TSA screener accosts 3-year-old at airport checkpoint

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
So what... You guys are suggesting we do absolutely nothing?
I'm suggesting we apply common sense to the situation rather than brute force. Use metal detectors and x-ray equipment like we did 10 years ago, but use them correctly like TSA hopefully does now. If someone can defeat that system, they can defeat the currently much more invasive system just as easily. The current system simply penalizes those who follow the rules. If the old guy with leg braces sets off the metal detector, apply common sense. If the three-year-old does it, make her put stuff in bins until she can pass through without setting it off. It's not rocket science. The problem is that people really believe that these measures effectively improve security. That position is one of ignorance. Ignorance is not a good reason to do anything.

edit: I'll also ask here: how many bombs or other offensive devices (knives, guns, et cetera) have been found using the new screening techniques? I know TSA has a pocket knife of mine, but only because they found it the 17th time I went through security after September 11 (it was in a pocket of my toiletry bag that I had forgotten about). How many hijackings/bombings/hostage situations has this alleviated? I will suggest that the answer to the latter is none, because anyone with a bit of planning can easily defeat the current system, as has been demonstrated time and again by even the idiot journalists who do that sort of thing. The whole mess is nothing but a sham intended to make the ignorant feel safer, thereby propping up the airline industry.
 
Last edited:

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
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 so mortally terrified for their safety that they refuse to implement the offensive policies.

1. We are talking about air travel because the searches only occur when you try to board a plane.
2. Neither the slaves nor people being oppressed by Hitler had a legal option that both allowed them to effectively avoid the situation and deprive their oppressor from the monetary support that keeps their system going. The bus boycott during the civil rights movement is a much closer comparison.
3. Resorting to physical violence should always be a tactic of last resort. There are times and places for it, but when you can easily vote your disapproval with your wallet there is no cause for it.
4. Don't wait for random things to coalesce. If you have a problem with it start seeing if you can join a group that speaks out about it.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
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.

I was not aware of ANY bending of the rules at the airport. Please show me where we bend the rules for people at the airport.

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.

So all 3 year olds must now wear tight shirts? A concealed weapon is not just a firearm. Knives tend to be much less bulky and therefore noticeable

You could also hide banned items in a diaper
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
I'm suggesting we apply common sense to the situation rather than brute force.

It depends on what the screener's rules are. If the rules are you search everyone who causes X result at the screening then you search everyone who causes X result at the screening. If you exercise common sense or follow gray/non-specific guidelines then you open yourself up to firing and the TSA up to lawsuits.

You leave the realm of protection and the sole responsibility of your actions rests on you and you alone.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
1. We are talking about air travel because the searches only occur when you try to board a plane.
2. Neither the slaves nor people being oppressed by Hitler had a legal option that both allowed them to effectively avoid the situation and deprive their oppressor from the monetary support that keeps their system going. The bus boycott during the civil rights movement is a much closer comparison.
3. Resorting to physical violence should always be a tactic of last resort. There are times and places for it, but when you can easily vote your disapproval with your wallet there is no cause for it.
4. Don't wait for random things to coalesce. If you have a problem with it start seeing if you can join a group that speaks out about it.

That would be the same bus boycott that did nothing directly? It didn't stop when business owners caved...it stopped when the government FORCED the unjust practice to stop. It only managed that after a year of abuses, and increasing hostility that left so many dead or destroyed. More than that, it really changed nothing long term. It was years after it was all 'decided' that people were still being lynched on buses for demanding the decision be followed.

People bring up the civil rights movement as such a victory for non-violent protest, but in all the history classes I've taken on it all I saw was decades of rape, murder, and abuse because people who knew what was right wouldn't take a stand against those who didn't.

Change happens at the barrel of a gun, not the petal of a flower.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
I was not aware of ANY bending of the rules at the airport. Please show me where we bend the rules for people at the airport.

To further expand this point - you say we already treat 16,18,21 etc different by law. Therefore we can only treat people different at those age groups. Someone under 16 is certainly capable of knowingly transporting a banned substance on board and using it to kill someone

IF we create a different law for those under a certain age can be treated differently at an airport I will go along with that. UNTIL then there is no law to protect the TSA from treating a 3 year old differently than an adult. It is my opinion - I and think you might agree - if the TSA relaxed screenings for a 3 year old without lawful backing and someone was stabbed with a knife hidden on said 3 year old that the TSA would be subject to numerious lawsuits, congressional hearings, firings etc. Furthermore - given that a 3 year old is more than capable of transporting a knife on board a plane I see no reason why they should be exempt from searches
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
I was not aware of ANY bending of the rules at the airport. Please show me where we bend the rules for people at the airport.



