly trained, poorly paid security folks does not make us safer. Those things make up less safe.

As to cost in the US.........LMAO......you cannot be serious...... How many trillions of dollars are we spending in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and ________ to kill and main our soldiers and all those 'non-combantants'? How many years have we been doing that? And let's not talk about how many terrorists we are creating because we are killing people. And all of it 'off the budget'. To use cost as a reason is ludicrious, stupid and irrational.

Well trained and paid security professionals in our airports, combining face-to-face and non-invasive techniques keeps us safer and is less dangerous to passengers and professionals.


I also want to be clear. What happens to your checked baggage and behind the scenes at train stations, bus stations, ports, etc needs to be mind blowingly strict. I say use every bit of technology in available and make new technology. I have a hard time believing that I can use Google Earth and look at me on my deck and we can't have a look at everything that comes in and out of our seaports, airports, etc. For the cost argument see above.

edited to add: I am not talking about a formal interview. You walk up and have a chat. That can be done while folks are in line. I would rather pay well trained people than pay a corporation half a million dollars to buy a scanner that is invasive, doesn't work, and is dangerous to everyone.

I agree. And if we stopped spending a fortune on wars that we should never have been in, and stopped thinking (and acting) that we have the right to tell the rest of the world how to live and how to think...then we'd have both less need to spend money on airport security and more money left to do it.

Might be hard to understand Toughy...but I never had an issue with your opinion. I have disagreed with others on this thread and have no issue with them at all. My issue was with how you said what you said...and with the implication that anyone who doesn't agree with you is irrational and stupid.

On some points we agree, on some we disagree...and I'm fine with all of that.

A list of some of the current lawsuits:

Corbett v. US, 10-CV-24106, SDFL 11/16/2010 ["The Florida Businessman"]
Roberts v. Nappy, 10-CV-1966, DCD 11/16/2010 ["Rutherford the First]
Fielder v. Nappy, 10-CV-2878, COD 11/26/2010 ["The Colorado Attorney"]
Redfern v. Nappy, 10-CV-12048, MAD 11/29/2010 ["The Harvard Law Students"]
Blitz v. Nappy, 10-CV-930, MDNC 12/03/2010 ["North Carolina Family"]
Durso v. Nappy, 10-CV-2066, DCD 12/06/2010 ["Rutherford the Second"]

Writing to legislators results in automated responses referring to 9/11 and the need for security. Few legislators appear to be willing to go up against Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. However, that shouldn't stop you from contacting your representatives often.

Andrea

The following posting is by a member of flyertalk, from the Travel Safety/Security forum. The number of per day passengers is an estimate provided in a posting by an employee of TSA.

"Even if all 2 million passengers alarmed, and using the (faux) stat above of 99.99% resolved towards the passenger's benefit, why should those 1,999,800 people (99.99%) be inconvenienced for the 200 people (0.01%) that may have something that is "banned" from the secure side?

And, admittedly guessing, I would guess a large majority of the 'guilty' are for questionable items (too much water, nailclippers w/ a file attached, every day pocket knife). Another fair percentage for reasonable items that were inadvertantly brought. Leaving only 1 or 2 that may have brought something with ill intent. (And I have to question the 1 or 2 as we would be hearing about it more often if that were the case.)

So the TSA chooses, in my opinion, to waste a lot of time, energy, and money searching all 2,000,000 passengers daily (initially intended to be screened the same) to more than a typical administrative search (WTMD and x-ray carryons) for a less than 0.01% chance that that passenger is actually "The 1".

As well, I know several have seen the estimate that the odds of being killed by a terrorist flying to, from, or within the US on an airplane is roughly 1 in 10,000,000. Extrapolating out, and using a 100 passenger per plane average, roughly means that once every 500 days that "The 1" passenger has the true ill intent. One passenger out of 100 million passengers - I have a better chance to win the lottery."

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Andrea

If you want to leave the country, you can go to Cuba or Mexico by BOAT and from there fly.

Not following your suggestion here. I am able to leave the country in any number of ways.....

I don't wish to misinterpret your comment but it seems as if you are suggesting I/we are unAmerican to question TSA and should go live somewhere else. Please clarify.

Thank you

I can totally get behind the math of it. Following the same reasoning, I don't play the lottery.

But there is a much more complex overlay on it all. Public perception--and "enemy perception," if you wiil, impact of an incident on the psychology of the nation, the economy, and so on. The picture is, I think, larger than weighing probabilities.

Then again, we get the joys of the following: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/boardi...ry?id=13963831

I travel a lot and generally have no problem with the security checks. However, if it's going to be done, let's be thorough about this. Valid ID is required. If the name on one doesn't match the one on the other, then it shouldn't be allowed.

To me, even if he was checked physically, it won't matter if they can't do a basic ID check properly. So while I understand checking someone's diaper to be thorough, it'd make sense if they were truly doing a good job. The fact that a lot of the TSA screeners aren't adequately trained and underpaid doesn't help.

I read that story about the guy getting all the way on a plane without a boarding pass or ID, and I thought, Meanwhile, I was behind security throwing away my hair gel....

Linus (and anyone else that cares to jump in):

I agree with what you are saying about if TSA is assigned the job, they should be able to do the job. This situation indicates failure by several parties.

All that aside, do you feel it is important or helpful to show ID at the TSA security points? What is the purpose for doing so? It is the airlines that are tasked with comparing your name to the no-fly list, and you are not actually 'required' to show ID to the TSA if you don't have one (although I don't know how one would prove you don't have something).

Thank you for your input.

Andrea

More food for thought in this Forbes article: http://blogs.forbes.com/artcarden/2011/06/30/time-to-close-the-security-theater/

Hi Andrea. You have done a very good job pointing out several key issues about travel and security. I've enjoyed reading your posts. Everyones for that matter.

It is *MY* opinion, that TSA is a very expensive SHILL, and not much more. As has been suggested several times, they are weak.

Airlines and airports do have *REAL* security. Trust me. However, it is not talked about. It can't be. Terrorists are too smart. Then there is always the copycat and the wanna be, which quite frankily, that is what TSA is there to DETER.
They have to look like they are doing something. I didn't read your link yet, but will. I'm trying to get my ass out the door. I just wanted to stress the point. The real security is in place, and it's not discussed for obvious reasons.:byebye:

So, YB, is the real purpose of TSA to distract from the security that is in place so terrorists are surprised?

Andrea

No, TSA has a function. But they are not our main line of security. Our main line of security is secret. As it should be. If airline security was openly discussed, it would be much easier to defeat it. And now, same will apply with the railroad and buses. Railroad is more complicated. As Amtrak does not own the rails, (highspeed excluded) they pay to run on
the privately owned tracks.