TSA and Piercings
Your questions and comments on the incident in Lubbock, Texas have not gone unnoticed. Yesterday, as soon as TSA became aware of the situation, people in our Security Operations office looked into it. They interviewed the four Security Officers who at one point or another, screened or spoke to the passenger - two men and two women (if a passenger requests private screening, they must get an officer of the same sex to screen them there). TSA has also been in touch with the passenger’s lawyer on several occasions.
The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong. But, after looking at the procedure the officers followed, it was determined that the procedures should be modified. An official statement has been posted on our website here.
Lynn
TSA EoS Blog Team
posted by Lynn at
5:37 PM
Subscribe in a reader
345 Comments:
When will the officers involved be fired for mistreating and humiliating this poor woman?
How many TSOs have EVER been fired for mistreating citizens?
March 28, 2008 5:42 PM
Any while you geniuses are at it, how about explaining how ANY object small enough to be contained in a NIPPLE PIERCING could possibly be a danger to a plane -- not that you'll do this, because you're all a pack of liars and cowards.
March 28, 2008 5:49 PM
Hopefully, Lynn, It won't continue to take a CNN news report to get you to address issues. At least you are responding, however. That, IMHO is a positive sign.
March 28, 2008 5:53 PM
How many times has a retailer fired some one for mistreating or humiliating some one? Understand that they were following the procedures.
March 28, 2008 5:55 PM
The procedures are idiotic. Piercings can't hurt anybody, and anyone who's not an idiot knows that.
March 28, 2008 5:58 PM
anonymous @ 5:55 PM
How many times has a retailer fired someone for mistreating or humiliating someone? Having worked in retail in the past, including in a management capacity, I can tell you it happens every day. That's because retailers are accountable to their customers. The TSA is accountable to nobody, and it shows in their behavior.
March 28, 2008 6:00 PM
It's good that at least there's an acknowledgement that the rule, as-is, should be change. The obvious question comes to mind, of course, does this apply only to women? There's men and women walking around with piercings in their genitalia and other tissues where impromptu removal might be painful and/or humiliating. Will the revision cover these folks too?
March 28, 2008 6:03 PM
"How many times has a retailer fired some one for mistreating or humiliating some one? Understand that they were following the procedures."
Sexual harassment is certainly grounds for termination at a large number of companies. I guess we will find out when all the negotiations are concluded. Certainly it won't play out in this blog.
March 28, 2008 6:08 PM
If it has been me...
First, I have approximately 10 piercings, including nipple and navel. I have never had the walk-through magnetometer complain about them. I have had a couple of wands pick them up, maybe 30%*. At those times, the TSO/screener took a look and properly determined that they are not a threat. The confirmed fact that a TSO could even consider such a small piece of metal to be a threat suggests that the TSOs present and their supervisor really don't understand how to evaluate threat levels. If the jewelry would have been allowed in a carry-on bag, it certainly should be allowed to be on a person.
*this makes me mistrust the calibration of wands in general.
Second, for a TSO to even suggest that the passenger remove a body piercing says that the do not understand the methods and requirements to do so. In many cases, the wearer can't remove the jewelry themselves, due to the lack of proper tools and conditions or the need for another party to perform the task (most head piercings are in this category). What the TSO effectively did was to require the passenger to open a wound in their body under completely non-sterile conditions. That in itself should be cause for severe discipline.
Third...
In the future TSA will inform passengers that they have the option to resolve the alarm through a visual inspection of the article in lieu of removing the item in question.
Why wasn't this done directly and why wasn't this seemingly obvious policy already in place (to visually inspect)?
Given that many TSOs may not have been exposed to "alternative lifestyles" and that the traveling population, perforce, is mobile, suggests that the TSA needs to be much better in educating TSOs in professionally dealing with unfamiliar conditions, such as a pierced nipple.
March 28, 2008 6:24 PM
This is what happens when you give people authority they aren't worth of.
March 28, 2008 6:28 PM
That is just disgusting. I could understand having a female TSO verify that they were just piercings but making her remove them??? Why??? I hope she sues and wins. It's time for TSA to stop trampling on our civil rights. I actually spoke with a TSA employee today about this issue and they said if you want to fly, take the piercing out. What's next, take off the underwire bra or you can't get on the plane? Where does it stop?
March 28, 2008 6:37 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it is completely ridiculous that the TSA is going to do visual inspections of peoples nipples? What about genital piercings? What if the metal were under the skin?
I gotta tell ya, there is no way in hell I'm gonna show you guys my nipples. It just isn't going to happen. At least, not unless you buy me a drink first ...
March 28, 2008 6:41 PM
Screeners on this blog often express their tremendous commitment to keeping people safe from terrorists. What I haven't seen is the same commitment to respecting people's dignity, property, and time.
You say you want to keep me from dying but then you yell at me, humiliate me, and leave my bags unlocked.
How can you possibly care about my life if you don't care about me?
March 28, 2008 6:42 PM
In this case, I blame the screeners.
Screeners need to be people capable and empowered to make common sense decisions and be held responsible for them. Anybody can blindly follow rules.
March 28, 2008 6:45 PM
When will the officers involved be fired for mistreating and humiliating this poor woman?
Good question. What action is being taken against these screeners?
March 28, 2008 6:46 PM
Have you considered the possibility that there are just too many rules and too many passengers to execute effectively at checkpoints?
It's basically a McDonald's burger assembly line at this point.
It's time to rethink the process.
March 28, 2008 6:49 PM
Please do not take the traveling public and professionals as idiots and give us a bogus nondescript excuse. There are forks and knives on aircraft that serve meals if only on international flights and in First Class cabins. And these screeners were worried about nipple piercings? Oh! Did I mention sissors are allowed on planes? What is it that the TSOs do not understand about the rules and procedures they must operate under? How many screeners can reply to items found in the TSA Regulations Part 1500? When I travel, I carry a copy.
While we are at it. Please answer the question as the why TSOs are rarely terminated, if at all, if they are found to be mistreating citizens? These screeners involved in the incident should be terminated. If I acted similarly in my capacity, I would be told to pack my belongings and be terminated on the spot.
By the way, the TSA's "Official Statement" is a copout, because they had to change their stance concerning the matter. Moreover, it suggests the procedures need to be changed? Obsolutely! How much more clearer can it be to realize that many TSA regulations and rules are disrespectful.
Maybe one of these days things will change and there will be a new TSA director who actually knows something and how to treat people with respect and dignity.
March 28, 2008 7:03 PM
What if she had blasting caps in her bra? What if she was part of a covert test at the airport and they just took her word they were piercings? They would have failed another one of those tests you guys like to bash them for failing.
Would you rather have the option of removing your stuff in private or would you like to have to bare your body to strangers?
I guess I am the smart one. I take my peircings off beofre I fly.
March 28, 2008 7:04 PM
Well I would love to believe every women or man who claims to have body piercings in a sensitive area, however as a traveler and someone who has worked with people her whole life I can tell you that I could fill a few books with the bizarre things I have seen removed from bra's. How about liquid make up (witnessed by my husband at a checkpoint - she held up the lane for 20 minutes), money, knives, cigarettes (hidden from her husband), drugs, food, an orchid (oh yes) just to name a few. I say cudo's to Lubbock for doing an outstanding job. Let's face it, women are mules and their undergarments a fortress for any item they feel they have a need to conceal. As far as humiliation, she wasn't too humiliated when she got the piercings, why should she be humiliated to remove them "in private". I firmly believe she would have been just as humiliated to show them to the officers.
As for items small enough to do harm, well guns and knives aren't the big threat anymore, just watch the news. CNN does report on other weapons, or query the internet, it will tell you everything you never needed to know. As for me I prefer to fly safe in the knowledge that someone chose to ask that one extra question, took that additional step in the process (however wrong you may feel it is), and didn't take for granted that she was telling the truth. Also, I believe this same issue has been addressed in the past and TSA was told not to touch or look in those areas. How then do you resolve this? Just take everyone at their word?
Good job Lubbock
March 28, 2008 7:06 PM
The piercing incident unfortunately exemplifies two persistent problems that are at the core of what's fundamentally wrong with the TSA.
The first problem is inconsistency and arbitrariness. To their credit, the TSA's management apparently already had a published policy in place allowing for pat-downs or private inspection of "sensitive" piercings. And the woman apparently had repeatedly passed through security checkpoints with the piercings and never "alarmed" or encountered any difficulty. But the TSOs in Lubbock apparently took it upon themselves to "interpret" the published policy in their own arbitrary fashion, to insist on removal of the piercings when the TSA imposes no such requirement.
The second problem is contempt and insensitivity to the public they're supposed to be serving-- a complaint frequently levied on the TSA. In this case, I would probably add layers of ignorance and prejudice. Texas being "the buckle of the Bible Belt," the Lubbock TSOs perhaps asserted their personal beliefs that someone with a nipple piercing is "perverted" or "sinful" and therefore deserves to be publicly humiliated. I don't know if that was actually the case, but whatever the actual reason the TSOs were certainly unprofessional in their behavior and abusive of their authority.
It is significant that the carefully-crafted TSA statement defends the officers and even commends them as "acting to protect the passengers and crews of the flights departing Lubbock that day." It was indeed entirely justified and proper in the name of Security. Yes, you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie! The procedures just need a little tweaking, and all will be well.
I think we can be certain that the Officers will not be disciplined in any way for their unprofessional arrogance, and definitely not for their arbitrary "interpretation" of TSA policy. The tone of the release almost suggests that the whole thing is really the passenger's fault for wearing those nasty piercings in the first place. And it's certainly her fault for all that unwarranted whining and complaining about it that unfairly puts the TSA in a bad light. It's always the passenger's fault.
March 28, 2008 7:12 PM
One of the most bone-headed acts of all time! TSA must be very proud of those alert screeners. They obviously neede 121 hours training instead of just 120.
March 28, 2008 7:13 PM
"The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong."
If nothing was done wrong, why are they reviewing and revising procedures? Don't these screeners have any common sense? But lets face it, this incident took place to humiliate the individual. For that matter and that condition alone, these screeners should be terminated immediately.
Then again, when screeners are hired with dreadlock hair and an unprofessional appearance....
I will leave it at that.
March 28, 2008 7:14 PM
At this point, I think the fact that no one has blown up a plane in America lately is due to sheer dumb luck. The idiocy displayed by your organization is staggering.
In the private sector, a company that operated like you guys would be eliminated by natural selection in no time.
The bad PR, test failures, employee mistakes, cost overruns, ridiculously complicated procedures, and lack of evidence of success would sink you so fast.
Thank goodness for a bureaucracy willing to overlook it all. Bless you lads for saving me from the nipple rings!
March 28, 2008 7:15 PM
"The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong."
Here's *our* bottom line (us, the American people): We don't buy these cop-outs anymore. They were just following the procedure? Come on, pull the other one.
I really had high hopes that this blog would be something other than spin control. So far, no such luck.
March 28, 2008 7:18 PM
What a shame. Your organization responded with corporate speak. What 'procedures' were properly followed. Seriously. Spell them out. What IS the procedure for body jewelry? My guess is that there is NOT one. My guess is that the rule is that the item which causes the alarm must be removed. THAT is likely the 'procedure' that was followed.
TSA has removed any and all humanity from your screners. Do you REALLY think, as an organization, you 'did the right thing' here? If you don't then SAY SO. Don't give us the typical lawyer driven inanity. You'd generate ALOT more respect if you'd call a spade a spade, when its a spade right in front of you. And I refer to the garden tool here in case you feel the need to reject the post.
You REPRESENT THE US GOVERNMENT. That is ME, along wit 299,999,999 other people who find this type of action despicable.
March 28, 2008 7:21 PM
The male officers sniggering outside the curtain amply reflects the seriousness with which they take protecting the travelling public from harm.
Shameful behaviour, and the "They were following the rules" excuse given on this site is an excuse not considered worthy since the Nuremberg Trials.
March 28, 2008 7:22 PM
"Have you considered the possibility that there are just too many rules and too many passengers to execute effectively at checkpoints?
It's basically a McDonald's burger assembly line at this point."
Don't tell my Field Spaniel that. He starts barking as soon as we get to the drive through order point. But I digress.
I make jewelry for a living. Until there are confirmed reports of exploding piercing jewelry that could damage an aircraft, I really have to agree that this was totally off base. Humiliating, totally uncalled for, and with the male TSO's present and laughing, justifiably sexual harassment. These are metal objects that in no way have a volume of 100 ml, the only threat they pose is to the TSA's image.
March 28, 2008 7:24 PM
I can see it now -- someone has a titanium knee and TSA saws off their leg before allowing them to fly.
Bunch of rent-a-cops is all you are.
March 28, 2008 7:25 PM
Are you telling us that none of your four highly trained, dedicated screeners had either the common sense or the discretion to simply LOOK at the source of the alarm on the woman's chest, even after she offered, to determine it wasn't a weapon? What kind of idiot show are running? Trust you? Oh,yeah!
March 28, 2008 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...
Any while you geniuses are at it, how about explaining how ANY object small enough to be contained in a NIPPLE PIERCING could possibly be a danger to a plane -- not that you'll do this, because you're all a pack of liars and cowards.
Here you go Swiss Mini Revolver comes in at a hefty 2.2 inches. Photo
Now do I really have to explain how a live fire revolver could be harmful?
Anonymous said...
When will the officers involved be fired for mistreating and humiliating this poor woman?
Poor woman my Aunt Fanny. How was this woman mistreated? The woman TOLD the TSO the alarm was caused by a nipple ring. So what.
Should the TSOs just believe that is the truth? Of course they can't, so they told her to remove the jewelry so they could wand her again.
I am sorry that the woman left her jewelry in for so long that it adhered to her skin. That is not the TSO's problem.
The only other alternatives are to be felt up, and we see all the people bitching about that on this blog, or to have the woman flash her boobs like she is at Mardi Gras instead of the airport. Do the TSOs need to keep a box of beads handy now?
Anonymous said...
The procedures are idiotic. Piercings can't hurt anybody, and anyone who's not an idiot knows that.
Now you expect the TSOs to have x-ray vision? Until she removed the piercing the TSOs could not be certain what it was.
It just blows me away that people are bitching that the TSA did not fondle or make a woman flash her boobs.
March 28, 2008 7:29 PM
Anonymous said...
When will the officers involved be fired for mistreating and humiliating this poor woman?
Good question. What action is being taken against these screeners?
None because the screeners did their job in the manner they were trained.
I have seen no evidence the screeners acted unprofessional.
March 28, 2008 7:31 PM
Another home run, eh guys? You are a tragic combination of tyranny and incompetence.
The funny thing is, people are predisposed to respect those who keep us safe (firemen, soldiers, etc...) I wonder why it is that no one respects the TSA?
March 28, 2008 7:33 PM
I find it unconscionable that not one of these four screeners had the capacity to stop for one second and think to themselves, "hey, this is obviously a woman with piercings...is this REALLY what I am supposed to be on the alert for?"
Should any employee of the TSA demand to see or touch my wife's breasts, I'll be turning around on the spot, and going straight to my lawyer's office to begin lawsuit proceedings.
And further, what possible good was removing the rings themselves? What if it was a surgical implant? Are you going to ask me to remove the screws from my collar bone?
It's time this farce was ended. We need accountable, intelligent, thinking human beings manning these checkpoints, or we should just scrap the whole process and start over. Security Theatre has one-upped itself, if it wasn't so disgusting, it would be amusing.
March 28, 2008 7:38 PM
Please consider adding some wording to your policy regarding use of common sense and individual judgment. The problem the TSA has at this level is that every rule is treated as if written in stone. Incidents like this regularly occur which defy the written letter of the regulations, so that the intent of each rule is no longer even considered.
