Tuesday, June 28, 2011

TSA Will Work With Passengers To Resolve Security Concerns In The Most Respectful Way Possible

TSA is in the news this week after a security concern was identified during the screening of an elderly woman at a Florida airport. We are sympathetic to the passenger and regret that this event occurred at such a difficult time for her and her family.

While everybody does have to be screened, TSA works with passengers to resolve security concerns in a respectful and sensitive manner.  In no instance would our officers ask a passenger to remove an adult diaper.

We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally, according to proper procedure and did not require this passenger to remove an adult diaper. Various options to proceed through the checkpoint were presented to the passenger and her daughter during private screening to resolve an anomaly discovered during a pat down. Although TSA did not request it, the daughter ultimately chose to remove the adult diaper in a bathroom and return to the checkpoint.

Out of respect for passenger privacy, we will not disclose further details about the screening of this passenger except to assure that all protocols for resolving security concerns were followed and to reiterate that TSA works very hard to ensure all interactions with passengers are done as respectfully as possible. 

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.

220 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 220 of 220
Anonymous said...

[[Actually to put it bluntly, those are EXACTLY the type of people used overseas... ]]

To put it even more bluntly: we aren't overseas. You might perhaps have had this slip your mind as you were reinventing totalitarianism to prevent others from imposing it on us.

What's that? you resent the choice of "totalitarianism" to describe the goings-on you perpetrate? Then my advice is to not make it look so much like totalitarianism. We are supposed to be free people in a free country, here. Remember? They covered that in school.

When will it happen?

[[As distatsefull as it is for all involved, everyone who goes through the CP MUST be screened to the same level]]

Then what are your excuses when you fail?
And you fail constantly. You know that, I know that, everyone here knows that. Stop dissembling and acknowledge reality. You're so busy looking for "things" that you don't look at the people holding them.

Noibi didn't ring any alarms because he had no "things" to look at. No "things" means no danger to the structurally inept TSA. But granny had a "thing", didn't she? That means, to the reflexive TSA, she's an automatic suspect.

[[Old people who are paid large sums of money which are given to thier families to wear suicide belts.]]

And granny, with terminal cancer, was probably paid a huge sum of money that she could leave to her heirs to blow up the plane - best of all possibilities, right? Her family is taken care of, she doesn't have to suffer the indignity of a painful, imminent death ... and but for the steadfast and intrepid TSA agent, she would-a pulled it off, too. Boy! if that wasn't just so paranoid it might be reasonable.

[[Am I glad it was, I certainly am as my mother, son etc might be on that plane.]]

...and here we have it. An inept agency which cannot do what they advertise, which makes excuses every time they fail and whines like little girls over it, uses paranoia to justify their mission and when that doesn't work on those of us who are [reasonaly] mentally healthy, they *snfff* use mom and kids.

Psychological human shields. You should be ashamed.

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify, Traveling by Air is NOT a Constitutional right.

Anonymous said...

To all people who keep beating a dead horse in regards to the 4th Amendment. Please consider the following.... When you buy your plane ticket it is IMPLIED CONSENT that you and your belongings may be searched. TSA has a web site that will help you pack properly and give you a list of allowed and prohibited items. If you want to get thru security faster just do some research and be prepared.

rwilymz said...

[[Traveling by Air is NOT a Constitutional right.]]

Have you ever read the Constitution?

Don't bother answering; the answer is 'no'.

Read the 9thAM sometime.

Yes, traveling by air is a constitutional right.


[[When you buy your plane ticket it is IMPLIED CONSENT that you and your belongings may be searched]]

Find "implied consent" in the 4thAM. You can't do it.


Where do some people get the cockamamie notions they do?

Anonymous said...

[[Traveling by Air is NOT a Constitutional right.]]

Have you ever read the Constitution?

Don't bother answering; the answer is 'no'.

Read the 9thAM sometime.

Yes, traveling by air is a constitutional right.


[[When you buy your plane ticket it is IMPLIED CONSENT that you and your belongings may be searched]]

Find "implied consent" in the 4thAM. You can't do it.


Where do some people get the cockamamie notions they do?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Just to clarify, Traveling by Air is NOT a Constitutional right.

Interstate Travel is a Constitutional Right. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding airplanes. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding Cars. In fact, there is nothing regarding Horse and Buggy since that was the travel method of the day.

The constitution does not state the method of travel, only that you are free to travel amongst these great many states.

Next argument please.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said..." Please consider the following.... When you buy your plane ticket it is IMPLIED CONSENT that you and your belongings may be searched."

You said it best.

Your BELONGINGS may be searched.