So all 3 year olds must now wear tight shirts? A concealed weapon is not just a firearm. Knives tend to be much less bulky and therefore noticeable

You could also hide banned items in a diaper

Wasn't saying at the airport, was saying in general. Rights and practices in this country are already segregated by age.

If a parent takes a shirt, and stretches it, it becomes tight for purpose of printing. I already covered knives...I can cut you just as easily with a drivers license as a knife. Until you get to blades so large they can't be concealed, there's no difference.

You can also hide banned items up your ass, so what? I already showed how they allow a near infinite number of things that are just as dangerous, or more so, than the things they ban. Again, either implement ACTUAL security or don't pretend to implement it while destroying individual liberty.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
It depends on what the screener's rules are. If the rules are you search everyone who causes X result at the screening then you search everyone who causes X result at the screening. If you exercise common sense or follow gray/non-specific guidelines then you open yourself up to firing and the TSA up to lawsuits.

You leave the realm of protection and the sole responsibility of your actions rests on you and you alone.
That's fine. If a TSA employee does something stupid, they should be fired or sued just like any private sector employee would have been under the same scenario before government made all security screeners government employees. The whole "one-size-fits-all" approach which our federal government uses for everything is idiotic at best.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
That would be the same bus boycott that did nothing directly? It didn't stop when business owners caved...it stopped when the government FORCED the unjust practice to stop. It only managed that after a year of abuses, and increasing hostility that left so many dead or destroyed. More than that, it really changed nothing long term. It was years after it was all 'decided' that people were still being lynched on buses for demanding the decision be followed.

People bring up the civil rights movement as such a victory for non-violent protest, but in all the history classes I've taken on it all I saw was decades of rape, murder, and abuse because people who knew what was right wouldn't take a stand against those who didn't.

Change happens at the barrel of a gun, not the petal of a flower.

You seem to have a warped view of history. The civil rights movement proved that peaceful movements could succeed where decades of violence could not. The most effective and respected figures during the civil rights movement were advocates of non-violence. Violence breeds fear which makes people feel the need for more security. Non-violent protest doesn't make people fearful and that allows for a chance to sway opinions.

Your suggestion of violence to protest things such as this will do far more to harm your cause than it will to help.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
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.

dude, you'd just get your ass kicked. You are probably one of the biggest crybabies here...
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
Wasn't saying at the airport, was saying in general. Rights and practices in this country are already segregated by age.

The only realistic way I can see the TSA implementing an age based system is with the backing of a law stating that 3 year olds can be treated differently at an airport. Otherwise it would fall outside the existing age segregation which is a no win situation for the TSA

That's fine. If a TSA employee does something stupid, they should be fired or sued just like any private sector employee would have been under the same scenario before government made all security screeners government employees. The whole "one-size-fits-all" approach which our federal government uses for everything is idiotic at best.

The only way to ensure that a TSA agent doesn't 'do something stupid' is to write regulations in such a way that permits this. Currently they are written so everyone is treated the same.

While I agree that 'one size fits all' is not the best solution any other way of doing it opens the system up to crys of discrimination. Again we are asking the TSA to enter a no-win situation
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
if us American's policed ourselves all of this would be unneccesary. I am doing my part.
 

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
dude, you'd just get your ass kicked. You are probably one of the biggest crybabies here...

And since you're all big and bad when it comes to 15 year olds and children, maybe you can apply to be a TSA agent.

Back on point......he'd get his ass pummeled. $20 on TSA
 

IcePickFreak

Platinum Member
Jul 12, 2007
2,428
9
81
Again, I'll ask why doesn't the TSA worry about stuff like oh.. airplanes in the air? The issue with the airplane (or missile, whatever) off the coast of LA took the Pentagon four days to officially state "That was definitely an airplane." Shouldn't the TSA be able to provide the info on the flight within an hour or two? Apparently not, but they leave no stone unturned when a three year old is boarding an airplane. I think the biggest thing gained from the suspected missile drama is that it was a test of Homeland Security and the TSA, and they failed horribly, regardless of what it actually was.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
The only way to ensure that a TSA agent doesn't 'do something stupid' is to write regulations in such a way that permits this. Currently they are written so everyone is treated the same.