In a court of law, intent is always considered paramount. Why cannot TSA employees treat it with the same level of respect?
March 28, 2008 7:48 PM
Having experienced a frighting and humilitating episode with Denver TSA agent , I'm not surprised by the actions in Lubbock.
After finishing a work assignment early, I switched my flight to a different airline so that I had a one way ticket and no checked baggage which singled me out for special screening. My husband and boss went through security ahead me. My husband was treated rudely by the female agent at the station but was brusquely allowed to proceed.
I was subjected to the male agent handling my dirty laundry and making vaguely lewd comments. I was too frightened to object since he held my immediate travel future solely in his power and my husband was on the other side of the metal detectors and out of sight.
A little power can be a scary thing in ignorant hands. I sincerely hope Ms. Hamlin is given her apology and somebody is punished in a way that sinks in for humiliating someone who is in fact, their customer.
March 28, 2008 7:49 PM
You know, I'm no fan of the ACLU, but I do hope this woman uses them, to sue the crap out you guys.
This, indeed proves my point, that Federalizing Airport Security, was the WORST thing that happened after 9/11. I can take the Patriot Act (as long as it has a sunset on it) and all the rest of the crap these morons (both sides of the isle) did, but this takes the cake.
I am soooo happy to be a tax payer, when I read stories like this. Great Job.God I looooooooooooove Beaurocrats.
March 28, 2008 7:50 PM
And Kelly B. "accountable, intelligent, thinking human beings" doesn't jive with Government Bureaucrats.
As President Reagan said..."The ten most terrifying words in the English language are, 'Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Think TSA next time you think of these great words.
March 28, 2008 7:56 PM
The problem with the TSA being a government agency is that there is inherently a CYA that will encompass all of your activities. God knows a TSA employee wouldn't want to be the one who let someone through who ultimately became the next 9/11 hijacker. These are real issues, and we all understand that you're dealing with this pressure.
However, there really has to be some leeway to deal with the typical outliers that occur everyday. There has to be some lesson in reasonableness given to TSA screeners. Why, for example, couldn't a supervisor get called over, who could have made a judgement call? We need to give TSA screeners and supervisors the leeway to make judgement calls on the field.
Truly, stopping someone for a nipple piercing is just terrible and sad.
Think of how ludicrous this whole thing is. It makes a mockery out of what is really important, stopping bad guys, i.e. people with guns, knives, bombs.
I urge you to reconsider your training regimen -- give field employees some ability to make reasonable judgement calls. There is absolutely no reason, none at all, that this woman should have been put through what she went through.
March 28, 2008 8:06 PM
When will the officers involved be fired for mistreating and humiliating this poor woman?
Good question. What action is being taken against these screeners?
None because the screeners did their job in the manner they were trained.
I have seen no evidence the screeners acted unprofessional.
Ah, the good old "I was only following orders" defense.
March 28, 2008 8:14 PM
How was the officer supposed to know exactly what the metal detector was alarming on? Was she supposed to take the word of the passenger? Like someone wouldn't lie about what they may be hiding. Its not about whether a nipple piercing could be dangerous, there was an alarm in an area that there shouldn't have been and the officer did her job to ensure, by TSA's procedure, that it wasn't something hidden that could cause harm to the other passengers on the flight.
March 28, 2008 8:22 PM
It all sounds OUTRAGEOUS! Stop and think about security for a minute.
The security peeps have to verify what in fact caused the alarm.
People use decoys all the time....oh officer it's just my nipple rings...she then shows that she is wearing nipple rings, and the officer lets her through.
So what happens when, in addition to the nipple rings, she also has other things stuffed in her bra?
People don't get upset when they have to remove a watch and then go through the metal detector a second time.
This is the same kind of scenario. Remove the suspected item and check for an alarm a second time. If no alarm then it was in fact the nipple rings that caused the alarm.
I'm not saying that they handled this situation professionally. I'm just saying that there is sound reasoning behind making a person remove a suspect item and then re-screening.
Plain and simple they can't just take her word for it that it was only her nipple rings that caused the alarm. They have to ensure that it was not something else that she could be concealing.
March 28, 2008 8:24 PM
If you cannot even teach your officers common sense, how are they supposed to protect us from the adaptive, evolving terrorist threat that your website says it is the TSA's mission to guard against?
March 28, 2008 8:26 PM
OBVIOUSLY the screeners did, in fact do something horribly, stupidly, wrong. But it says something about the core problems at TSA. TSA administrators seem to think that the rules are what will keep us safe, not the people on the ground. Granted, its easier to pass a bunch of mindless rules in response to the threat du jour, but what will actually keep us safe is a force of intelligent, vigilant screeners looking out for our safety, not a bunch of mindless automatons playing a game of "gotcha" with passengers over perfume, toothpaste and nipple rings.
The screeners in this instance obviously had a number of options for determining whether the woman was carrying a handgrenade or a small piercing in her bra. Excercising even a little common sense would have resolved the matter in under a minute. I am concerned that such a dismal display of competence means we are not safe in these poeple's hands.
And the fact that TSA defends incompetence as "the right thing to do" gives us little hope for any real change.
March 28, 2008 8:28 PM
And the face-saving P.R. from the TSA continues.
March 28, 2008 8:29 PM
Trollkiller, When you find a 2.2" mini pistol in a bra or pushed through a nipple, then confiscate it and charge the wearer, but when you are told that what is causing an alarm is a piercing, you should just have a person of the appropriate sex LOOK at it to verify the truth. Wand her without the bra, perhaps,to also verify the source of the alarm. The fact that neither of these non-painful and non-threatening procedures occurred to your bullying screeners is the reason we are so disgusted and angry about this incident. Why don't you get it?
March 28, 2008 8:32 PM
Anonymous said...
"The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong."
If nothing was done wrong, why are they reviewing and revising procedures? Don't these screeners have any common sense? But lets face it, this incident took place to humiliate the individual. For that matter and that condition alone, these screeners should be terminated immediately.
Then again, when screeners are hired with dreadlock hair and an unprofessional appearance....
I will leave it at that.
Just because nothing was done wrong does not mean there is not room for improvement. Damn we bitch if the TSA doesn't take a concern seriously and then we bitch when they do.
The screeners may have common sense. The common sense to know that asking a passenger or allowing a passenger to show them her nipples would get them FIRED. Following procedure as it is laid out by the higher ups won't.
People pull your head out of your collective asses before you suffocate. The screeners followed the procedure for resolving an alarm with an UNKOWN cause. I am sure that no one at the TSA thinks you can hijack a plane with nipple rings.
Damn it, you guys are making me defend the beast.
If you or Gloria Allnoise want to "defend the civil rights" of Americans subject to the TSA, then start harping about old people that are made to stand while their wheel chairs are screened. Start harping about children being frisked out of the view of their parents. Start harping about the preferential treatment some religious sects are given at the screening.
But damn it stop harping because someone did not want to see this broad's boobs.
March 28, 2008 8:37 PM
Will the nipple ring be included in the weekly list of dangerous items TSA has "saved" us from?
March 28, 2008 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...
Ah, the good old "I was only following orders" defense.
The only time a "I was only following orders" defense is a problem is when you are doing something that is morally wrong or illegal. These screeners did neither.
If they had smacked this woman around or yanked her jewelry out by force, you would have a point. As it is you have no point.
March 28, 2008 8:41 PM
Trollkiller, The defense also applies when you've done something really stupid, as in this instance.
March 28, 2008 8:53 PM
The security officers did nothing wrong?! Making a woman remove a nipple ring with a pair of pliers while male officers snicker in the background is OK with the TSA?! How horrific!! I hope Mandi Hamlin sues the TSA and wins big! She has been humiliated, mistreated, and sexually harassed by an out- of-control government agency, and I hope a court will put the TSA in its proper place. The lack of sensitivity, intelligence, and good judgment shown by TSA staff is a crime; if an employee in any other industry treated people like the TSA folks do, they would be fired instantly.
March 28, 2008 8:57 PM
The TSA needs to seriously evaluate the situation that's been created at these security checkpoints.
It is well known that even good people put in a position of significant power over others will, without sufficient accountability, abuse that power. (See The Standford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib. Now obviously, this situation is not the same, but the parallels are worth considering.)
1. Screeners are given significant power over passengers.
a. The ability to invade someones personal space and even touch them without that persons consent, even in places only a spouse would normal touch
b. The ability to confiscate a persons property without explanation and without recourse
c. The ability to detain and question someone for any amount of time for any reason
d. The ability to order someone to do something without explanation
That's a lot of power. Think about it. Only police officers have as much power. Now, I'm not saying that the screeners are stupid or evil. Even the best of people can't handle unfettered power.
2. Insufficient accountability for bad behavior
the security officers followed the procedures...and did nothing wrong
As much as I loath litigation in general, I think that it may be inevitable in this case. The supervision vacuum created by the TSA's reluctance to discipline screeners will be filled by something.
Surely one concern of the TSA is that the screeners not be afraid to do their jobs for fear of retaliation. It's a delicate balance, but if screeners know they will be sued if they mistreat passengers they are more likely to behave themselves. However, it would probably be more effective to have internal accountability.
- What does the TSA consider to be mistreatment of a passenger?
- Is yelling at a passenger considered mistreatment?
- Is threatening a passenger with detainment or delay (in order to cause that passenger to miss their flight) considered mistreatment?
- How much patting down is too much?
- If a passenger is combative or belligerent is it acceptable for a screener to become combative?
- Is causing a wheelchair bound person to stand in order for their chair to be screened considered mistreatment?
- What recourse to passengers have who feel they have been mistreated?
- Are screeners evaluated on their treatment of passengers?
- Most importantly, what are the consequences for screeners who mistreat passengers?
March 28, 2008 8:59 PM
Just another example of petty bureaucrats abusing their power over others.
If the "security" person was an employee of the airline, they would be directly responsible to that airline for their abuse of a passenger.
Or, the airline could differentiate itself in its stringency of security measures, maybe to sell premium tickets to those who abhor physical mutilation.
As it is, only the most awful and publicly known of the abuses have even the slightest chance of getting the perpetrator a repremand. The daily arrogance of the petty officials, humiliation of thousands of defenseless passengers disarmed both figuratively and literally by law, this becomes the normal operating procedure.
Only the most astounding of abuses has any chance of standing out to be noticed above the noise.
Abolish the TSA right now, before anyone else gets hurt.
March 28, 2008 9:01 PM
From the TSA Website:
-"Hidden items such as body piercings may result in your being directed to additional screening for a pat-down inspection. If selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to the pat-down search. "
-"You may be additionally screened because of hidden items such as body piercings, which alarmed the metal detector. If you are selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to a pat-down search."
Prior to this incident, the TSA had a policy that was clearly not followed. There is no mention of any exceptions to the pat-down, such as pat-downs not being done on breasts or genitals. If it said that, the TSA would have a leg to stand on here. As it, it is ridiculous. It really makes me wonder if a man had his nipples or privates pierced if he would have been subjected to this. Or would he just be hurried through? As a traveler, if I had body piercings and read the website, I would be prepared for a pat-down and as a good traveler would comply. This woman specifically asked for a pat-down and they said no. And then they didn’t make her remove her belly button piercing. The contradictions in the “logic” the agents applied is appalling.
The TSA website says that the policy for screening disabled persons were created after “we established a coalition of over 70 disability-related groups and organizations to help us understand the concerns of persons with disabilities.” That’s great, but why don’t they have coalitions of people helping identify real-life situations that screeners will encounter and the appropriate responses those? Clearly there not a diversity of people at the TSA involved in crafting these policies. Other high-profile examples include the gel bra/breast prosthesis issue…how could such an obvious issue not been addressed in the initial regulations? And where does it say that the three once bottles in your quart-sized bag have to have commercial labels on them, rather than unlabeled travel bottles? This "policy" is arbitrarily enforced from airport to airport as well. Notice a pattern here? These issues have more impact on women. How obvious is it to intentionally include people tasked specifically with looking out for issues related to the female gender? I’m sure there are people looking out for disability issues, religious issues, etc.
Anyone creating a product or service has to think like this…what will real people, real customers, do that with our product? How will it react, will it cause injury, are my people trained to react with tact, etc.
March 28, 2008 9:04 PM
When the TSA modified its procedures to require the removal of piercings, many TSOs pointed out that this type of scenario was a likely result. We were thanked for our input, but the policy remained.
Those of you demanding the jobs of those involved should understand that the officers involved were following procedure.
Many of us TSOs work in an environment in which our jobs are threatened on an hourly basis for not following procedures. For me losing my job would mean losing my health insurance. I think this policy is dumb. However I won't risk losing my job over it.
SLC Screener
March 28, 2008 9:06 PM
trollkiller said...
The only time a "I was only following orders" defense is a problem is when you are doing something that is morally wrong or illegal. These screeners did neither.
from the yahoo article on this -
Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent.
from the front page article on this very blog -
if a passenger requests private screening, they must get an officer of the same sex to screen them there
So how can you sit there and say the TSO didn't do anything wrong?
March 28, 2008 9:15 PM
"I was only following orders" is a positive defense.
...when the orders come from the government presently in power, who also run the courts.
IRS, TSA, BATFE. Really, people, how can anarchy be any worse? Time to reaffirm both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
Re-elect Martin Van Buren! (really, look it up!)
March 28, 2008 9:20 PM
Bottom line: Better safe than sorry. Maybe the screeners at Lubbock haven't been exposed to very much in the way of genital piercings, so cut them some slack.
Last week it was MacBook Airs that were giving screeners problems, and we got cool video from Bob on the topic. Let's hope Bob does another video on TSA's new nipple ring policy.
Personally, I find this latest news to be titillating; those of you who are upset need to keep your shirt on.
March 28, 2008 9:36 PM
But damn it stop harping because someone did not want to see this broad's boobs.
I am sure that this "broad" would have found it preferable to have someone stare at her "boobs" than to have to yank her jewelry out with a pair of pliers.
But she's just a "broad" with "boobs," so she probably counts for just a little bit less.
March 28, 2008 9:44 PM
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller, The defense also applies when you've done something really stupid, as in this instance.
Not when you have no control over the stupid.
Think about how many stupid things you have done in your life because that was the policy or rule in place. And you knew that breaking that stupid rule would get you fired.
Case in point. Texas has a law that requires you to ID anyone between 18 and 27 if they wish to purchase cigarettes. If you do not ID that person EVERY time they buy smokes, you have broken the law and will be fined for it. Pretty stupid right? The person is old enough to buy and if I carded them yesterday or even 10 minutes earlier should I have to card them again? Of course not, they did not get any younger. But if I don't card them it is my butt in the sling.
If you want to scream about the TSA's rule that did not allow the screeners to think on their feet, feel free. But to crash some poor slob that is doing their job by the rules they have to abide by to keep their job is just not right or fair.
March 28, 2008 9:48 PM
Piercings are a "threat"? How ridiculous are we going to get? This is nothing more than police-state tactics in control and harassment.
March 28, 2008 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller, When you find a 2.2" mini pistol in a bra or pushed through a nipple, then confiscate it and charge the wearer, but when you are told that what is causing an alarm is a piercing, you should just have a person of the appropriate sex LOOK at it to verify the truth. Wand her without the bra, perhaps,to also verify the source of the alarm. The fact that neither of these non-painful and non-threatening procedures occurred to your bullying screeners is the reason we are so disgusted and angry about this incident. Why don't you get it?
First I do not work for the TSA or any Govt. agency, if you take the time to check more than this one thread you will see I crash the TSA and TSOs as hard as anyone. WHEN they screw up.
They did not screw up in this case.