And the key word is MAY, or might, or possibly.

There is nothing in the contract of a ticket to travel that indicates I will have to subject myself to an X-Ray, or Frisking more aggressive than Police are allowed to do, or any of the things the TSA claims are necessary.

It has been court tested that Administrative Searches are limited to the lease intrusive and obstructive method necessary. In the case of Airline Security that is a Walk-through Metal Detector and a bag x-ray, with a possible search if one or both of those alarm.

There is nothing in the Administrative Search Court decisions that allows Full Contact Frisking, Full Body X-Rays, or submitting my bags to the possible theft from Airline (or TSA) employees.

The purpose of the Rule of Law is to implicitly allow something with all other things being disallowed on the part of the Government. Until there is a Law specifically allowing the TSA to do what they do, it is not allowed, therefore it is illegal. Screw your Implied Consent because it doesn't apply in this case. This is not the Airlines saying they might do something, this is the Federal Government.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Please consider the following.... When you buy your plane ticket it is IMPLIED CONSENT that you and your belongings may be searched.

And when you walk down a dark alley, that's IMPLIED CONSENT that you will get mugged.

Oh, wait, it isn't. Because mugging you is against the law. As is searching someone without a warrant.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Just to clarify, Traveling by Air is NOT a Constitutional right.

Where exactly does it say that? I'm supposed to have a right to do anything that isn't specifically prohibited by law. Show me the law that says flying in an airplane is illegal.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous on July 10th, Yes I have read the Constitution and Air travel is mentioned right next to the Alien space ship index. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were frequent travelers on Air France and Virgin. Really do some fact finding before commenting.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Just to clarify, Traveling by Air is NOT a Constitutional right.

July 10, 2011 5:07 AM

............

I think you will find that the USSC disagrees with you.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Bob, Thank you for this Post and taking time to clarify some issues. It is very sad that so many Lawyers and Supreme Court Justices comment on these blogs against you. You would think these Lawyers and Justices would have more pressing things to take care of, but apparently not....... I guess the law firm of Duey Cheatem and Howe has a full class of people willing to pick up the Gauntlet against TSA.

Anonymous said...

[[Yes I have read the Constitution and Air travel is mentioned right next to the Alien space ship index.]]

9thAM to the Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which means ... "Just because it wasn't written down doesn't mean the right doesn't exist; it does."

[[George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were frequent travelers on Air France and Virgin.]]

So principles no longer apply when technology changes? Is that what you're driving at?

Do we need a Constitutional Convention every time Apple comes out with a new iPod?

[[Really do some fact finding before commenting.]]

Took the words right out of my mouth, bud.

Here's the 10thAM for grins:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You're obliged to find, in the Constitution, an authorization for the feds to search in any way American citizens doing nothing more heinous than attempting to travel from Point A to Point B - by any form of transportation. If you can't [and you can't], then what the TSA is doing is not supported by the rules we are supposed to be living under.

I am aware that many TSA boosters are fraidy-cats who see terrorists in every shoe, shampoo bottle and adult diaper, but some of us do not suffer from such paranoias and would prefer having the government we were promised.

...and having the government we were promised would be "the most respectful way possible". It would, in fact, be the ONLY respectful way possible.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said..."Blogger Bob, Thank you for this Post and taking time to clarify some issues"

You understood the article and how it clarified the issue? Can you explain it to me please because I still don't understand what the TSA actually does? Or how? Or even why?

Anonymous said...

[[GROW UP AMERICA THE THREAT IS REAL!]]

To the degree the "threat is real", the solution we've adopted to mitigating that threat is real...ly stupid; really reflexive; really cost-inefficient; really counter-productive ...

Some doofus sticks a stink bomb in his drawers [total cost: $25] and the US spends over half a BILLION on a one-dimensional technological solution that independent investigation has concluded is very easy to dupe.

If you're going to propose that "terrorism" is a united, monolithic organization, then do the math: they spend $25, and we spend $500,000,000 in response.

I will guarantee you that they have more lumps of $25 than we have lumps of $500,000,000.

A shoe bomb cannot bring down a plane. It cost $25 to concoct. The process of de-shoeing everyone, training to handle the de-shoeing, monitor the de-shoeing, and providing areas to re-shoe afterwards costs millions in passenger time, terminal space, chairs, electricity to run the x-rays for a significantly greater volume of "possible contraband" ...

A butt bomb cannot bring down a plane. It cost $25 to concoct. The "backscatter" pornoscan hardware, the training, the extra staffing, the increased need for terminal space, the time investment for EVERYone involved, the "alternative processing" and the training and extra staff for THAT ... the harrassment, the hard feelings, the outrage, the humiliation ... has cost a half billion, and that's just in what has been reported in the press.