While I agree that 'one size fits all' is not the best solution any other way of doing it opens the system up to crys of discrimination. Again we are asking the TSA to enter a no-win situation
Or, you could hire people who aren't idiots to do the job with common sense. It's not a hard job. If they fail to do their job, they can be sued just like any member of the private sector. What's the problem?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Touch my child like that and I'll drop you where you stand. I don't care if I spend my life in prison, you're at LEAST going to spend yours in a wheelchair. Consider that before you take a job with a fascist agency. When enough agents are dead or paralyzed they'll refuse to take part in bullshit like this and we'll get our country back.

You're probably on the no fly list so irrelevant. Well at least you wouldn't pimp your child like this reporter. +1


Seriously - I'd like to hear your idea for security when a few lbs of RDX can break apart a commercial airline and kill everyone in it. Guns to everyone? Wont do anything.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
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."

Reasonable is key word POW. Most people think it's reasonable to search the shit out of you boarding a plane or entering a court room or house of congress etc. Do I agree from a strict constructionist POV? Hell no. But founders threw reasonable which opens the door to all sorts of what you'd call abuse. Can't fight city hall and especially can't fight the Feds on this. People have been trying for years and fail. Don't like it don;t fly. I don't fly unless it's over 1000mi on GPs

I admire your misplaced passion though.
 
Last edited:

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
even the army knows better...

"...the US military forbids use on Afghan civilians of the very practices the TSA is now making routine for civilian travelers at US airports."

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ren-no-for-the-us-army-yes-for-the-tsa/66535/

Body-Searching Children: No for the US Army, Yes for the TSA
NOV 13 2010, 8:34 AM ET
Please read the note below. A US Army staff sergeant, now serving in Afghanistan, writes about the new enhanced pat-down procedure from the TSA. Summary of his very powerful message: to avoid giving gross offense to the Afghan public, and to prevent the appearance of an uncontrolled security state, the US military forbids use on Afghan civilians of the very practices the TSA is now making routine for civilian travelers at US airports. Here is what he says:
>>In reading your post and the most recent one from Mr. Goldberg about the War on Terror and pedophilia, I am disturbed. What bothers me is that I am on the verge of re-deploying from Afghanistan after a 10-month combat tour that involved having to deal with, among other things, conducting searches of local nationals when involved with security tasks within my Infantry company. At no time were we permitted or even encouraged to search children or women. In fact, this would have been considered an extreme violation of acceptable cultural practice and given the way word travels here, been a propaganda victory for the Taliban.

Yet somehow the TSA is engaged in this at home while my unit and I spent our tour unable to safeguard ourselves equally in an environment where the Taliban have often disguised themselves in burkas and used children as both spies and fighters. While I have no conflict with the necessity to safeguard civilians against terrorism or with the risks we all voluntarily assumed as Soldiers, it seems as if the bureaucracy has become so obsessed with safety that we have forgotten that war entails risks beyond those of physical combat. If we are truly at war, then we need to decide what civil liberties we truly view as negotiable and which are inviolate- otherwise the greater risk than underwear bombers at home will be losing the values that make us unique as a nation.

These people terrify us as much as we allow them to. Apparently FDR's idea about "the only thing to fear" is lost on TSA and the current administration.<<
Everything about security involves a balance. "Perfect" security would mean complete controls on freedom, elimination of privacy, etc. Someone who is now exposed to real, daily danger in Afghanistan because of decisions about the proper balance argues that we need to be braver society-wide. Yes, soldiers accept different risks from those that are tolerable for society at large. But this is profound and powerful testimony.
 

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
this explains why there was such a push for these scanners

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...02/group_slams_chertoff_on_scanner_promotion/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff

WASHINGTON - Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.

Discuss
COMMENTS (24)
What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

An airport passengers’ rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff’s use of his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

“Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive,’’ said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

Chertoff’s advocacy for the technology dates to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government’s first batch of the scanners - five from California-based Rapiscan Systems. Rapiscan is one of only two companies that make full-body scanners in accordance with current contract specifications required by the federal government.

Currently 40 body scanners are in use among 19 US airports. The number is expected to skyrocket, at least in part because of the Christmas Day incident. The Transportation Security Administration has said it will order 300 more machines.

In the summer, TSA purchased 150 more machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. Rapiscan was the only company that qualified for the contract because it had developed technology that performs the screening using a less-graphic body imaging system, which is also less controversial. (Since then, another company, L-3 Communications, has qualified for future contracts, but no new contracts have been awarded.)
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Seriously - I'd like to hear your idea for security when a few lbs of RDX can break apart a commercial airline and kill everyone in it. Guns to everyone? Wont do anything.
Do you think current security measures would stop that?
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
it's interesting that a pat down on a child is being viewed as sexual assault in today's world. that's just fucked up.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
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.

This doesn't surprise me at all because...well, you're a loon.