I read the accounts written by different news agencies. In NONE of the accounts have I seen ANY bullying. The woman was told she had to remove the jewelry to be wanded again. They led her to a PRIVATE area to remove the jewelry. They gave her pliers to aid in the removal of the jewelry. She was ALONE while she was removing the jewelry.
She claims she heard a male TSO snicker while she was removing the jewelry. Of course she was in a private area and did not see who snickered or WHY they snickered. It may have had nothing to do with her at all or it may have been
“hey Joe what do you have here?”
“This lady has nipple rings and she thought we should take a look”
“ha ha and get fired… no way”
I have a question for you. What is the appropriate sex? Most would assume it would be the same sex as the person being screened so no one can claim there was a sexual thrill involved. What about the homosexuals? What if the TSO picked to check out this lady’s boobs was a lesbian? What if the TSO picked to check out a Prince Albert is gay? Does that still make them the “appropriate” sex? Are we now to ask applicants of the TSA what their sexual orientation is? What about the bisexuals, do they get to screen both sexes or none?
The facts are this. The TSOs acted within their rules. Looking at this woman’s boobs would have gotten them FIRED.
The TSOs did NOTHING wrong.
March 28, 2008 10:04 PM
OK, so the TSA has yet again reacted to a failure (and a PR fiasco) by changing its "procedures." But what happens when some TSO either hasn't been properly trained on the "procedures," or chooses to "interpret" them by denying the "visual inspection" option insisting on removing the piercings? If the passenger dares to complain about not following the "procedure," the TSO will shout (in as intimidating a voice as possible) "If you want to fly you'll take those things out NOW!"
That's a major problem with the TSA. No matter what "procedures" the officials in Washington might have in place, for passengers the TSA's rules and "procedures" are no more and no less what the TSO who happens to be processing them decides they are at that moment. If the TSO (or the local airport manager) decides that all piercings must be removed, that's the rule. If the TSO (or the local airport manager) decides that all electronics must be removed from carry-ons and neatly arrayed to give thieves the best view, that's the rule. If you don't obey immediately, the TSO will threaten you with not allowing you to fly. The officials in Washington can tweak the procedures all they want. Ultimately, the rules in effect for passengers are purely at the "interpretation" (i.e., the whim) of the individual TSOs.
And if someone complains to the media loudly enough to embarrass the TSA, the PR flaks and the lawyers will draft a weasel-worded press release insisting that the TSOs did nothing wrong, and perhaps even commending them for acting so diligently to protect passengers from unspeakable evil. Unfortunately, such a response only reinforces the impression that the TSA is an utterly inept bureaucracy that holds the public in utter contempt.
As far as the TSA officials are concerned, the only real offense that occurred in Lubbock was that some perverted woman with pierced nipples whined and moaned about "mistreatment" to the liberal media, which yet again took the opportunity to make the dedicated, highly competent, and much misunderstood TSA look bad. That's how I read the official responses.
You're doing a heck of a job, Kippie!
March 28, 2008 10:05 PM
I hope Mandi Hamlin sues the TSA and wins big! She has been humiliated, mistreated, and sexually harassed by an out- of-control government agency, and I hope a court will put the TSA in its proper place.
Not to worry. At the first hearing for the suit, the government attorney will utter the magic words: "This suit cannot proceed because it would reveal state secrets that cause grave damage to national security." As the final syllable emerges, the loyal patriotic judge will reflexively slam down the gavel and correctly respond "Case dismissed." We should all no by now that there is no recourse for anyone aggrieved by any agency that is involved in the Global War On Terror. So Mandi Hamlin would be best advised to forget about what happened in Lubbock and get on with her life.
March 28, 2008 10:13 PM
I'm going to say it.
All involved need fired, publically.
As someone who has been victimized in the past by corrupt Govnt Employees..and I do know because I was an HONEST Govnt employee.
All of your actions and power trips disgust and insult us.
My case of victimization cost them millions, I feel this one will cost you about the same.
Have a happy and corrupt day.
March 28, 2008 10:19 PM
Anonymous said "What's next, take off the underwire bra or you can't get on the plane?"
That basically happened to me at the Tampa airport in 2006. A TSA screener suspected that my underwire bra had set off the metal detector, and had me stand with my arms out -- in full view of everyone waiting to get through security -- ran her metal detector wand over my chest and then used her hands to feel under my breasts to determine whether or not I was wearing an underwire bra while some teenage boys stared and snickered. I've never been so humiliated in my life. The TSA agent then loudly suggested that the next time I fly, I shouldn't wear a bra.
March 28, 2008 10:27 PM
I have five fairly heavy 12-gauge piercings and fly several times a year. My piercing jewelry has never set off a metal detector. I wonder why?
If I was told to remove my piercings in a situation like that, I'm honestly not certain I could without help, and I certainly wouldn't trust a TSA agent to help me.
March 28, 2008 10:30 PM
It should be really simple: if the wand goes off, a TSO of the same gender as the passenger should take a look behind a screen. It ought to be easy to see if that's a micro-sized gun or knife. Once the TSO sees that it's only piercing jewelry, send the passenger on their way. It would be nice if the TSOs were civil to the passenger when they're told that it's jewelry and they find out it is.
Or... if the TSA really wants, I'll strip down right out in the open. But I'd better get a most humble apology from every TSO present when they see that the only metal is my piercing jewelry, which at least today is not on the prohibited list.
(I realize that not all passengers are nice to the TSOs, that's no excuse for the TSOs hassle back. There's something in there about good customer service and "turn the other cheek".)
March 28, 2008 10:36 PM
Anonymous said...
This woman specifically asked for a pat-down and they said no.
All the reports I have read said she specifically asked for them to LOOK at her breasts, not pat them down.
March 28, 2008 10:37 PM
Anonymous said...
from the front page article on this very blog -
if a passenger requests private screening, they must get an officer of the same sex to screen them there
So how can you sit there and say the TSO didn't do anything wrong?
Because a private screening does not or did not include LOOKING at bare breasts. It is one thing to frisk with the back of the hand it is another to look at someone's "privates".
From tha AP article.
"The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin's chest, the Dallas-area resident said.
Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.
Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said."
So she was dealing with a FEMALE agent. The male agent (most likely a superior or more experienced officer) told her that the TSO could not LOOK at her breasts.
March 28, 2008 10:49 PM
Anonymous said...
Not to worry. At the first hearing for the suit, the government attorney will utter the magic words: "This suit cannot proceed because it would reveal state secrets that cause grave damage to national security." As the final syllable emerges, the loyal patriotic judge will reflexively slam down the gavel and correctly respond "Case dismissed." We should all no by now that there is no recourse for anyone aggrieved by any agency that is involved in the Global War On Terror. So Mandi Hamlin would be best advised to forget about what happened in Lubbock and get on with her life.
I hope you are wrong. While I don't think the TSOs did anything wrong in this case, if it were tossed because of the reasons you speculated above, I would be highly upset.
This is what I think will happen. Gloria Allnoise will raise a stink but it won't go to trial because Gloria knows she has no case. The excuse will be that a trial would just cause further damage to that poor woman and it is not worth it.
Anybody want to take bets?
March 28, 2008 11:03 PM
Nohwhere Man said...
It should be really simple: if the wand goes off, a TSO of the same gender as the passenger should take a look behind a screen. It ought to be easy to see if that's a micro-sized gun or knife. Once the TSO sees that it's only piercing jewelry, send the passenger on their way. It would be nice if the TSOs were civil to the passenger when they're told that it's jewelry and they find out it is.
You are right it should be that simple, and hopefully the TSA's rule change will make it that simple. But what do we do with the shy people? Would they still be required to remove the jewelry?
March 28, 2008 11:06 PM
re: Anonymous said...
How was the officer supposed to know exactly what the metal detector was alarming on? Was she supposed to take the word of the passenger?
So the TSA believes that every person to pass the checkpoint is not truthful?
March 28, 2008 11:17 PM
Trollkiller,
If you can show me a standard body piercing that is as large as a 2.2 inch swiss mini-revolver, I'll personally give you $500.
And I'm not even going to demand that you give me $500 when you can't. This is a no-risk bet.
The question was if anything as small as a piercing could be dangerous, not if something many times bigger than a piercing, such as a 2.2 inch swiss mini-revolver, could be dangerous.
March 28, 2008 11:35 PM
"Please do not take the traveling public and professionals as idiots and give us a bogus nondescript excuse. There are forks and knives on aircraft that serve meals if only on international flights and in First Class cabins. And these screeners were worried about nipple piercings? Oh! Did I mention sissors are allowed on planes? What is it that the TSOs do not understand about the rules and procedures they must operate under? How many screeners can reply to items found in the TSA Regulations Part 1500? When I travel, I carry a copy.
While we are at it. Please answer the question as the why TSOs are rarely terminated, if at all, if they are found to be mistreating citizens? These screeners involved in the incident should be terminated. If I acted similarly in my capacity, I would be told to pack my belongings and be terminated on the spot.
By the way, the TSA's "Official Statement" is a copout, because they had to change their stance concerning the matter. Moreover, it suggests the procedures need to be changed? Obsolutely! How much more clearer can it be to realize that many TSA regulations and rules are disrespectful.
Maybe one of these days things will change and there will be a new TSA director who actually knows something and how to treat people with respect and dignity."
Maybe you should learn how to spell before you insult TSO's. The above author did not spell "scissors" or "absolutely" correctly. Perhaps the passengers are more ignorant than the TSO's.
March 28, 2008 11:36 PM
This is really an amazing incident, almost as amazing as the liquids question that the blog authors refuse to answer my questions about. Yes, Chance and Christopher, that includes you. Do you always forget about the older entries once something new is on the front page? I predict a very new entry on an innocuous topic within a couple of hours.
Back to topic. The official statement was as believable as the 3-1-1 explanation - not at all. How do you expect us to believe you when you do not even believe you? Do you really have that much contempt for us that you would feed us such stories, stories that contain so easily refutable lies that they make the critics speechless at your audacity? The official statement tells us that procedures were properly followed, but procedure allows visual inspection as an alternative to piercing removal.
The official statement directly contradicts official policy. There's no way around that.
It would be insulting if you thought your official statement was meant to be believed. If you actually thought that statement was serious you would be showing contempt for our intelligence. Instead you are simply showing contempt for us.
That is beyond insult. It shows you do not care enough about us to even insult us.
I know you will pretend not to see this when you finally respond to comments in this blog entry, as you often do to me. As long as you pretend that I don't ask hard questions you don't have to answer them. Again, that's you going beyond insult to contempt.
March 28, 2008 11:43 PM
The TSA is using the Nuremburg Defense now?
"They were just following orders." That is no defense. FIRE your people.
March 28, 2008 11:43 PM
So, are people with plates in their heads or pins in their hips, or braces on their teeth required to remove those with pliers?
Screeners snickering while she was forced to remove them... behaving like 12-year-olds because there were "boobies" involved.
It's the continued idiotic behavior like this that give the TSA the same ratings as parking lot rent-a-cops.
March 28, 2008 11:45 PM
Where is the TSA finding their personnel. If this had been a private enterprise, they all would have been fired. Not for mistreating this person, but rather for not using common sense. I find it very hard to believe the TSA can not find employees that can handled these minor issues.
Please be aware that I am a very large supporter of Homeland Security, and everything they do to keep this land safe. But it seems that only the TSA employees keep getting into these problems.
Perhaps the TSA should screen the future employees better
NOTE TO OTHER READS:
I have to admit that I've had some wonderful experiences at airports. Not all employees at the TSA are behaving like what has happened in in Texas. It is only a small percentage of them. But it is enough to give the entire agency a very bad name.
March 28, 2008 11:48 PM
I have a question for you. What is the appropriate sex? Most would assume it would be the same sex as the person being screened so no one can claim there was a sexual thrill involved. What about the homosexuals? What if the TSO picked to check out this lady’s boobs was a lesbian? What if the TSO picked to check out a Prince Albert is gay? Does that still make them the “appropriate” sex? Are we now to ask applicants of the TSA what their sexual orientation is? What about the bisexuals, do they get to screen both sexes or none?
This is a legitimate concern, but the underlying issue extends well beyond the context of body piercings and airport security. Having one locker room for men and another for women at a health club is just one example that comes to mind.
Ultimately, this type of thing is "heterosexist"; i.e., premised upon the (accurate) idea that most people are straight. (I say this as someone who is a strong supporter of GLBT equality, same-sex marriage, etc.) It's not perfect, but is there a better way to do it?
I suppose the TSA could offer passengers the choice of a male or female screener for their private inspection. But that could lead to its own problems. For example, what if a female screener were to complain that having to inspect a male's genital piercing creates a hostile work environment and grounds for a sexual harassment lawsuit? I can easily see that happening -- in fact, I've known at least one female body piercer who will not do genital piercings on male clients.
March 29, 2008 12:06 AM
The TSA procedure already allowed for a pat down or visual inspection. Didn't require removal. And I wouldn't have put it past those snickering "men" to have strategically placed mirrors for their view pleasure.
This is yet another example why I don't trust the TSA. I don't believe anything thing they say. And I fear them more than I've feared anything in my life.
Because I plan to travel (internationally) soon with my dad. My dad is diabetic, has high blood pressure, and numerous other ailments. He requires insulin, about 20+ other meds a day and a CPAC.
And I fear they will kill him.
I'm planning to have his doctor waiting by the phone when we go though security. If they deny him any of his supplies, I want them talking to the doctor first. If any prescribed supplies are denied the police should be called on them for elder abuse.
Sad to fear "protectors" more than the "terrorist".
I'm just praying we can manage to get flights with reasonable connections so he can fly out of his local small airport. If they are like the one near me, they have the time and patience to treat people slightly better than cattle lead to slaughter.
March 29, 2008 12:11 AM
Is the TSA website wrong about pat downs? Or is it just another case of TSA agents not knowing TSA policy?
In either case, the TSA rules as applied are not simple and easy to understand or follow.
March 29, 2008 12:12 AM
TSA's March 28, 2008, "Statement on Alleged Improper Screening at Lubbock, Texas" reads:
"TSA has reviewed the circumstances related to the screening of a passenger with body piercings that occurred recently in Lubbock, Texas. It appears that the Transportation Security Officers involved properly followed procedures in that incident. They rightly insisted that the alarm that was raised be resolved. TSA supports the thoroughness of the Officers involved as they were acting to protect the passengers and crews of the flights departing Lubbock that day.
"TSA has reviewed the procedures themselves and agrees that they need to be changed. In the future TSA will inform passengers that they have the option to resolve the alarm through a visual inspection of the article in lieu of removing the item in question. TSA acknowledges that our procedures caused difficulty for the passenger involved and regrets the situation in which she found herself. We appreciate her raising awareness on this issue and we are changing the procedures to ensure that this does not happen again."
Without additional context, this statement is not particularly meaningful.
1. What procedures did the TSA officers properly follow? Please provide a link to someplace that we can read them.
2. In the second sentence of second paragraph, what is meant by "the article" and by "the item in question"?
And though this is not specifically related to the statement, I'm left wondering how the situation would differ if the metal which was detected had been inside the traveler, such as would be the case with various artificial joints, surgical pins, etc. Please comment on this.
March 29, 2008 12:19 AM
This isn't security.
When I arrive at an airport, I'm more scared of the TSA tasing me than I am of a real, honest-to-god terrorist blowing me up.
In fact, there are more incidents of TSA agents causing "terror" than that of actual terrorists!
What's that say about the state of this country?
March 29, 2008 12:20 AM
Let's face it, women are mules and their undergarments a fortress for any item they feel they have a need to conceal.
