TSA screener accosts 3-year-old at airport checkpoint

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
This.
Don't blame TSA for that. The kid was tired, hungry, spoiled, whatever. Non-issue. Except maybe the parents could talk to their kid first about what is going to happen going through security. Maybe we can get the gov't to make up cheery little coloring books about going through security at the airport for parents to obtain for free to go over with their child.

ALL 3 year olds are brats. Spend a little time at a daycare.

Some of course are better than others, but they are all quite often brats.

Yea, I agree. A little something to keep them happy like a mini coloring book would be good.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
Actually, no. I choose to live in the United States of America, where individuals have rights everywhere INCLUDING airports. Just because certain groups/individuals find ways to temporarily erode those rights is no reason to submit to them.

FAIL.

Air Travel is NOT a protected right. You voluntarily submit to screenings when you fly, thus no violation of search or seizure. If you do not voluntarily submit, I guess you can drive because you will not be flying.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
A) Lawsuits don't always work
B) They require INCREDIBLE sums of $...at least to be effective

Lawsuits don't work when you dont have a protected right.

You do NOT have a right to fly. Flying is a voluntary right, for which you voluntarily submit to screenings, either through the full body scan at larger airports, metal detectors at most airports or pat down if you trigger or refuse either one of the previous screening devices. If you do not submit, you do not fly.

Personally I wish children under the age of 12 couldn't fly. Children are the worst or the worst when it comes to annoying airline passengers.
 
Last edited:

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
A) Lawsuits don't always work
B) They require INCREDIBLE sums of $...at least to be effective



So you're willing to forgo judicial branch review of the executive branch decisions. Good job embracing that Constitution you love so much. Did you vote out the people in Congress that allow this kind of stuff to keep going or did all the people that vote for the Patriot Act and other such bills get voted back in for saying they hated Bush or pandering in some other way?

All this internet blustering is just that, internet blustering. Nobody has done anything to change any of the stuff that supposedly infuriates them.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
FAIL.

Air Travel is NOT a protected right. You voluntarily submit to screenings when you fly, thus no violation of search or seizure. If you do not voluntarily submit, I guess you can drive because you will not be flying.

And I do submit to reasonable searches...I will also allow you to reasonably search my daughters bags, take her through the detectors, etc. I will NOT endure the type of searches demonstrated here against her.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
So you're willing to forgo judicial branch review of the executive branch decisions. Good job embracing that Constitution you love so much. Did you vote out the people in Congress that allow this kind of stuff to keep going or did all the people that vote for the Patriot Act and other such bills get voted back in for saying they hated Bush or pandering in some other way?

All this internet blustering is just that, internet blustering. Nobody has done anything to change any of the stuff that supposedly infuriates them.

Not at all. Do the best you can, but also don't endure injustice when it occurs. Your fallacy is that you believe individuals can actually cause change in government...they largely can't. Even if you reverse the party, they're still corrupt and controlled by the interests. About the only true agency that individual citizens have is violence against those that directly abuse them.
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,407
39
91
It's a pretty smart idea to smuggle bombs with a 3 yr old. Just saying. BTW out of control Girl parents needed a taze too due to incompetency in child raising.

I could almost imagine that. Screaming child.. TSA pulls out tasers and parents are suddenly convulsing on the floor. :D
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Screener was wrong not to have stopped and told the parents they need their child to cooperate if they want to pass through security. The reason this looks bad is because she kept groping the child against her will.

Overall bad parenting for standing there and recording it so you can act outraged later. If you were really outraged you would have stopped the groping of your child, and used your parenting skills to explain why she was being searched. Then come back and try again.

Yeah the parents should have helped calm the kid. I think they may have set this up. Why wasn't whatever set the alarm off removed the first time?

I don't think airport security is going to stop our next major disaster, but it will stop idiots. I have traveled a lot. Seeing fights on planes is not uncommon. Having one get by with a gun or knife would just be bad.

In the end there are plenty of things you could get by any metal detector or body scanner that could take a plane down.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
30,031
45,261
136
TSA-us-dept.jpg
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
And I do submit to reasonable searches...I will also allow you to reasonably search my daughters bags, take her through the detectors, etc. I will NOT endure the type of searches demonstrated here against her.

If you think its ok for people to go through detectors what happens when the detector goes off? You've got two options, either you can make it a rule that EVERYBODY that cannot go through the detector without it going off has to be turned away or you can have them go through a secondary search like a pat down and then get on the plane.

If you give people the option of taking a pat down to get on the plane or giving up and going home I can guarantee that almost everyone will take the pat down.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
Not that I needed more support for my outrage, but:

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

If accurate (and I'm not suggesting it is) this is bordering on a call to arms against the TSA and any agency supporting them. If that happened to me, and they didn't back down (on the forced search, not the lawsuit), I would probably be willing to escalate to lethal force over it.