There has never, ever, ever, EVER been a Jr Chemistry Set bomb constructed in-flight from raw liquid materials brought aboard; it is only because some hack terrorist wanna-be with a plane ticket was caught in his Paris apartment attempting to cobble one together out of household products that cost $25 to acquire that we even think about it. It's doubtful that any substantive threat can be made with this method, even if the passenger's name is McGyver. Yet we have since spent a billion in the effort to de-liquify passengers - not including the cost of the products stolen from passengers and thrown away.

Is ANYone going to argue that these are a wise use of government money?

Security is meaningless if it is cost-prohibitive. A $500 million response to a $25 threat is nuts, and anyone who tries to justify it is insane. As we should be understanding right now, the government canNOT keep spending money the way it is spending it. Government solutions have to be cost-effective in order to be long-term useful. Given that the terrorist threat is, at best, a 0.0000000001% possibility over the last decade [persons attempting terrorism divided into number of passengers in US airspace, and rounded UP], wise, effective, long-term security seeks the 80% solution. Not the "total", "universal safety" solution.

"Who are those most likely to be ne'er-do-wells on planes? Let's talk to them for a while..."

We've now had Noibi using no-tech methods of scamming a plane trip. It cost him nothing. Zip. Zilch. Bupkus. He stole someone else's boarding pass and used a college badge to fake out TSA.

What is TSA's proposed solution? More technology! Yes, that's right: a $0 threat and we're trying to figure out a way to spend billions to address it. The solution costs nothing: Face to ID, ID name to boarding pass name, boarding pass date to the calendar.

"Is TSA Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader?"

What is "No", Alex.

RB said...

http://www.wlns.com/story/15126069/local-man-speaks-out-over-tsa-airport-pat-downs

Local Man Speaks Out Over TSA Airport Pat Downs

A local man at the center of a national controversy over airport pat downs spoke out Thursday.

The bladder cancer survivor says he endured a second inappropriate pat down at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

Tom Sawyer is fighting the nation's Transportation Security Administration, the same agency that invited him to Washington to talk about the aggressive pat down he endured in Detroit last November.


Yeah TSA was going to train its people on how to screen people with medical issues. Heck, TSA can't even teach its people how to recognize what TSA acceptable ID there are.

Anonymous said...

Whoopsie....

http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/07/25/thomas-sawyer-cancer-survivor-gets-soaked-by-his-own-urine-aga/

Anonymous said...

It is clear to me that those wearing adult diapers will be requested to remove them in order to board the plane. There have been several incidents of women being told they had to remove thier sanitary napkins in order to clear screening as well - apparently because sanitary napkins obscure genitals and you can't be felt up through them. This is disgusting. Edlery people and women in particular are being discriminated against - God help us if we have to fly while menstrating.

Elm Nehmara said...

Geez...how many of you are from Flyer Talk? LOL. Also, how many of you are actual travelers? I think that many of you making the comments on this blog are just shrillers that like a good controversy and to B&%ch about government in general.
TSA did handle the situation, ok, so they aren't perfect, no agency is and for God's sake quit referring to the pat downs as "sexual assault" I've studied and read cases of SA and the pat downs are NOT anywhere near what constitutes as sexual assault. Seriously, you bunch are sheeps swallowing sensationalist lines and spouting them off as if you are original. Funny how most of you are name "anonymous" Gotta love that Internet anonymity though.

Tomas said...

Elm Nehmara wrote:
Geez...for God's sake quit referring to the pat downs as "sexual assault" I've studied and read cases of SA and the pat downs are NOT anywhere near what constitutes as sexual assault.

________

You need to do a little more reading, Elm, maybe about the definition of a "pat down."

A "pat-down" search by United States Supreme Court definition is "a frisk or external feeling of the outer garments of an individual for weapons only."

The public's image of a pat-down search by police is something that isn't all that bad, largely because a pat-down is legally justified based on a suspect's behavior and conduct according to the legal definition used by police agencies nationwide.

But the definition used by police, which dates back to that 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that permitted police to "stop and frisk," has now been changed by the Transportation Security Administration.

TSA agents, who are paid about half what real law enforcement officer is paid, are using what they call a "pat-down" procedure that allows airport security officials to use the front of their hands to search passengers' entire bodies.

That's not a "pat-down." It's a full search of a person's body. In police work, that's called a "custody search" that includes everything short of a cavity search.

The TSA needs to be honest about what they're doing.

Calling a "full body search" a "pat down" does not make it a "pat down."

Tom

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 220 of 220   Newer› Newest»