This isn't just a issue involving females. For example, a male college friend of mine had a hobby of sneaking recording devices into concerts for the purpose of making bootleg recordings. And he was a pro at this -- he used an expensive DAT (digital audio tape) recorder and special "stealth" stereo microphones that were designed for this very purpose. How did he do it?
He'd wear a double layer of brief-style underwear and hide the recording gear in between the two pairs. Additionally, he'd wear a belt with a large buckle. So if a handheld wand went off when waved over the hidden equipment, he'd casually say, "Oh, my belt buckle always does that."
This worked every single time. The only time he got busted was after he got the gear past the metal detectors and carelessly took the DAT recorder out to make some adjustments once the show started. (He was seated next to an aisle, and a security guard saw the glowing backlight from the recorder's LCD screen.)
I've been pretty critical of the TSA ever since its inception, but I think this hiding-stuff-in-the-bra-or-underwear thing is a very legitimate concern. I'm not sure I agree that this Texas incident was handled properly, but on a go-forward basis, I think the revised policy allowing visual inspections of piercings is quite fair and reasonable.
March 29, 2008 12:22 AM
It may never go before a 'jury', but in the public opion court the TSA has gravely violated the civil rights of this woman! I personally hope she receives compensation for her humiliation. Not everyone who has body piercings are freaks. Many of us are the 'girl next door' and I would be just as embarassed and humiliated; no American - living in the land of the free and the home of the brave - should have to endure this treatment!
March 29, 2008 12:51 AM
Anonymous said...
This woman specifically asked for a pat-down and they said no.
Trollkiller said...
All the reports I have read said she specifically asked for them to LOOK at her breasts, not pat them down.
Re-reading one of the articles, I do see that she said she would have accepted a pat-down if offered, not that she asked for one. My point is that she was clearly looking for a solution that didn't involve removal and they were not interested.
Lack of tact and training on how to handle this type of situation, which can by no means be rare, is the issue. What would they have done if she had said the piercings were to treat inverted nipples? That is a legitimate medical condition and piercing is not an uncommon way of treating it. Would they have had adequate training and sensitivity to handle the situation in that case? Somehow I doubt it.
March 29, 2008 12:59 AM
When in the world will TSA wake up and realize that their mission isn't to harass the traveling public and is supposed to be to ensure security. If security is as serious as TSA public relations continuously maintains, why do their personnel snicker and carry on so? I just don't buy that TSA is anything but a total waste of taxpayer and airline passenger money.
March 29, 2008 1:12 AM
Ayn R. Key said...
Trollkiller,
If you can show me a standard body piercing that is as large as a 2.2 inch swiss mini-revolver, I'll personally give you $500.
And I'm not even going to demand that you give me $500 when you can't. This is a no-risk bet.
The question was if anything as small as a piercing could be dangerous, not if something many times bigger than a piercing, such as a 2.2 inch swiss mini-revolver, could be dangerous.
I am assuming by a standard piercing you mean one you can easily find that is not a custom made or one made for a freak show.
If that is the case I will contact via your aol email with my address where you can send the check or money order.
2" barbell with 6mm balls. Total length would be approximately 2.23 inches. Don't forget about nipple shields similar to the one Janet Jackson had on when she had the wardrobe malfunction.
Both examples are standard piercings. Let me know when I can email you to collect. My son will be thanking you for his new video game system.
March 29, 2008 1:14 AM
TSA policies open the door for incredible amounts of passenger abuse and I am skeptical but a tiny bit hopeful that the TSA will make changes that protect passengers. But they need to look beyond piercings and limit the ways that their policies open the door for sexual harassment in general. Sometimes the sensors are tripped by small amounts of metal - on one trip through airport security the buttons of my button-fly jeans (I had absolutely no other metal on me) caused the metal detector and then the wand to sound. In response, I was forced to remove my jeans and have my crotch patted down (and not with the back of the hand) by a TSA agent who reprimanded me for wearing jeans to an airport and yelled at me and tried to keep me from boarding my plane because I indicated that I was uncomfortable having someone touching my genital area. Not as horrific as removing nipple rings, but being treated like a criminal for nothing other than a fashion choice and my reluctance to have my crotch handled by a stranger really shocked me. There seemed to be more logical and less humiliating ways of ruling out any danger in my situation (after removing the visible metal I was wearing why skip the wand and go straight for touching?), but the TSA agent on duty that day seemed happy and even smug about using this invasive option. Formerly a happy air passenger, I now become anxious about flying several days before I depart and I am only able to relax once I've made it through the TSA checkpoint. I am sure that hundreds of other people have faced similarly upsetting situations and I am glad that there is finally an egregious enough case for this problem to receive some attention. Even if the agent I encountered had no creepy motives for the hasty and thorough pat-down I received, her obvious schadenfreude and the undefined/undisclosed nature of TSA policies left me wondering how long the TSA can continue to operate this way before someone suggests that this agency is doing to little to keep its agents from abusing passengers.
March 29, 2008 1:52 AM
Anonymous (March 29, 2008 12:12 AM)
said...
Is the TSA website wrong about pat downs? Or is it just another case of TSA agents not knowing TSA policy?
I don't understand what you are referring to. The pat down procedure in the link you provided is correct.
Anonymous (March 28, 2008 5:58PM) said...
The procedures are idiotic. Piercings can't hurt anybody, and anyone who's not an idiot knows that.
I think people know that piercings can not hurt you. However, it sounds like the policies that were in place at the time did not allow the TSO to verify that they were indeed piercings. The piercings were in an area that a TSO cannot see (against policy) and can not touch (also against policy). Yes, a quick peak, or a back of the hand pat down of the front of the breast would have cleared the alarm. But that would have been a screener not following procedures. Then the news flash would be "Female TSO forced woman to bare her breasts at airport, despite that it is against the TSA's very own SOP". Going against the policy in that way is a sure fire way to get terminated. Screeners did their jobs according to the policy that was in place to follow. Fortunately this stupid procedure is going to be fixed!
Anonymous (March 28, 2008 11:45 PM)
said...
So, are people with plates in their heads or pins in their hips, or braces on their teeth required to remove those with pliers?
No. Because the items that you mentioned are in an area of the body that is not a sensitive area, and TSO's are allowed to use their hands to clear your hips, knees, braces (visual) or a plate in your head.
Obviously the screener was not trying to save the world from terroristic nipple rings, because the lady got the rings back. The screener was only trying to verify that they were in fact nipple rings, and not anything else.
March 29, 2008 2:01 AM
The TSA statement seems to ignore the more serious allegation. Why is it necessary for male TSOs to stand around and even have the opportunity to snicker? I'm sure their female colleagues could handle the situation. A supervisor should have dispersed them immmediately.
Well my past experience with TSO supervisors may explain it (perhaps they were the ones standing around). My story - security lines were approaching an hour at a Seattle checkpoint and six supervisors could be seen in a glass booth joking around oblivious to the lines outside. They could have pitched in. And of course a letter to TSA didn't even receive a response let alone action. Worst yet, I checked the website for wait times after the fact and for that day/time/gate they were claiming 10 minute wait. And to all those TSOs who do good jobs - the people in the trenches were all great dealing with an unnecessarily long line.
So I am really not surprised with the actions alleged in this case. I'm not a fan of body piercing but seems like this lady definitely needs an apology. Not just from TSA hierarchy but if the allegations are true, then those who snickered should go on national television and apologize to her.
March 29, 2008 2:11 AM
Anonymous (March 28, 2008 5:49) said...
Any while you geniuses are at it, how about explaining how ANY object small enough to be contained in a NIPPLE PIERCING could possibly be a danger to a plane -- not that you'll do this, because you're all a pack of liars and cowards.
The "issue" wasn't with the nipple ring itself, or what the nipple ring could/could not contain. The issue here was that the screener got an alarm on an area that she could not clear. The policies she was following prohibited her from touching or looking at it, and she needed to verify that all it was was a nipple ring. The issue is the policy that was in place for verifying piercings in sensitive areas.
March 29, 2008 2:13 AM
I agree with Dunstan. Why does it take a story in national media to get attention? And a suggestion to the TSO Bloggers - crisis management suggest you should immediately address the issue. This story has been circulating for a couple of days. Why does it take so long for the blog to address it? There isn't a place to post new topics - I certainly would have - demanding a response! If the allegations are true, it is outrageous behavior.
March 29, 2008 2:16 AM
Hey anonymous. Good luck with your diabetic dad. Apparently TSOs can ignore medical advice and do whatever they want. You've probably read about TSOs confiscating baby food from two pediatricians - hey I have a toddler and if there is a chance that I'll be sitting on a plane for 10 hours (even though scheduled for a few) with a crying kid, then I think passengers and crew would be really thankful and appreciative that I had the foresight to plan ahead. Apparently TSOs have never flown on a plane before or at least next to a crying baby. These pediatricians should have gotten a commendation rather than confiscation. They certainly would not have received any food from the airline.
PS I'm writing this because TSO probably won't respond to a comment - what point is a blog and comments if they don't respond?
March 29, 2008 2:24 AM
Dunstan ... you are right ... employees get fired for screen savers that someone doesn't like. These allegations in the workplace ... at best put on administrative leave - more likely fired on the spot. Why doesn't TSA have to abide by the workplace discrimination rules that the rest of us operate under?
Hey TSA Blogger crew - if you read this - why aren't you subject to same rules and regulations? Sure doesn't appear so according to TSA statement (not a peep about the alleged snickering of male officers).
March 29, 2008 2:30 AM
My father has a pacemaker. I'm really worried about TSOs asking him to remove it. The thought of him being given a pocket knife and pliers ... hey fellow commenters (unlikely TSA responds to comments) - what should I do?
March 29, 2008 2:34 AM
The sad thing about working for TSA is that every single man and woman gets put into a category of being inconsiderate and disrespectful. Clearly that woman did not have to remove her body jewelry, but she did have to undergo the additional screening. Airports at times can be inconsistent and its not done intentionally. Each TSO does determine if what they are dealing with is a threat, and in this case the TSO used poor judgement.
March 29, 2008 2:44 AM
I am irritated beyond belief, especially with those of you calling for the termination of the TSO's involved.
Like the press release states, the TSO's followed procedures exactly like they should. So why is it they should be fired, am I now to fear losing my job when I follow the SOP exactly as I should because the public deemed it inappropriate. Am I now to be stuck in a darned if I do darned if I don't situation. I can either follow SOP and risk losing my job because someone felt humiliated or lose my job because I didn't follow SOP.
No piercings are not a threat to security, but unfortunately the hand held metal detector doesn't tell me why its alarming it just beeps and its my job to figure out why. And no we can't take your word for it that it is a piercing.
So to answer whoever asked if its TSA's assumption that all passengers lie. It might not be official policy but as far as I am concerned thats pretty much the way it is. Otherwise I could just ask every passenger if they plan on hijacking the plane and if they say no let them be on their merry way and only detain those who say yes.
March 29, 2008 3:54 AM
TSA == Thousands Standing Around. Just ANOTHER reason I stopped flying after the "improved" security post 9/11 (BTW, NOTHING in the new and improved regulations would have prevented 9/11) which was a failure in POST hi-jack policy (don't resist, do what they tell you).
As for the comments about blasting caps, just once it would be nice for someone who knows about an object to make the comments.
March 29, 2008 4:51 AM
I’m surprised to see all the supporters for strip searches and cavity checks. Are you the same group who balked over the TSA trying to introduce back scatter x-ray to airports, because the blurred face of a non-descript naked body was too offensive to imagine? I’d love to have a job that’s a catch 22 (Not!), dammed if you do dammed if you don’t. I would prefer to be scanned than feel the cold touch of latex and Vaseline. And for all the lawsuit happy people out there, try suing for something worthwhile like new technology that can ensure our safety and speed up the process.
March 29, 2008 5:43 AM
I am a 57 year old woman with a belly button piercing. Four years ago I was flying out of ATL and was pulled aside to be scanned. The woman who was scanning me jammed the scanner between my legs hard and then when she got to my waist the scanner beeped due to the piercing. I told her I had the piercing and she made me lift me shirt, unzip my pants, and expose my piercing in public.
It was one of the most humiliating days of my life! My sympathies go out to the woman with the nipple piercings and TSA needs to treat people with with a little more respect.
March 29, 2008 7:37 AM
TSA won't respond to these comments because you people are all irrational and any explanation given, even if it is the sworn truth will never be good enough for you all.
The comment about the Pacemaker and the metal knee, please don't be sarcastic with such an issue.
You people act immature and don't listen to reason and then wonder why TSOs get frustrated dealing with 2 million people a day just as annoying and oblivious and unable to hear reason like some of the comments here. You all call us idiots, for doing our job and following rules.
When you go to work, have someone call you an idiot for following prescribed guidelines. You'd think a front line TSO writes the rules the way you all are begging for blood.
March 29, 2008 7:49 AM
To Anonymous who said...
"I am irritated beyond belief, especially with those of you calling for the termination of the TSO's involved."
Most (if not all) posters are NOT questioning the need to determine if the metallic object is a threat. The issue are a) ANY metallic object must be removed by force when said object penetrates a part of the body or if visual inspection is sufficient and b) whether TSOs should be allowed to wait around the inspection area and snicker at what is going on.
Why should TSOs be exempted from actions that in a public workplace would result in punishment per rules of other government agencies? Are TSOs above the law?
March 29, 2008 8:01 AM
"In the future TSA will inform passengers that they have the option to resolve the alarm through a visual inspection of the article in lieu of removing the item in question."
Mark my words, the above is just the first step in the slippery slope to allowing the TSA to officially strip search passengers.
(I feel extremely sorry for those screeners who KNOW that they are not saving the world and yet, for whatever reasons, believe they have to continue their employment with the TSA, such as the person who needed health insurance.)
What are so many of you afraid of in getting on a plane that you support the TSA so strongly? A determined suicide bomber is going to get on a plane TSA or not. However, think about it for a moment - there's much more value in blowing onesself up at the checkpoint line or in a mall or other public gathering place -than blowing a plane out of the sky.
Besides, you are at much more risk of losing your life in getting to the airport than you'll ever be from a terrorist.
Get a life, stop being afraid of the boogeyman.
March 29, 2008 8:08 AM
"Bunch of rent-a-cops is all you are."
That's an insult to security guards.
March 29, 2008 8:11 AM
Ok, let's take a look at who is involved in this... the TSA screeners do have a duty/obligation to ensure safe travel for the public... however does that include sexual harassesment? Please I would like anyone at the TSA show me where in there policies and proceedures that they condone/allow/permit this type of treatment... if this had been another law enforcement officer or any other person in the public trust, this person would have been suspended, disiplined and possibbly fired as a result of their actions... in any other job this would be considered sexual harassment and I am familiar with the federal policies on this and this has all the marks of a very clear case... now lets take a different look at this... I would like to know what the same screeners would have done if the individual in question was male and had his penis pierced... would they have required him to remove it? I doubt it... they would more then likely pass the wand over him then gently pat his groin with the back of their hand to ensure there was no weapon and send him on his way, because men just don't touch other men's package... and had this young lady had her genitals pierced... does any one besides me see that this was just cheep thrills and the screeners need to be disiplined... this is a clear cut instance of a person with power/authority over another who uses that power for his own cheep thrills... if the TSA wants to be viewed as professionals then maybe they need to start acting as professionals... ok I have had my say and now I feel better.
March 29, 2008 8:17 AM
Now do I really have to explain how a live fire revolver could be harmful?
Now, do I really have to explain that one of these in the hands of four pilots and/or CWP passengers stood a good chance of preventing 9/11 and this entire TSA boondoggle?
I'm not one of those that believe the government 'allowed' 9/11 to happen, but they sure took great advantage of the Reichstag fire.