Again, flying is not a legally protected right. If you chose not to submit to the security you can chose not to fly.

Personally, with you threatening lethal force over this I'd prefer not to have you on the same plane that I'm in. Heaven forbid if they run out of peanuts before they get to you, you'd have to kill the stewardess.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
If you think its ok for people to go through detectors what happens when the detector goes off? You've got two options, either you can make it a rule that EVERYBODY that cannot go through the detector without it going off has to be turned away or you can have them go through a secondary search like a pat down and then get on the plane.

If you give people the option of taking a pat down to get on the plane or giving up and going home I can guarantee that almost everyone will take the pat down.

Or you can implement more reasonable search procedures for children that take into account the special circumstances. In fact, you could likely develop better procedures for everyone in order to safeguard liberty without necessarily sacrificing meaningful security.

Giving someone the option between a giant douche and a turd sandwich is neither freedom nor democracy.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Again, flying is not a legally protected right. If you chose not to submit to the security you can chose not to fly.

Personally, with you threatening lethal force over this I'd prefer not to have you on the same plane that I'm in. Heaven forbid if they run out of peanuts before they get to you, you'd have to kill the stewardess.

Yes, because direct violations of Constitutionally guaranteed human liberties accelerating the decline of civilization into fascism is exactly the same thing as not getting enough snack food.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
Or you can implement more reasonable search procedures for children that take into account the special circumstances. In fact, you could likely develop better procedures for everyone in order to safeguard liberty without necessarily sacrificing meaningful security.

Giving someone the option between a giant douche and a turd sandwich is neither freedom nor democracy.

Please give us some guidance on how they could change things in such a way that would maintain liberties without creating any new gaping security holes.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
Or you can implement more reasonable search procedures for children that take into account the special circumstances.

Sounds like age discrimination to me. Can me implement search procedures that take other special circumstances into effect? Race? Religion?
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Please give us some guidance on how they could change things in such a way that would maintain liberties without creating any new gaping security holes.

First, we're not operating from a secure condition that would be somehow compromised through reform. We exist under the illusion of security, not the realization of it. Moreover, there is NO SUCH THING as total security. It cannot be achieved. Ever. Instead we have to choose a reasonable balance between liberty/convenience and safety/security. If there's not enough likelihood of significant gains for the latter, the former should not be infringed.

Second, accept that generally speaking the risks presented by a child are non-existent. Obviously the fear is that they might be concealing something for use by others. The two questions therefore become, 1) are the people they're with likely to be a threat and, 2) what exactly could be concealed that's a threat? The first can be solved by statistical probability, and the second can probably be addressed by visual inventory assisted by the parent (in other words, on so small of a frame anything large enough to pose a detectable threat is going to print when emphasized by the parent).

If you're not going to take peoples credit cards (which are an exceptional cutting tool against flesh) then you're not looking for anything smaller than a machete. If you're not going to take peoples makeup (which can easily be a spoofed chemical or biological agent) then you're not helping anything by taking liquids. I could go on, but the idea is the same. If you're not going to implement ACTUAL security then anything dangerous enough to bother with could be easily seen on a child without an adult style pat-down.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
Yes, because direct violations of Constitutionally guaranteed human liberties accelerating the decline of civilization into fascism is exactly the same thing as not getting enough snack food.

Both are not protected rights, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to air travel or the right to lousy airline snack food. By buying a ticket you are opting in to the security measures which you can read up on before your purchase. If you disagree, don't by a ticket and get there some other way.

If enough people disagreed with the security measures and opted out by refusing to fly you'd actually see more of a change than if people got violent at a security checkpoint. If violence occurs at the checkpoint people are going to think two things:
1. There are nutcases trying to get on planes, increase the security so I feel safe!
2. The security worked because the nutcase didn't get on the plane, it justifies the security so I'll willing submit!

Going nuts at the checkpoint will not further your cause in the slightest. Honestly, the best way to voice your disapproval is to opt out of the security by refusing to fly with the current regulations. The TSA gets a fee from each ticket. Refusing to fly deprives them of funding. Also, if enough people refuse to fly and the airlines start seeing their revenues drop because of security they'll start screaming that the government is killing their business. Similar to the bus boycotts its often best to vote with your wallets. This will have far more effect than a single person causing a scene at a checkpoint.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Sounds like age discrimination to me. Can me implement search procedures that take other special circumstances into effect? Race? Religion?

Age discrimination is already required by law. We treat people under 21 different, under 18 different, under 16 different, over 65 different, etc. Moreover there are ABSOLUTE physiological differences based on age that are not present when comparing nationality. Claiming all ages should be treated equal is the same as saying all men should have a pap smear and pregnancy test to get into the military (which, oddly enough, I actually had to deal with when I joined).

