Outrageous!

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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

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

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Andrea

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."

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.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Andrea

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.

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.

[Toughy]

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.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Toughy

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.

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.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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.

With all due respect Jo, I am pretty sure the adult diaper didnt set off the metal detector.

I am pretty sure travelers have to remove their shoes for inspection because of the guy who smuggled a bomb on board in his shoes. And the guy who tried to smuggle a bomb in his underwear is what prompted the invasive patdowns that are now done and the underwear checks. Restrictions on shampoos and mouthwashes and liquids are a result of something that was found that did not involve shampoo, mouthwashes, or water bottles.

I also cannot remember one single instance where a terrorist plot within the USA involved using children, or the elderly or anyone in wheelchair.

The regs are, in my opinion and as far as I know I still have a right to one, overreactions to the actual threat. It is the government instilling fear in its citizens.

Some of us do not believe the government accounts of what happened on 9/11 or how the twin towers really fell, or the actual realistic terrorist threat regarding air travel.

You, of course, are welcome to have different opinion.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Kobi

With all due respect Jo, I am pretty sure the adult diaper didnt set off the metal detector.

Hi Kobi,
I don't think anyone has suggested that the adult diaper set off the metal detector. I believe, from the article, the issue was that since she was not ambulatory enough to clear the metal detector without the wheelchair, she was subjected to a more extensive search...as is TSA policy. I'm not saying that policy is good or bad.

I am pretty sure travelers have to remove their shoes for inspection because of the guy who smuggled a bomb on board in his shoes. And the guy who tried to smuggle a bomb in his underwear is what prompted the invasive patdowns that are now done and the underwear checks. Restrictions on shampoos and mouthwashes and liquids are a result of something that was found that did not involve shampoo, mouthwashes, or water bottles.

I'm pretty sure that you're right...that shoe removal came about because of the "shoe bomber" episode. I'm sure that I've been subject to pat downs before the underwear incident because I tend to fly in full skirts (for the comfort factor). I think the article that Yellow Band posted points to the reason for that...and may also be a factor with other loose or baggy clothing.

I also cannot remember one single instance where a terrorist plot within the USA involved using children, or the elderly or anyone in wheelchair.

Agreed. However, I couldn't say the same worldwide...and that it wouldn't or couldn't happen here as well.

The regs are, in my opinion and as far as I know I still have a right to one, overreactions to the actual threat. It is the government instilling fear in its citizens.

Again, I agree. I think that all of the constant "threat level" announcements in the airport are pointless...and that we fan fear and hysteria for all kinds of reasons.

Some of us do not believe the government accounts of what happened on 9/11 or how the twin towers really fell, or the actual realistic terrorist threat regarding air travel.

And theories about 9/11? That could be a whole other thread (if it isn't already).

You, of course, are welcome to have different opinion.

I read an interesting blog on how the TSA gets away with these measures by calling them "administrative searches." Here's a link for anyone that's interested....and I think the writer has a valid point. If we disagree with these searches, then we need to challenge them in court and with our legislators. That's the only way things will be changed.

[Andrea]

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

[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

[Glenn]

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

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

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

[tapu]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Linus]

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

The arrested foreign national who allegedly flew from New York to Los Angeles last week with a stolen boarding pass and ID card is a self-proclaimed "storyteller, strategist and designer who is passionate about reaching the world for Jesus," according to one of the many websites with which he is affiliated.

Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi, 24, a Nigerian-born man who was found with the stolen ID and up to 10 old boarding passes containing various names, was arrested Wednesday after attempting to board a flight from Los Angeles to Atlanta; five days after passing through layers of airport security at New York's JFK airport to board a plane with a day-old boarding pass, federal authorities said.

Also known as Seun Noibi, the man claims to have an office on Chicago's southwest side and to be a frequent air traveler in comments that are posted under his various identities. He also says he is affiliated with the University of Michigan.

In one post on a social media website, Noibi comments about his plans to travel and his commitment to God.

"3 days, 3 cities, Chicago, Detroit and NOw i can spy with my little eye New york city from this Sheraton at Liberty Int'l Airport in NJ," he said. "When i told God to use me i didn't know he'll take me serious. Here I am. Use more of me. Meetings right into my birthday on sunday and then back in las gidi...for the Diko and Friends in Concert and Album Launch. It can only be God."

Noibi is also reportedly the founder of the "Unleash Abel Institute," said to be located in Chicago. The organization claims to have been "introducing students (8-12th graders and college bound) to professional careers in business, technology, and the sciences."

He also is listed as a principal executive of Unleash Media Inc. and Unleash 9JA, described as "a movement of independent thinkers, artist, musicians and filmmakers propagating the african experience," according to one website.

Noibi was charged with being a stowaway aboard an aircraft, according to FBI Special Agent Kevin R. Hogg. He is being held at a Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center and is expected to be in court Friday.

Noibi allegedly managed to get through every layer of security with a fake ID and numerous boarding passes, at least one of which came from another passenger's pocket, ABC News has learned.

The arrest came after Noibi allegedly boarded a plane Saturday under similar circumstances at JFK and travel to Los Angeles. Noibi boarded Virgin America flight 415 at JFK bound for L.A., according to an FBI affidavit.

He was found on the plane after it had taken off and was in flight, in a seat in the aircraft's "main cabin select" area. When asked for his boarding pass, Noibi produced a boarding pass and ticket for a Friday flight that was not in his name, authorities said.

On that pass was the name of a man with the initials M.D. After tracking down and interviewing him, the FBI learned that M.D. had lost his home-printed boarding pass from his back pocket, which had been folded into fourths, once he arrived at JFK via subway Friday, officials said. Once he discovered it missing, he obtained a new boarding pass from a ticket kiosk and boarded flight 413.

On flight 415 Saturday -- the day after M.D.'s flight had already taken off -- a similarly folded home-printed boarding pass with M.D.'s name on it was found on Noibi, officials said.

It is unclear how Noibi managed to get through security at both airports, and whether he left the L.A. airport once flight 415 landed last week and when he attempted to board Delta Airlines flight 46 to Atlanta Wednesday, although he claims to have cleared security.

"Noibi … said that he spent the night of June 28, 2011 at LAX Gate 51B, which I know is in the secure portion of the airport," agent Hogg said in the affidavit. "Noibi claimed he was able to go through passenger screening by obtaining a seat pass and displaying his University of Michigan identification and a police report that his passport had been stolen."

Hogg was at the Los Angeles airport with tactical Flight Officer Edward Becerril Wednesday when Noibi approach a Delta Airlines departure gate counter, according to the affidavit. Becerril overheard Noibi respond that he had missed his flight the day before, and that "they" told him he could just go to the gate, according to the affidavit. The Delta agent told Noibi "no" twice, and Noibi kept trying to hand her the boarding pass.

Hogg and Becerril then approached Noibi and said that when they searched his bags, they found more than 10 boarding passes in various individual's names.

The Transportation Security Administration said it "cannot comment on the specifics of the case given the ongoing FBI investigation."

Generally speaking, though, the TSA said in its statement, "Every passenger that passes through security checkpoints is subject to many layers of security including thorough physical screening at the checkpoint. TSA's review of this matter indicates that the passenger went through screening.

"It is important to note that this passenger was subject to the same physical screening at the checkpoint as other passengers."

A spokesman for Virgin America said the airline doesn't comment on security issues.

It is unclear why Noibi was arrested Wednesday and not when he was discovered last week as a stowaway on Flight 415.

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.

[tapu]

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....

[Andrea]

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

[Andrea]

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

[Dominique]

Originally Posted by Andrea

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

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.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Yellow band

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.

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

Andrea

[Dominique]

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.