March 29, 2008 8:22 AM
@TSA Bloggers... this topic is worthless without photos and pictures. Can we have Blogger Bob do a video on nipple piercings?
March 29, 2008 8:26 AM
And further, what possible good was removing the rings themselves? What if it was a surgical implant? Are you going to ask me to remove the screws from my collar bone?
Not beyond the realm of possibility. Customs made a UK man remove a drainage suture from his anus, it was done by an airport doctor unqualified to perform such procedures.
My sister has a cochlear implant. There is a reason why her family drives from PA to AL to visit the grandparents.
March 29, 2008 8:28 AM
To those TSOs who are complainig about not wanting to get hammered for following the rules: If the rules made sense, you wouldn't have this problem. If you don't like it, find another job.
If there were a mass exodus of TSOs over stupid rules that they can't enforce, then maybe the rules would be changed.
This isn't too likely, but it's a nice thought.
March 29, 2008 8:29 AM
A nipple ring is obviously more of a threat than a Gulfstream, at least in the eyes of TSA. If you have access to a private plane, air taxi, or charter service, your nipple rings are free to travel unhampered. Not, of course, because they are nipple rings, but because large political donors negotiated through their air associations for a different type of security. No ID check, bag search, no screening... Just a flight plan.
March 29, 2008 9:03 AM
The statement on the TSA website is an entirely inadequate response to this incident. The traveler who was subjected to this demeaning and abusive response is entitled to and should receive a personal apology from the Director of the TSA.
Given that the TSO's doing the screening appear to have been following the procedures in place at the time this incident took place I can accept that they will not be disciplined because of this incident. However, it appears that the training provided to TSO's is extremely inconsistent from one supported facility to another. That is not acceptable performance.
I'll be mentioning this incident and TSA inconsistent training to my Senator when I talk to him next week.
March 29, 2008 9:15 AM
"The "issue" wasn't with the nipple ring itself, or what the nipple ring could/could not contain. The issue here was that the screener got an alarm on an area that she could not clear. The policies she was following prohibited her from touching or looking at it, and she needed to verify that all it was was a nipple ring. The issue is the policy that was in place for verifying piercings in sensitive areas."
Once you visually inspect the nipple ring, why pray tell does it need to be removed? Tens of thousands of passengers go through screenings daily with similar sized and shaped earrings every day! In my mind there had to be some latent prurient issue for this travesty to occur. Just one more reason for some coherent ground rules that don't change from day to day or TSO to TSO.
March 29, 2008 9:16 AM
What if it isn't a piercing next time? What if it is an IED placed inside a woman's bra? TSA was doing the right thing!
March 29, 2008 9:26 AM
"In the future TSA will inform passengers that they have the option to resolve the alarm through a visual inspection of the article in lieu of removing the item in question."
When are you going to inform the TSOs of this? Has the SOP changed yet? Why are we telling the public before the screening workforce??
What's the new procedure? Is there an STSO notification involved? What if a TSO is uncomfortable having someone expose themselves to them?
March 29, 2008 9:29 AM
Please stop blaming the screeners. They followed the procedures exactly as they were suppose to. If you need someone to blame, blame the people that come up with the procedures. Do you really think the screeners like telling people they can't fly? Do you really think they now want to start looking at people's private parts? You say use common sense? I'm sure they would if it didn't mean losing their jobs because they DIDN'T follow the procedures put in place by someone WAY above them.
March 29, 2008 9:43 AM
>> I can see it now -- someone has a titanium knee and TSA saws off their leg before allowing them to fly.<<
Same thought occurred to me, as I have a surgical screw in my right shin. Do I need to have a surgeon on standby to remove that screw any time that I'm planning a flight?
What about a combat veteran with shrapnel in their body that wasn't feasible or safe to remove. How will the TSA handle that?
I can see it now. "Thank you for your service, but you're going to have to find a surgeon to remove that shrapnel before you can fly."
OOPS -- I forgot that ordinary civility is not in the TSA playbook. I also forgot that the TSA does not make use of any information regarding veteran status when screening people.
It would actually unfold more like this. "YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REMOVE THAT SHRAPNEL. DO YOU WANT TO FLY TODAY? I CAN CALL FOR AN LEO AND HAVE YOU ARRESTED FOR NOT COOPERATING."
As others have said -- no common sense. The TSA has said that its TSO's can use discretion to prohibit an item that they think represents a risk, even if it isn't on the prohibited items list. Yet, they can't use discretion to deal with the bloody obvious. Nope -- got to "follow procedures."
Blindly following procedure is the hallmark of a professional bureaucrat, not a security professional.
March 29, 2008 10:01 AM
re:..........Clearly that woman did not have to remove her body jewelry, but she did have to undergo the additional screening. Airports at times can be inconsistent and its not done intentionally.
I disagree, if TSA senior leadership insisted on standard procedures at every point of inspection those requirments would be carried out at each facility.
So TSA/DHS senior leadership is unable or unwilling to require standardization or they are satisfied with the status quo and do not see change as a needed item.
The woman was required by the TSO to remove the piercings, she offered a visual inspection to the screener and was refused.
The TSO who required the removal should be fired!
The TSO would sas snickering should be fired!
The FSO of that facility should be fired for not managing this facility and allowing this type of behavior to happen.
TSA's offical statement just doesn't cut it.
March 29, 2008 10:09 AM
The mistake that people make is to assume that you have civil rights. Remember September 11th? Everything changed then.
Live with it.
March 29, 2008 10:24 AM
Fine people like the ad-hominem spewing coward who will not even give himself a blogger/commenter handle should get a clue about what happens on the security side of things when all of someone's pocket contents and metal objects are in the tray, and they still give off a signal.
Whatever is under their garments could be anything from a nipple ring to a set of nun-chuks...You don't know til you find out, hopefully not "the hard way". That being said, there's a variety of "contraband" if you will that doesn't seem much of a threat. Restrictions on things like nail clippers and key-ring mini-multitools seem a bit excessive.
I'm just thankful that we don't have combat-dressed troops with Uzis every 100 feet, or similar going through luggage with bayonets, as happens in other corners of the world!
March 29, 2008 10:27 AM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"Like the press release states, the TSO's followed procedures exactly like they should."
We don't know that. Neither the "press release" (TSA's March 28, 2008, "Statement on Alleged Improper Screening at Lubbock, Texas") nor this blog post quotes or references any particular procedure.
TSA: please provide a link to the relevant procedures.
March 29, 2008 10:47 AM
Many of the bloggers here are misunderstanding what the TSA website is meaning when the term “sensitive area” pat down is mentioned. Sensitive areas do not include the nipple area on females and does not include the genitalia area of both males and females. For females the TSA officer can not touch the front of the breast area that is why they do the sweep in between the breasts and underneath the breasts. In the articles that I have seen it seems that the female TSA officer performed the sensitive area pat down of the passenger’s breast area correctly but if performed correctly this cannot clear the nipple area. The same would be said for genitalia pat downs, the TSA officer would not be allowed to touch that area and their current procedure does not allow for visual inspection of those areas even if the passenger insists that they take a look. Does the procedure need to be changed, darn right, but to place the blame on the TSA officers on the floor would be wrong, they did follow the established procedures correctly and they cannot modify these procedures even if they see the sense in doing so, the blame needs to be placed on the management at TSA HQ in DC, they make the rules but are so disconnected from the “real world” and many of them have not ever conducted actual security screening at an airport. There have been too many threats of lawsuits in the past from both male and female passengers that the TSA officers hand are tied. I think that it’s a shame that it takes a situation such as this for common sense to prevail. In addition, in response to small dangerous items any law enforcement officer will tell you that detonators and blasting caps come in sizes as small as 2 to 2.25inches in length, I have seen them and used them and have seen demonstrations of the damage that even 1 of those small items could do the metal skin of an aircraft.
March 29, 2008 10:57 AM
Nice. This woman was harrassed and physically abused by a little napoleon with "issues" (the male TSO who made the call that the unorthodox jewelry HAD to be completely removed and nothing less, and who forced her to do this painful thing to herself with the threat of detainment or legal punishment behind him) and "trollkiller" comes on to finish the job by calling her an exhibitionist slut because she didn't want to rip out her piercings, and applaud the failure of the employees to follow standards that required them to offer a pat down. And that was the entire point of what happened to this passenger...the over-empowered employees saw someone they could mistreat her with abandon and then have a good chuckle about how she deserved it for having nipple rings. It's a way for people to grab some of the shrinking opportunities for sexually harrassing women from positions of power. The only trouble is, sometimes they don't take their humiliation quietly, and then normal, healthy, sane people who don't have personal issues with women having nipple piercings make a lot of noise about how crazed little napoleons who don't follow procedures and who make women tear out their own piercings with pliers so the napoleons can get their jollies legally humiliating and torturing sobbing women should be FIRED IMMEDIATELY. Fortunately the TSA and people like Trollkiller will be there to support and protect their rights to humiliate, bully, and abuse, should the protests grow too loud.
March 29, 2008 10:59 AM
You guys should apologize to this woman. Clearly this was a mistake. Whether the mistake came from stupidity on the part of the screeners, policy, or both she was treated badly.
March 29, 2008 11:04 AM
"Anonymous said...
TSA won't respond to these comments because you people are all irrational and any explanation given, even if it is the sworn truth will never be good enough for you all.
The comment about the Pacemaker and the metal knee, please don't be sarcastic with such an issue.
You people act immature and don't listen to reason and then wonder why TSOs get frustrated dealing with 2 million people a day just as annoying and oblivious and unable to hear reason like some of the comments here. You all call us idiots, for doing our job and following rules.
When you go to work, have someone call you an idiot for following prescribed guidelines. You'd think a front line TSO writes the rules the way you all are begging for blood."
You need thicker skin. This blog is an open debate on issues that people find important, such as personal privacy issues vs. security concerns. It will be hotly contested, everyone has an opinion, and if ultimately changes occur that lessen the friction between passengers and TSO's, everyone benefits.
March 29, 2008 11:17 AM
Has the TSA ever followed any of there procedures.
Seriously folks its time for an honest discussion over security. Remember the Head of the TSA is appointed, which means it is someone with no background in security, just someone with deep pockets that contributed to the current administrations last re-election campaign.
Point blank this "policy" about removing a piercing is stupid.
March 29, 2008 11:23 AM
A question for the front line screeners out there;
I know that WTMD have calibration capabilities for sensitivity. I don't know the settings nor care to know but would think they are set low enough to alarm at a certain mass level.
Do your HHMD have any adjustments to set sensitivity and are they calibrated on any regular basis?
Surely someone at DHS/TSA has determined the minimum level of mass to be concerned about otherwise any metal present would cause an alarm.
I'm thinking a defective/poorly maintained HHMD may have been in play in this case.
Just wondering!
March 29, 2008 11:31 AM
You people are sick and twisted. I'm tired of the neo-gestapo attitude you are showing. A piercing is SELF EVIDENT not to be a threat.
How you can justify torture seems to be an indication of how we have surrendered our rights to an officious Government bureaucracy hiding behind threats.
America is in sad shape if these TSA perverts in Texas, swinging their power around, are what we can expect.
You aren't going to discipline them?
I am hoping the letter to my Congressman complaining about it will make you realize you are here to PROTECT the passenger, not degrade and torture them
March 29, 2008 11:43 AM
I have a question, was this woman not given the opertunity to turn around and go back home?? Or did security shackle her to the security devices?? Why is it that so many of us feel we can do anything we want and we are above the rules?? If your company set a rule and she did not agree with it she could have chosen alternate transportation as most of us would have. I am tired of people demanding their rights over everyone elses. I understand the security issue and agree with it.
March 29, 2008 12:04 PM
Meanwhile a "TSA tester slips mock bomb past airport security" (no doubt disquised as a nipple ring - gasp!)
Meanwhile Iraq war vets are denied access to passenger terminal due to TSA confusion (no doubt all were wearing nipple rings). In 2006 75% of all fake bombs made it through security without detection (no doubt a result of the absence of nipple rings. Meanwhile nearly all flights are made without an air marshal (no nipple ring significance- or is there?)
God help us all when Americans finally get angry enough to do something about the tyranny.
If that were a family member of mine I would probably be in jail right now, and without a single regret.
Those TSA employees should be fired and the implementations for piercing removal overhauled to say the least.
March 29, 2008 12:04 PM
"What if it isn't a piercing next time? What if it is an IED placed inside a woman's bra? TSA was doing the right thing!"
We went through this before, in 2004, and it was only due to the protests of thousands of women (which TSA denys) that the grope policy was changed.
Let's see what happens when they try to force people to expose their breasts or penises.
"The mistake that people make is to assume that you have civil rights. Remember September 11th? Everything changed then."
September 11 was nothing but an excuse for despots like Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld to grab more power.
Nothing has changed since September 11 except that so many of you are now frightened of your own shadows.
March 29, 2008 12:15 PM
Or... if the TSA really wants, I'll strip down right out in the open. But I'd better get a most humble apology from every TSO present when they see that the only metal is my piercing jewelry, which at least today is not on the prohibited list.
No apology, but the highly-trained Behavior Detection Officer will do his job and immediately call in the local police to arrest you for indecent exposure. Because of the incalculable harm you did to all the children in the queue, you'll be convicted of child molestation, serve 20 years in prison, and be a registered sex offender when you get out (if you survive).
And the TSA will issue a triumphant press release spotlighting the exemplary performance of the Behavior Detection Officer who protected children as he protected aircraft.
March 29, 2008 12:24 PM
"if this had been another law enforcement officer"
Screeners are NOT law enforcement officers although many of them are wannabes, which contributes to so many of the issues at checkpoints.
March 29, 2008 12:28 PM
How long are we going to allow this agency to exist?
March 29, 2008 12:35 PM
Someone anonymously wrote:
"was this woman not given the opertunity to turn around and go back home??"
That's the wrong attitude. Imagine that there were government agents in the streets demanding, "papers, please!" Would it seem reasonable for them to bar you from continuing on your way unless you showed your papers if you had the option of going home?
"Or did security shackle her to the security devices??"
Of course not. Presumably, they told her that she would not be able to travel about her own country as she pleases unless she followed their orders.
"Why is it that so many of us feel we can do anything we want and we are above the rules??"
Many misguided people do feel that way, but I've not noticed any presenting that idea on this blog.
"If your company set a rule and she did not agree with it she could have chosen alternate transportation as most of us would have."
What private businesses and individuals agree to is entirely different than what our government requires of us. We are free to decide whether or not to agree to such proposals. Not so for government rules and regulations. Please don't confuse the two situations.
March 29, 2008 12:44 PM
In your haste to point out that you followed some horned-cow-waste policy, you forgot that people and their dignity were involved. I am shocked, disappointed, and disgusted with the TSA's performance.
PS - How about getting someone who can read to look over ID's and boarding passes? I don't understand why it takes 30 seconds to look at someone's ID and boarding pass.
March 29, 2008 1:29 PM
So much utter nonsense here. The facts are that a group of people got aboard some airplanes with very small weapons (boxcutters) and killed 3,000 people on 9/11/01. This country had to change then. The country you knew on 9/10/2001 is gone. It was weak and could not protect itself. The new country is learning quickly to control the people so as to make everyone safer. If some people feel "humiliated" because they must comply, so be it. The people must comply with the government's rules for the greater good.
If anything, the TSA should be more vigilant. The only real way to promote security is to check all passengers the way it is done in prisons. Body cavity checks. This could be done efficiently as anyone that has undergone the process can attest. If, for some reason the traveler wishes not to submit, then he/she cannot fly. Transportation is a privilege.
"Rights" died on 9/11/2001. Get over it.