As an initial indicator demographics should not used as a threshold or we wrong all under the stereotyping. As a secondary qualifier, however, demographics are a perfectly valid tool. IE we don't pat you down because you're an arab, but if you set off the detectors first then being arab is a valid cause for more careful investigation.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
First, we're not operating from a secure condition that would be somehow compromised through reform. We exist under the illusion of security, not the realization of it. Moreover, there is NO SUCH THING as total security. It cannot be achieved. Ever. Instead we have to choose a reasonable balance between liberty/convenience and safety/security. If there's not enough likelihood of significant gains for the latter, the former should not be infringed.

Second, accept that generally speaking the risks presented by a child are non-existent. Obviously the fear is that they might be concealing something for use by others. The two questions therefore become, 1) are the people they're with likely to be a threat and, 2) what exactly could be concealed that's a threat? The first can be solved by statistical probability, and the second can probably be addressed by visual inventory assisted by the parent (in other words, on so small of a frame anything large enough to pose a detectable threat is going to print when emphasized by the parent).

I completely agree with your first point. The issue is that if our leaders don't 'Do Something' then they will be replaced by people who told the population that they would Do Something. Each airport security breach results in an even louder cry to Do Something. The downside is that they have to find a way to do invasive searches without being invasive. As a population we demand the TSA do the near impossible

For the second point - we either have to screen EVERYONE regardless of age, sex, race, religion to avoid any possible cry of discrimination. Even so many of the same people who decry profiling will also cry fowl at the search of a 3 year old.

So what is it? Do we pofile? Do we bend the rules for some based on a characteristic or do we hold the same true for all?
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
Age discrimination is already required by law. We treat people under 21 different, under 18 different, under 16 different, over 65 different, etc. Moreover there are ABSOLUTE physiological differences based on age that are not present when comparing nationality. Claiming all ages should be treated equal is the same as saying all men should have a pap smear and pregnancy test to get into the military (which, oddly enough, I actually had to deal with when I joined).

So what age are you too young to carry a concealed weapon? (or to have one placed on you?)
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Both are not protected rights, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to air travel or the right to lousy airline snack food. By buying a ticket you are opting in to the security measures which you can read up on before your purchase. If you disagree, don't by a ticket and get there some other way.

If enough people disagreed with the security measures and opted out by refusing to fly you'd actually see more of a change than if people got violent at a security checkpoint. If violence occurs at the checkpoint people are going to think two things:
1. There are nutcases trying to get on planes, increase the security so I feel safe!
2. The security worked because the nutcase didn't get on the plane, it justifies the security so I'll willing submit!

Going nuts at the checkpoint will not further your cause in the slightest. Honestly, the best way to voice your disapproval is to opt out of the security by refusing to fly with the current regulations. The TSA gets a fee from each ticket. Refusing to fly deprives them of funding. Also, if enough people refuse to fly and the airlines start seeing their revenues drop because of security they'll start screaming that the government is killing their business. Similar to the bus boycotts its often best to vote with your wallets. This will have far more effect than a single person causing a scene at a checkpoint.

We're not talking about air travel, we're talking about the search itself. The fact that it takes place during air travel should not be relevant. If it were, then you could situationally infringe on any right, and therefore negate the very existence of the right at all. Either something is a right, or it is not. You cannot logically qualify a right. Yes, we do in practice, but in so doing we fail utterly.

Either a person is free from unreasonable searches, or they're not. Period.

Your views are a wonderful fantasy, but in the real world it does not work that way. Were the slaves freed by popular dissent? Did Hitler surrender power because of international sanctions? Did Nixon have a sudden hippy-love-in moment and release the tapes in the spirit of transparency? Change occurs when it's forced, not when it's wished for. People alter their actions when those actions cause them harm (or at least have the potential to cause them harm) more often than when they have a sudden change of heart.

More importantly, the core question is: is it moral to endure injustice until random forces coalesce to relieve it, rather than to take a stand against it no matter the cost. Put into action, do you turn over the slave to his life and wait for the law to free him? Do you hand over your gun and typewriter until the government willingly return them? Do you submit to unreasonable searches (or by refusing remove the possibility of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness)?

I say no. You obviously say yes, and that's your right. I will not be following you in this course however. I'd rather make agents and officials so mortally terrified for their safety that they refuse to implement the offensive policies.

"People should not be afraid of their government...governments should be afraid of the people."
 
Last edited:
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
So what is it? Do we pofile? Do we bend the rules for some based on a characteristic or do we hold the same true for all?

We ALREADY bend the rules based on a characteristic EVERY day...that was my point. To suggest that we don't makes you a liar or an idiot. Having said that, there is a line between rational statistical probability and stereotyping...it's a fine one, but it IS there.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
So what age are you too young to carry a concealed weapon? (or to have one placed on you?)

Take a VERY small firearm...say, a single shot derringer. Tape it to a 3yr old. Now, if you can't detect the printing with a simple tight shirt test then you need an optometrist more than you need a security official.