March 29, 2008 1:32 PM
A TSA employee writes, "For me losing my job would mean losing my health insurance. I think this policy is dumb. However I won't risk losing my job over it."
Translation: I was only following orders.
March 29, 2008 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...
Lack of tact and training on how to handle this type of situation, which can by no means be rare, is the issue. What would they have done if she had said the piercings were to treat inverted nipples? That is a legitimate medical condition and piercing is not an uncommon way of treating it. Would they have had adequate training and sensitivity to handle the situation in that case? Somehow I doubt it.
I am sorry I don't see a lack of tact anywhere in this case except possibly when she heard the TSO snicker. To be honest I don't believe she heard anyone snicker.
When I see or hear stories like this with only one side (I have not seen any interviews of the TSOs involved) I always "listen" in parent mode. Take the following from the CNN article.
" She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.
"Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her," said Hamlin's attorney, Gloria Allred "
Still crying??? When did she start crying? Why did she start crying? Or is "crying" an exaggeration because just having to remove the nipple rings would not be tragic enough to warrant this publicity?
"She said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring."
She was in a private area ALONE with the TSOs on the other side. You have the partition and airport noise to contend with but somehow she can hear a snicker and know it was directed at her. A snicker is usually a laugh at a whisper level.
She needs a snickering TSO to provide a bad guy. If you don't have someone getting evil jollies from the situation you have no bad guy. No bad guy, no publicity.
As for lack of training, I don't think that is the case here. I think a lack of foresight by the TSA management is the problem here.
If you have ever worked management in a job that required dealing with the general population, you know you can plan until you are blue in the face and still have situations pop up that are not covered.
The TSOs were following what they were trained to do with piercings. The took her to a PRIVATE area and gave her PRIVACY. They did not yell at her, they did not ogle her boobs, they even gave her a pair of pliers when requested. They did not even go overboard and make her remove all her piercings, just the ones they could not TACTFULLY see.
March 29, 2008 2:13 PM
To our Anonymous poster who asks this very valid question:
I have a question, was this woman not given the opertunity to turn around and go back home?? Or did security shackle her to the security devices??
In point of fact, the woman did not have the right, by court decision, to turn back and say, "I choose not to fly today," and tell the TSOs they were out of line. Once the screening process has started, you are effectively at the mercy of the TSA goon squad. If you resist, you can be tagged for non-cooperation. This, in theory, is so that if you know you are in possession of a prohibited item and you get selected for secondary you can't get out of it by saying, "uh no thanks" and going through the line again where you might not get selected at random the next time around.
While you are not legally under arrest or charged with anything during this period, you are effectively under arrest. To attempt to leave would be interpreted as an attempt to resist screening and would subject you to even further mistreatment and possibly actual arrest at the hands of the lawgivers.
This is the kind of police state tactic that the thousands of men who fought WWII did fighting against. This is why we fought and won a cold war. This is what we as a people must continue to oppose.
To address the people who read this who think that I'm anti security I point to the many posts I've put on this blog. I'm not. No sane person will say that there is no need for security. We clearly want to keep manifestly dangerous items off of planes (i.e. loaded guns, explosives, large knives or implements that could defeat the pilots' ability to land the plane safely before a would be hijacker could get through the hardened cockpit door before the passengers clobbered him or her). The TSA's checkpoint security, however, has gone beyond reasonability. It is constitutionally questionable. It is personally invasive. It is morally repugnant. It is annoying. However, we might be able to tolerate all of that -- to a point -- except that it is ineffective generally or at best, no more effective than the screeners were pre 9/11. In the name of protecting ourselves from terrorists the government keeps telling us are going to come over here and get us, we have surrendered to terrorists who use different terror tactics to keep the American population afraid and controlled.
The TSA needs to be completely scrapped. We need to start over with a new agency that makes sense; is accountable to the public; has common sense rules; hires educated people and pays them and empowers them as if they were educated people; and learn something from the other countries who seem to know a thing or two about how actually to run airport security without insulting the sensibilities and conscience of the traveling public.
March 29, 2008 2:44 PM
Anonymous said...
Now do I really have to explain how a live fire revolver could be harmful?
Now, do I really have to explain that one of these in the hands of four pilots and/or CWP passengers stood a good chance of preventing 9/11 and this entire TSA boondoggle?
I'm not one of those that believe the government 'allowed' 9/11 to happen, but they sure took great advantage of the Reichstag fire.
No argument there. I was simply pointing out that there are things that small that can be dangerous.
March 29, 2008 2:46 PM
Berlin Neon said...
@TSA Bloggers... this topic is worthless without photos and pictures. Can we have Blogger Bob do a video on nipple piercings?
I second that. ;-)
March 29, 2008 2:49 PM
It is possible (and maybe even likely) that the victim here exaggerated the details of her "mistreatment."
Whether or not that's the case, the real issue is that so many people (with the exception of those who believe that Mohammed Atta and his thugs destroyed all our civil liberties along with the World Trade Center on 9/11) are quick to accept the allegations of mistreatment as fact, and to use them as an opportunity to express their own outrage and frustration at the TSA. Many people have good reason to believe that the TSOs unnecessarily humiliated someone, regardless of the actual facts of the case. The mealy-mouthed bureaucratic official TSA response justifying and defending the TSOs seems to have done nothing to convince those people that their beliefs are unfounded.
Aside from whatever operational problems they have, the TSA has a severe public relations problem. The reality is that most TSOs are professional, respectful, and conscientious about doing the best job they can under the circumstances in which they operate. Unfortunately, the minority of TSOs who are arrogant, ignorant, stupid, or outright bullies is large enough to give all of them a bad name, and to lump the agency right alongside the IRS and FEMA as the most despised and distrusted.
Incidents like those in Lubbock are probably rare. But when they get national attention, a public that already distrusts and despises the TSA because of other nationally-publicized horror stories perpetrated by a minority of TSOs will only have more reason to distrust and despise the agency. I think that's an inherent problem with any bureaucracy that necessarily causes at least some inconvenience to very large numbers of people. It also doesn't help that this bureaucracy is the creation of an administration that believes itself unconstrained by Constitutional limitations on its power, is obsessed with secrecy, and seems to have no regard for privacy, civil liberties, or the rights of ordinary individuals. Some of the distrust and outrage may actually be against that administration, of which the TSOs are merely the low-level representatives.
I don't know what the TSA can do to improve its standing among the passengers it supposedly serves-- and whose cooperation and trust is essential to their official mission of protecting aircraft. But in the Lubbock incident, the official response defending the TSOs and even commending them for acting to protect aviation does nothing to help a public relations problem that most likely hampers whatever effectiveness the TSA has at doing its job.
March 29, 2008 3:09 PM
"So much utter nonsense here. The facts are that a group of people got aboard some airplanes with very small weapons (boxcutters) and killed 3,000 people on 9/11/01. This country had to change then. The country you knew on 9/10/2001 is gone. It was weak and could not protect itself. The new country is learning quickly to control the people so as to make everyone safer."
You are one scary dude....why don't you pack up and move to China or some other such place.
March 29, 2008 3:13 PM
[i]The TSOs were following what they were trained to do with piercings. The took her to a PRIVATE area and gave her PRIVACY. They did not yell at her, they did not ogle her boobs, they even gave her a pair of pliers when requested. They did not even go overboard and make her remove all her piercings, just the ones they could not TACTFULLY see.[/i]
No, no, NO!
She was taken to a private area, where the entire ordeal could have ended with a 2-second visual verification (EXACTLY what they did for her naval ring). Instead, the power-tripping agent FORCED her to remove the nipple ring. When they were told that she couldn't do so (PAINFULLY obvious that it is not a threat by now), they handed her an unsterile tool to dig a wound into her body with.
This is not "embarassing", it is a physical assault by the hands of someone in an obviously abusive position of power.
March 29, 2008 3:22 PM
Trollkiller said:
"She was in a private area ALONE with the TSOs on the other side....
"The took her to a PRIVATE area and gave her PRIVACY. They did not yell at her, they did not ogle her boobs..."
And you know all this how?
If she was such a threat to security, then why was she left ALONE to remove the piercings?
This whole episode is a disgrace to the TSA. Unfortunately, none of them will have to suffer.
March 29, 2008 3:24 PM
Trollkiller, you are right on the money here:
As for lack of training, I don't think that is the case here. I think a lack of foresight by the TSA management is the problem here.
If you have ever worked management in a job that required dealing with the general population, you know you can plan until you are blue in the face and still have situations pop up that are not covered.
TSA has proven over and over again that it is the most myopic of organizations. It has no clue what the word foresight is, whether it comes to new technologies coming down the pike that are going to show up at the checkpoints, or people who show up who exercise their freedom to be practitioners of alternative lifestyles (including ones that screeners in Lubbock, TX may find amusing or even offensive)
A great deal of the problem can be found in the extremely low bar that the TSA sets to be a TSA screener. A high school diploma or equivalent and no criminal background is not exactly difficult to achieve. I have made 4 flights in the past 3 weeks and not one of the screeners I dealt with could have been over the age of 24. I had no trouble getting through, but I never actually do anything or wear anything or carry anything that would cause me problems.
I feel for the poor woman who had to undergo this humiliation, and I disagree with you Trollkiller, that she did not suffer any undue harassment. I believe she probably did, and probably because she was a woman (although such claims are near impossible to prove). I believe that she has a legitimate case, but she'll find it difficult to get relief in the courts, but at minimum she's owed an apology by the TSA, and by the screeners in particular.
Keep posting. You keep a great debate going. I really appreciate it personally.
March 29, 2008 3:25 PM
"Rights" died on 9/11/2001. Get over it.
There has not been a single amendment to the U.S. Constitution since 9/11. Therefore, I will continue to exercise and demand my rights contained in that document.
March 29, 2008 3:40 PM
"So much utter nonsense here. The facts are that a group of people got aboard some airplanes with very small weapons (boxcutters) and killed 3,000 people on 9/11/01. This country had to change then. The country you knew on 9/10/2001 is gone. It was weak and could not protect itself. The new country is learning quickly to control the people so as to make everyone safer. If some people feel "humiliated" because they must comply, so be it. The people must comply with the government's rules for the greater good.
If anything, the TSA should be more vigilant. The only real way to promote security is to check all passengers the way it is done in prisons. Body cavity checks. This could be done efficiently as anyone that has undergone the process can attest. If, for some reason the traveler wishes not to submit, then he/she cannot fly. Transportation is a privilege.
"Rights" died on 9/11/2001. Get over it."
Rights didn't die after 9/11.
People like you got terrified, and lost your way. There are honest Americans all over the world making micro-loans, building schools and bridges, digging wells, you know, helping people who need our friendship. They are making a difference, you are doing nothing.
Thousands of other Americans died that same week, from preventable disease, accidents, violence, or natural causes. Put things in perspective, please. If you want to cower in some cockroach infested bunker, go right ahead, or move to North Vietnam, where things are really bleak. Some of us don't share your viewpoint. Some would suggest that you are a powerless troll.
March 29, 2008 3:43 PM
Anonymous said...
No, no, NO!
She was taken to a private area, where the entire ordeal could have ended with a 2-second visual verification (EXACTLY what they did for her naval ring). Instead, the power-tripping agent FORCED her to remove the nipple ring. When they were told that she couldn't do so (PAINFULLY obvious that it is not a threat by now), they handed her an unsterile tool to dig a wound into her body with.
This is not "embarassing", it is a physical assault by the hands of someone in an obviously abusive position of power.
You are right the whole thing could have been avoided with a visual inspection. The problem was that the visual inspection WAS NOT ALLOWED by the rules the TSA had in place at the time.
I honestly do not think this was an abuse of power by the TSOs. All the evidence I have seen so far shows the TSOs following the rules in place and doing so in a manner that would not lead to sexual harassment allegations. They did not watch her, they did not fondle her and they did not yell at her.
March 29, 2008 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller said:
"She was in a private area ALONE with the TSOs on the other side....
"The took her to a PRIVATE area and gave her PRIVACY. They did not yell at her, they did not ogle her boobs..."
And you know all this how?
If she was such a threat to security, then why was she left ALONE to remove the piercings?
This whole episode is a disgrace to the TSA. Unfortunately, none of them will have to suffer.
I know this by HER account of the events.
March 29, 2008 3:52 PM
winstonsmith said...
I disagree with you Trollkiller, that she did not suffer any undue harassment. I believe she probably did, and probably because she was a woman (although such claims are near impossible to prove).
I was wondering where you were. I was getting worried that you were spirited of to Guantanamo.
To me the meaning of "undue harassment" would be the intentional attempt to harass. I don't think the TSOs were attempting to intentionally harass her. I think they were trying to resolve the alarm in a manner that would allow her the most privacy and follow the rules in place.
As for her claim to be a woman, even if it is impossible to prove, I'll take her word for it. ;-)
March 29, 2008 4:08 PM
Their comes a point where common sense no longer prevails. This seems to be a significant problem with the TSA - NO COMMON SENSE!
And you people wonder why you don't have the respect of the public.........................
The more I read in this blog the more it becomes apparent, flying isn't worth it anymore.
Whats next, hip and knee replacement people have to remove implanted joints???????????????
You people just keep shooting yourself in the foot. When are you going to learn?
March 29, 2008 4:42 PM
Why now ???? after 6 years after the agency is created, how many passengers before this woman have had passed through with the body jewelry ?? Then suddenly the agent says she can not board just because of the body jewelry, what threat it can cause ? its too small to be a weapon I believe. The snickering of male agent does show something being inconsistent.
From my experience, I do feel tortured by the inconsistent of the policy being enforced like one airport TSA says its ok while other airpor TSA goes like no they are wrong, you can't have that or vice versa. Just because of this, I have no desire to travel by air nowadays.
March 29, 2008 4:45 PM
Why hasn't the head of the TSA made a public statement using the major media outlets?
(Without mentioning any names, of course. Quart-sized bags with his name written on it with additional wording comes to mind).
March 29, 2008 5:37 PM
The TSA continues its record of crimes against the Constitution as they continue to provide the illusion of security.
I would love to be able to go back in time to 1791 and talk to the first Congress.
"Senators: in 217 years, despite this 4th Amendment, people wishing to travel will be forced to be searched by subcontracted agents of the Federal Government, not duly sworn to uphold the Constitution. They will have a slogan of 'Dominate. Intimidate. Control.' Please take whatever steps you feel are necessary."
I'm sorry to say it, but the entire organization makes me sad to be an American. This woman was just the latest case of irresponsibility.
March 29, 2008 6:48 PM
Much of what I would've said about the policies in question has been covered exceedingly well above, so I'll pass on commenting on the particular details.
What I find equally concerning, however, is how this manner was ultimately resolved. This poor woman endured this experience on February 24th: over a month ago. TSA jumps into action to investigate the situation within 24 hours ... of the public press conference held a month later. That's about 25 days too late, in my humble opinion.
This sort of thing makes TSA look bad (ok, everybody, skip the cheap shot here); it makes TSA look like it only reacts to its own internal problems when they're exposed to public light. It also invites more people to resolve their problems outside of the system by using the media, since that route seems to be more effective.
I can almost understand why this situation happened (though, as others have said, TSA absolutely needs to find ways to allow TSOs to exercise common-sense judgment in cases like this). But I can't understand why it takes public embarrassment before TSA acts to resolve the situation.
TSA needs to give a strong apology to this woman, for allowing its procedures to create this situation in the first place. The words "I'm sorry; we were wrong" are incredibly powerful and healing. I hope y'all use them.
March 29, 2008 6:54 PM
Completely unacceptable.
When little things like this become commonplace, and the rigors of traveling are complicated even more by security forces that are neither fair, efficient or reasonable.
Have we gone beyond the human capacity for thought?
It is just another mark of the drain on our time and economy that TSA has come to symbolize with an air of complete disrespect to American Citizens.
March 29, 2008 7:49 PM
To all the TSO's who read and/or post here:
Remember the maxim that you receive what you give.
In other words, if you treat the passenger with contempt, you will get contempt back, not only from the person you so treated, but everyone else who sees and/or hears about the contempt given.
In this case, the contempt shown was:
1. TSO's who gathered around and snickered. If they had time to gather around and snicker, why were they on duty? Was the airport overstocked with TSO's? Is this a regular occurance? This reinforces the impression that the public has that government workers are overpaid and underworked - an impression that is not always true, but does NOT need to be 'verified'.
2. Why wasn't the TSO manager called in? Or was he, but was one of the snickering TSO's?
3. Why did the TSA learn about this incident from a press conference? It is reported that the Lubbock TSA manager received a written report from Ms. Hamlin (she lives in California, so I presume Ms. Hamlin gave it to him in person on the date of the incident - February 24). It would appear that the Lubbock TSA manager does NOT have enough tact in dealing with people to be able to realize that an apology and explanation of procedures was required to be given to Ms. Hamlin.
AND
4. It would appear that the Lubbock TSA manager doesn't have enough foresight to realize that such an incident, or one similar, is likely to happen again, and that it needed to be reported to higher ups so there is less likelihood of this type of incident happening again at Lubbock and all other airports.
The TSO's might have been following then current regulations, but the lack of tact and the display of disrespect shown are NOT examples the TSA should be proud of, and the employees involved need to be required to take classes in common courtesy. If the employees don't want to take the classes, and/or fail to pass them, they should be reassigned to duties where interaction with the public is not part of the job, or 'encouraged' to find another line of work.
When I worked for the federal government (I'm now retired), part of my job evaluation was my ability to work with other employees within the agency and deal with the public. If I had not been able to interact in a professional manner, without causing problems, my job would have been in jeopardy. Since TSO's are required to work with the public as the prime requirement of their jobs, such a requirement should be a pass/fail part of their job evaluation. Can't deal with the public in a professional manner with tact and respect? Simple solution - find another job, starting today.
March 29, 2008 8:09 PM
"I don't know what the TSA can do to improve its standing among the passengers it supposedly serves-- and whose cooperation and trust is essential to their official mission of protecting aircraft."
Fortunately, I do!
First, fire the TSOs who humiliated and mistreated this woman.
Second, lift the pointless ban on liquids that does nothing to make anyone safer.
Third, stop forcing passengers to remove their shoes to be X-rayed, which again does nothing other than waste time and makes no one safer.
Fourth, institute a policy requiring every TSO to provide every citizen-passenger with which he or she interacts with a card containing the TSO's name, employee number, and supervisor's name.
Fifth, ban TSO's from anonymous comments on this blog.
Sixth, punish TSO's who insult citizens in their comments on this blog.
Seventh, designate a TSA ombudsman to answer questions on this blog. Many questions about the number of TSOs punished for mistreating passengers and the feasibility of the London "liquid terror" plot have gone conspicuously unanswered. If TSA has nothing to hide, it should be willing to answer direct questions from the citizens who pay its employees' salaries.
Of course, the sensible thing to do would be to abolish TSA and hand security back to the airlines, who certainly could not do a WORSE job than TSA.
March 29, 2008 9:01 PM
Cleanly, the people who are running the TSA are idiots, if the existing procedures said this was acceptable. If the people who did this did nothing wrong, then the people who wrote the procedures that said they did nothing wrong should be fired. Incompetence usually starts from the top, as it does in this case.
March 29, 2008 9:03 PM
re: Since TSO's are required to work with the public as the prime requirement of their jobs, such a requirement should be a pass/fail part of their job evaluation. Can't deal with the public in a professional manner with tact and respect? Simple solution - find another job, starting today.....
Another TSO is doing the evaluation. Do you think the quality of the evaluation would be of an acceptable standard.
Senior TSO's should be instructing more junior screeners in job performance. Apparently the training, all 120 hours, is not up to task. They may be able to operate a WTMD or an Xray but people skills have been ignored!
While I agree with your premise I really think the TSA rot is much deeper.
March 29, 2008 9:50 PM
Anonymous said...
Why hasn't the head of the TSA made a public statement using the major media outlets?
(Without mentioning any names, of course. Quart-sized bags with his name written on it with additional wording comes to mind).
March 29, 2008 5:37 PM
I can only reason that the head of TSA thinks the screeners did a good job, or he resembles a jellyfish in some ways.
Regardless of who wins the White House this character will likely be on the streets shortly after.
March 29, 2008 9:56 PM
"Let's face it, women are mules and their undergarments a fortress for any item they feel they have a need to conceal. As far as humiliation, she wasn't too humiliated when she got the piercings, why should she be humiliated to remove them "in private"."
There must be some sort of "most offensive and misogynstic post" award we can give ol' anonymous for the above comment. Shame on you, TSA for allowing such inappropriate statements on this blog. Are you that desperate for supportive comments that you find it acceptable to post people's drivel about how "women are mules," implying that women everywhere are stuffing their bras with all the contraband they can possibly conceal? Clearly "anonymous" thinks that the mere act of having a nipple piercing eliminates one's reasonable expectation of privacy and respect. That's the kind of support TSA wants? Support from someone who thinks people with piercings don't deserve a little basic decency and respect?
March 29, 2008 10:37 PM
Sorry Trollkiller, you lose.
A straigh barbell, 2 inches, longer than a standard piercing, is still far smaller than a swiss mini-revolver. Unless you are also claiming that the pictured swiss mini-revolver has the same width and depth as that piercing.
If you want to contest, prove to me that 2 in x 14 gauge is the same as 2 in x 1.5 in x 1 in?
March 29, 2008 10:38 PM
Sorry, trollkiller, those nipple shields are noticably thinner than a 2.2 mini-gun as you linked to. You still fail to find something of the same size.
March 29, 2008 10:40 PM
News flash everyone: 19 firearms were discovered at checkpoints this week as were 3 artfully concealed prohibited items. That is this past week alone! I haven't seen one post on any of the pages here mention that. We are so quick to point out cases where the TSA messed up but forget about the NINETEEN guns in one week that were kept off of our planes.
I find it disgusting how people on this blog degrade and belittle TSOs as "idiots," "incompetent," and "stupid". What happened at Lubbock was definitely unfortunate, but the fact is that the procedures were followed. Were the procedures faulty? Yes. That is where the criticism should be, not on the officers following them. Let's just also remember that a procedure can't be put in place for every situation TSOs run into. That is why the procedure is being changed to assure that this does not happen again.
When TSOs follow procedure, they are criticized. When TSOs don't follow procedure they are ridiculed. When they find firearms.... Exactly.
March 29, 2008 10:42 PM
"Here you go Swiss Mini Revolver comes in at a hefty 2.2 inches. Photo
Now do I really have to explain how a live fire revolver could be harmful?"
Er...how big do you think a nipple piercing, is, hm? You really think there's a woman out there walking around with a small gun impaled in her nipple, waiting to smuggle it onto a plane? You must be a TSA screener. Hope you put those 120 hours of training to good use. Like, perhaps, learning how big a nipple piercing is. (Hint: much smaller than 2.2 inches).
March 29, 2008 10:46 PM
Jim Huggins said...
What I find equally concerning, however, is how this manner was ultimately resolved. This poor woman endured this experience on February 24th: over a month ago. TSA jumps into action to investigate the situation within 24 hours ... of the public press conference held a month later. That's about 25 days too late, in my humble opinion.
Before I get to my reply let me explain I do not think this woman was harassed, molested, humiliated, injured or mistreated. I think she was pissed off because she was made to follow a rule that she thinks is stupid and decided to raise a stink about it. I think she is exaggerating the experience in order to play a better victim.
Now to my reply.
I personally agree that a visual inspection would have been quicker and easier on all parties, but that brings other problems that will need to be worked out.
From what I gather the TSA did investigate as soon as it was brought to their attention. The investigation revealed that the TSOs followed procedure and that was the end of it. Apparently the TSA management felt no need for a change at that time.
What bothers me is after 25 days (I will trust your math) the TSA decided to change procedure ONLY after there was wide spread news coverage.
Damage control is NEVER a valid reason to change a procedure.
I am going to say it again.
Damage control is NEVER a valid reason to change a procedure.
If the procedure was not proper when first reported why wasn't it changed then. Why do we have to have threats of a lawsuits and media circus press conferences to make improvements to procedures?
March 29, 2008 11:12 PM
anonymous at March 29, 2008 9:01 PM, your seven points are very good and sensible. Unfortunately, they'll never happen. At least not before January 21st of next year.
Currently, the TSA is a perfect reflection of the Bush administration that created it and appointed the man who heads it. The Bush administration believes itself infallible (recall the 2004 debate in which Mr. Bush answered a question about what he learned from his mistakes by stating that he has made no mistakes). It considers itself exempt from any laws or restrictions on its power, and unaccountable to anyone but itself (recall the abuses of Abu Ghraib, which Bush and Rumsfeld blamed entirely on a few "bad" enlisted personnel, dismissing the possibility that it was the result of policies set higher up). The Bush administration consistently ignores challenges or questions about what it does, or dismisses questions with "it's classified, so you must trust us." The Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated its disregard for the rights of citizens, and claims sole authority to modify laws and repeal Constitutional rights in the name of "fighting terrorism." And the Bush administration has repeatedly favored bullying tactics to get what it wants, both at home and abroad.
TSA officials at all levels who bully and abuse passengers, create arbitrary rules whose rationale is classified, ignore even constructive criticism (or respond with insults), "interpret" rules and procedures according to their personal whims, and treat the traveling public with contempt are merely following the example set by their Commander-in-Chief, and dutifully flowed down through the ranks of the Homeland Security and TSA bureaucracy. The TSA's problems originate at at the very top, not at the security checkpoints.
Consequently, we will never see the TSA repeal their arbitrary rules about liquids and shoes since the rules are vital to national security and based on "robust intelligence." We will never see TSOs fired or disciplined for mistreating passengers because they do nothing wrong and are in fact acting commendably to protect aviation. We will never see cards that encourage complaints about TSOs because the resources wasted in processing pointless complaints would be better spent on adding more layers of security to protect aviation. And we will never see a TSO ombudsman because he would have nothing to do-- when something goes wrong it's always because the passenger has either violated some law or restriction or has failed to obey the orders of the TSO.
We can hope that the situation will improve when the Bush administration fades into history next year. But given the nature of bureaucracy, I'm afraid it will take more than a change of leadership to correct the numerous problems. The only effective thing we as citizens can really do is to avoid flying whenever that's possible.
March 30, 2008 12:09 AM
So what do you suppose the next outrage by TSA will be? Perhaps they drop an infant on the floor because the infant had loose bowels and let go during the inspection process (then call over a LEO and blame it on the parents)?
Kip, don't you get tired of carpet burns? How do you manage to sleep at night? We want answers to our questions and those answers aren't forthcoming from either you or your minions. What does it take to get you to answer reasonable questions?
March 30, 2008 12:24 AM
I think the attitudes displayed here and the lack of reasoning or taking the time to read what has been said shows exactly how tough the TSA has it on a daily basis. Most of you make me ashamed to be a passenger.
For all of you who think the TSA were just doing their jobs, let's all thank one next time we fly. Let them know we understand they were following the procedures put in place to keep us safe.
March 30, 2008 12:25 AM
Damage control is NEVER a valid reason to change a procedure.
It could be argued that the TSA owes its very existence to damage control. Airport security screening was merely the lowest (and most visible) layer in a cascade of failures that led to 9/11. The administration and the professional bureaucracy was obviously very embarrassed about the failure. So they set about the task of damage control by establishing the TSA to federalize airport security within an enormous Homeland Security bureaucracy.
The thing is that the basic approach to "airport security" is exactly the same as it was on 9/10/2001. It still relies on mass screening of passengers at checkpoints, an approach that failed to prevent 9/11. The added "layers" that the TSA so proudly touts are little more than cosmetic security theater. It's basically "more of the same," but with longer lines, more intrusive searches, bullying, and capricious implementation of stupid rules about shoes and liquids that themselves were reactive damage control instituted after the announcement of some inept terrorist plots. The approach seems to be that if the screening that existed on 9/10/2001 failed, they'll just keep adding more "enhancements" to the very same failed process (usually in reaction to the latest failure or breach). Presumably, if you make it difficult and unpleasant enough for passengers it somehow will deter and protect against terrorists.
That's the reason why every undercover test or audit shows that screening is miserably ineffective. It's the same system that failed so miserably on 9/11, but with more inconvenience, intrusiveness, and loss of privacy and dignity. Why then should it be any more effective with "enhancements" that are essentially damage control after embarrassing failures are revealed?
That said, I am entirely willing to endure (and pay for) reasonable security enhancements that give me reason to believe that I'm getting genuine protection from threats in exchange for what I'm paying in dollars and lost liberty. Everything I've seen about the TSA (including the "official" posts and responses on this blog) only convinces me that what we now have is not worth the price.
March 30, 2008 12:29 AM
SeeSaw @ "
Anonymous (March 29, 2008 12:12 AM)
said...
Is the TSA website wrong about pat downs? Or is it just another case of TSA agents not knowing TSA policy?
I don't understand what you are referring to. The pat down procedure in the link you provided is correct. "
What I was referring to was the "You may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to the pat-down search that includes the torso" statement. From this, it seems like the pat down is an alternative to removing piercings. If the pat-down is an alternative for piercings, then the screeners did wrong in not patting down her nipples. If the screeners did everyting right, then patting down her nipples wasn't an alternative, and the TSA is doing a bad job of communicating what the rules are.
If, as another anonymous says, "Sensitive areas do not include the nipple area on females and does not include the genitalia area of both males and females." and there is not a viable pat-down alternative for these areas, TSA shouldn't say that removing piercings is optional -- Your "You may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to the pat-down search that includes the torso" is confusing: There effectively isn't a pat-down alternative for common piercings on torso other than at the bellybutton.
The TSA rules as applied are not simple and easy to understand or follow.
Browsing around a little bit, it looks like TSA is between a rock and a hard place: patting down or visually inspecting a prince albert wand would probably not be something you'd want in your screener's job descriptions, or if you did have it in your job description, you might not want the people you have filling that job description.
March 30, 2008 12:33 AM
Trollkiller: "Damage control is NEVER a valid reason to change a procedure."
Amen.
...but that is the whole mission and purpose of TSA--it is CYA security theater to provide damage control for the airlines and the government who have to be seen as 'doing something' post 9/11.
March 30, 2008 12:41 AM
Sound reasoning and judgement lost on this one. Changing a policy after the fact is useless. Teach people to think for themselves, not listen to vague rules which are meant to be altered later absolving anyone of guilt. It's not the screeners fault for following orders...it's not the TSA's fault for vaguely defining a rule that some how covered this insulting and unecessary action. It's no one's fault...just the way it was intended. But what does one person's civil rights matter?
I have no piercings, yet for some reason this frightens me.
March 30, 2008 1:14 AM
"We are so quick to point out cases where the TSA messed up but forget about the NINETEEN guns in one week that were kept off of our planes."
I'm quick to point out cases where the TSA oversteps its (barely defined) bounds because there's no oversight, no appeals to higher management or authority, and no arguing with its agents lest you be detained on suspicion of terrorism. As an illegal entity infringing our 4th Amendment rights, they need to be brought down (peacefully!) through the only system we have that sometimes works: the courts.
The 19 weapons is statistically meaningless. It has no context for how many were caught last week, last year, or pre-TSA. Firearms were prohibited before the TSA was even a twinkle in W's eye. We don't need to praise the TSA for doing a job that non-TSA screeners were doing 9/10/2001. Firearms both slipped through and were caught, then and now. They aren't making us any safer. So far, the only weapons exchange has been a pilot with a negligent discharge.
March 30, 2008 1:14 AM
Boy, you never know when some Saudi terrorist might use a nipple ring to hijack a plane.
I'm proud to live in a society that won't let a nipple ring board a plane. Fabulous!
March 30, 2008 5:00 AM
I hope somebody from TSA reads this and maybe puts some of it to thought. How easy do you think it is to gain access to an international airport? TSA will say extremely difficult. I say easy as pie. I work midnights at O'hare International and well it's pathetic. Sometimes in the morning when we come in the gate there is a team of young women tsa agents that make you pull over and the go through your vehicle. I work maintenance and these girls really have no idea what they are looking at. They didn't want to let me through one morning because I had a nitrogen bottle in the back of my van. After a brief attempt using some fancy words they were like oh it must be legit... I'm thinking are you kidding me!?! You have no idea what that is and you are just going to say it must be ok? Sure it was just a nitrogen bottle but I had to explain it. Is there something wrong with that maybe? Anyways, back to the point. If I were to for some reason want to gain access to the airport, I'm not going to do it at 10 am. I'm going to do it in the middle of the night when nobody is watching. This whole TSA program is smoke and mirrors. The people that clean our planes... half of them aren't even able to speak English. How can you give a background check to somebody that isn't from America? It's all smoke a mirrors people. It is all designed to make it look like we have our stuff together. You want access to an airfield... why sneak in, get a job as a midnight cleaner. You'll have full access to everything. And really it's the honest ones that have to pay for all this not the shady ones. It's the honest ones that have to come up with explanations for the things they bring to the airport. Ya that 5 foot tall tube with a nozzle and the gauge on it... it's just nitrogen. What is it? Oh just nitrogen don't worry about it... ok go ahead these aren't the droids we were looking for. Lol
March 30, 2008 6:42 AM
"News flash everyone: 19 firearms were discovered at checkpoints this week as were 3 artfully concealed prohibited items. That is this past week alone!"
The sky is falling....
And how many actually got onto aircraft that flew out of airports that you don't screen? You don't have a clue, do you?
March 30, 2008 7:47 AM
TSA is a perfect example of limitless authority to "most un-deserving" people. They act like they are god at the check point. Whatever they say should be done exactly or get ready to be insulted. they all gang up on you like vulchers. I dont think common sense is part of selection criteria at TSA.
March 30, 2008 7:48 AM
Now, Trollkiller, you tell me that you know the woman, who was considered a threat to aviation, was left alone to remove the piercings and you tell me that you know this from her account of the incident.
I’ve read several accounts and nowhere do I read, in her words, that she ever said she was left alone. Her attorney’s statement said that she was taken behind a dark curtain to remove the piercing in private. However, “private” in the mind of the TSA means the passenger together with a screener.
One does not take someone whom one considers a threat to aviation and leave them alone behind a curtain and she must have been considered a threat because she was forced to remove her jewelry.
On second thought, maybe the TSA in all it stupidity does do so.
If you can point me to where Ms. Hamlin said that she was left alone, I would appreciate it.
In another post you said: “Before I get to my reply let me explain I do not think this woman was harassed, molested, humiliated, injured or mistreated. I think she was pissed off because she was made to follow a rule that she thinks is stupid and decided to raise a stink about it. I think she is exaggerating the experience in order to play a better victim.”
She was harassed, humiliated, injured (or rather forced to cause her own bodily injury) and mistreated, but at least she was not molested. Do you have any body jewelry implanted on your body on any of your private parts? Oh, you don’t? Then how can you possibly know Ms. Hamlin’s feelings when being told to remove those pieces of jewelry?
All that said, I totally agree with you when you said:
“Damage control is NEVER a valid reason to change a procedure.
If the procedure was not proper when first reported why wasn't it changed then. Why do we have to have threats of a lawsuits and media circus press conferences to make improvements to procedures?”
Why? Just more TSA stupidity. Let’s stick our heads in the sand, maybe it will go away and we won’t have to deal with it.
So, as you suggested, had she not brought this to the attention of the media it would never have been "fixed" (depending upon what the TSA considers "fixed" in this case. If it leads to actual strip searches, it certainly won't be "fixed.")
To the anonymous poster who wrote:
“News flash everyone: 19 firearms were discovered at checkpoints this week as were 3 artfully concealed prohibited items. News flash everyone: 19 firearms were discovered at checkpoints this week as were 3 artfully concealed prohibited items.”
Were those items intended to be used to bring down or hijack an aircraft? No, I didn’t think so. How many other weapons and “artfully concealed” items got through your checkpoints? How many planes fell out of the sky last week?
Bragging about the number of firearms discovered is nothing but a PR attempt by the TSA to justify its existence while each day brings another horror story of the mistreatment of passengers by some of its totally repugnant screeners.
March 30, 2008 8:20 AM
I've know people who worked for TSA as a screener and have since quit because of the poor pay. You can't expect to pay someone 14,000-16,000 per year and have them perform at the level expected. People start to get bitter and have a "don't care" attitude or the total opposite where they think they now have power over others and get a rent-a-cop mentality thus over reacting to situations such as this. I would like to restate what someone had mentioned, some body piercings can't be safely removed in an airport setting, is the TSA ready to pay medical bills for these people when they end up with infections?
March 30, 2008 8:28 AM
As few problems as I have when flying (and they are few, just know the rules and follow them) I am always struck by how illtrained airport security is. That "procedure was followed" but common sense and good manners weren't is such a great example. I agree with so many others who ask why the officers weren't fired. That kind of lack of common sense, when working in an arena where you are supposed to try and heighten senses, is a huge flag that the individuals do not have what it takes to successfully do their job.
The TSA continues to make some questionable decisions but who they are putting american lives in the hands of should be the number one priority. It does not matter how perfect the procedure is if you have monkeys instituting them.
March 30, 2008 9:07 AM
My concern is how is a persons jewellry considered a threat to an airplane? TSA is there to protect us from the bombs, knives and other items that my be used as a weapon? I dont recall ever seeing anyone arrested for a consealed peircing permit violation.... have you?
I think that cloaking yourself in a 'that is the process, or I am following orders' makes you a sheep and you should never be allowed to be in a position like that.
How many times has a soldier had to decide when an order is not only does not increase the sucess of a mission, but is used for personal gain or humilation.
Basically this is just like the prisoners in Iraq. "I was just following orders to make human pyramids, it is not my fault."
Many of those involved were kicked out or punished. TSA should be a follow the military's lead.
March 30, 2008 9:15 AM
Why do we have to allow screeners who have gloves that have handled many different things handle items in our toiletry cases? why are they not required to put new clean gloves on? This is a great way to spread disease.
March 30, 2008 9:17 AM
TSA: please provide a link to the relevant procedures.
Yeah, these aren't written down. Because then they'd be held accountable to them. They prefer to verbally pass along procedures and policy.
Which would account for nearly every inconsistency that people have run across, whether it'd be piercings which had to be removed versus those that didn't, or shoes that had to be removed, and so on.
March 30, 2008 9:29 AM
If you are willing to wear piercings, then you should be willing to accept the consequences that come with it. With Gloria Allred by her side, it is obvious she is only seeking money.
I think the only other comment on this blog that made any sense was by 'trollkiller'. The rest of the comments were written by people who need to have the piercing in their brain removed.
March 30, 2008 9:40 AM
"We are so quick to point out cases where the TSA messed up but forget about the NINETEEN guns in one week that were kept off of our planes."
Were these guns tucked into a bottle of shampoo or a 20-oz. Coca Cola? Were they somehow hidden in the soles of a loafer or a sandal or a sneaker? Even Kip Hawley has said that people trying to get guns onto planes are stupid or disturbed, not terrorists. TSA gets and deserves no credit for keeping guns off of planes because TSA's idiotic policies are not the reason these guns were found.
March 30, 2008 10:03 AM
Let them know we understand they were following the procedures put in place to keep us safe.
Except that most of TSA's policies weren't put in place to keep us safe. The liquid ban is based on fabulation and nonsense; there is no way to mix liquids on a plane and cause damage to a plane as a result. We the citizens know this and TSA knows this and yet we are forced to go through the inane ziplock ritual every time we fly, wasting time and attention that could be spent on something that would ACTUALLY make air travel safer, like, oh, screening cargo, which the geniuses at TSA think MIGHT happen by 2010 or so.
March 30, 2008 10:06 AM
Mandi Hamlin asked for an apology, and the TSA didn't give one. That's lame.
Would an apology for obvious mistreatment have really been such a hard thing to do?
March 30, 2008 10:18 AM
If people insist on mutilating their bodies as an expression of their "alternative lifestyle" or to announce their individuality ("Look at me! I'm different - just like everyone else...) then they should be prepared for the fallout. You have piercings? You're going to have to go through more in depth searches at the airport... thus, costing the rest of us time, too. So, thanks.
March 30, 2008 10:24 AM
TSA feels that they are the law if not above it. Whether its humiliating someone and being down right rude and obnoxious.TSA really needs to inform and educate all their workers the same way. as of right now there doing as they please
March 30, 2008 10:25 AM
Male security officers snickering while she is made to take out the piercing is "nothing wrong"?
March 30, 2008 10:52 AM
"The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong"
This is exactly the problem. The TSA believes there is a bottom line. That they could possibly be "absolutely correct".. this vanity is what causes the backlash that causes so many people to hate the TSA, and rightly so.
Congrats, Mission Accomplished!
March 30, 2008 10:55 AM
Some of my friends work for TSA and not even they know why the heck they have to do all of this.
March 30, 2008 10:55 AM
TSA did exactly what it should, that is following the code book; and that is teh source of all kind of problem. Power hungry, underpaid contract workers of TSA often shows off the signs of bookish protocol of screening. It is obnoxious to note that what happened it TX could have happened to anywhere else. TSA, must teach their employee to look for real threats, not fish for compliance. When you put borderline streetsmart yuppy type people in checking gates, who will harass 70 yr old grandma and 10 yr old kids,you loose the battle against the real bad people.
March 30, 2008 11:02 AM
>> The reality is that most TSOs are professional, respectful, and conscientious about doing the best job they can under the circumstances in which they operate. Unfortunately, the minority of TSOs who are arrogant, ignorant, stupid, or outright bullies is large enough to give all of them a bad name, and to lump the agency right alongside the IRS and FEMA as the most despised and distrusted.<<
I beg to differ with the premise that the problem TSO's are a minority. In my recent flying experience, the screening environment has been unnecessarily hostile more than half the time. Lots of barked orders, unnecessary yelling, etc. See my post about Flint MI, Orlando FL, Atlanta GA and Pensacola FL for details.
The TSO's plainly assume the worst out of the passengers. To expect the passengers to assume the best of the TSO's in return is sheer folly.
It only takes one power tripping TSO to turn a checkpoint into a hostile place, and the TSA needs to realize that and act accordingly. I'm bloody tired of TSO's that act like schoolyard bullies, and the TSA failing to take corrective action.
Also, another poster said "I don't know what the TSA can do to improve its standing among the passengers it supposedly serves."
You have got to be kidding....
Oftentimes the problem statement implies the needed solution, and there's a lot of posts on this blog that fall into that category. As I have asked before, where is the introspection on the TSA's part to try and make the situation better? No wonder the TSA ended up in damage control mode over the MacBook Air and the piercing situation. Does the TSA know how to do anything but damage control?
Lots of posters (myself included) have offered numerous, specific, suggestions on improving the screening experience.
Interestingly, I have yet to note a response from the TSA that indicates that our suggestions have been noted or are being considered. Question for moderators -- is anyone capturing the suggestions being offered on this blog for analysis?
To reiterate my expectations as a law abiding airline passenger, citizen of this country and former Naval officer:
- Professionalism, ordinary civility, and common courtesy.
- To be treated the same way the TSA expects me to treat their personnel.
- Basic operational competence.
- Realistic, common sense rules, clearly stated.
- To be treated as a law abiding citizen until my actions prove criminal intent. (A misunderstanding of poorly explained rules is not evidence of criminal intent. Artful concealment would be.)
- Accountability for actions and for failures to act.
- To have my belongings treated with due care and respect.
- To be offered assistance when needed.
- To have means of redress if the above items don't happen.
With these expectations stated, the TSA really needs to do its own homework and figure out to maximize security while minimizing the appearance of being a bunch of bullies on a power trip. The TSA needs to proactively analyze the situations it encounters and look for ways to improve the situation, instead of just doing damage control after the press gets involved.
Though the TSA needs to do its own homework, I'm going to point them in the right direction by reiterating some of the suggestions put forth on this blog by myself and others:
- Give TSO's the same amount of training on people skills as they get on detecting prohibited items.
- Evaluate TSO's equally as often and as rigorously on people skills as on detection skills.
- Hold supervisors accountable for what happens or fails to happen on their watch.
- Use the existing surveillance camera footage to look for situations that were not handled well, and look for ways to improve.
- "STOP THE YELLING. Ahem, stop the yelling." (Wish I could take credit for that one.) There's a concept in human relations called the "minimum effective response." It boils down to use the least level of response that gets the job done. IOW, don't yell when a simple explanation in a civil tone of voice will get the job done.
- Give the public the same set of thumb rules for "liquids, gels and aerosols" as has been given to the TSO's. Stop playing "gotcha" based on local interpretations.
- Secret shopper missions to evaluate the checkpoint experience. Use some people that are elderly, frail, handicapped, have children with them, etc. to test the known rough edges of the system.
- Install a dedicated "passenger advocate" at the checkpoint to bring some balance to the checkpoint experience.
- All TSA personnel must wear name tags in plain view at all times when on duty.
- Resecure any searched luggage with a zip tie that clearly shows the TSA was in the bag.
- The "we looked in your bag" notice must show the location, date, time and identify the TSO who searched the bag.
- Bring the belongings of anyone selected for additional screening to that location.
- Establish a list of things that "never should happen", such as separating a child from their adult guardian, yelling at a passenger to hurry when they plainly need assistance, etc. Make violations of the "never should happen" list cause for immediate termination.
I could keep going, but I'm getting tired of repeatedly spoon-feeding the TSA suggestions.
Hey blog team -- there's a lot of us out here that have put a lot of time and effort into creating constructive feedback to the TSA on this blog. What is being done with it?
March 30, 2008 11:06 AM
""We are so quick to point out cases where the TSA messed up but forget about the NINETEEN guns in one week that were kept off of our planes."
Were these guns tucked into a bottle of shampoo or a 20-oz. Coca Cola? Were they somehow hidden in the soles of a loafer or a sandal or a sneaker? Even Kip Hawley has said that people trying to get guns onto planes are stupid or disturbed, not terrorists. TSA gets and deserves no credit for keeping guns off of planes because TSA's idiotic policies are not the reason these guns were found.
March 30, 2008 10:03 AM
Any one could put all nineteen of those guns in a bag, walk through General Aviation bag in hand, board a private plane or air taxi, and not be bothered by anyone.
March 30, 2008 11:28 AM
The Lubbock incident reminds me of Lord Acton's dictum, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Naturally,the official response is that the screeners did nothing wrong - that is ALWYAYS the "official response" - usually accompanied by the word "appropriate behavior". When you give ill-educated people this level of authority and back them up with an atmosphere of fear - this behavior is guaranteed. Check out the work of Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo.
March 30, 2008 11:29 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home «Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 345 Newer› Newest»