Practical Travel Safety Issues - Merged threads: Under 12s escape new searches - discussion

Seriously, as this blogger (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/69660.html) and others have noticed, why is under 12-years-old (http://www.prisonplanet.com/big-sis-in-retreat-no-pat-downs-for-children-under-12.html) suddenly the magic number?

If security is still the main and overriding issue, won't the terrorists now utilize 11-year-olds?

Do the TSA experts consider that a 13-year-old girl or boy are less sensitive about having their bodies checked out than 11-year-olds?

Could the TSA experts explain why this isn't an outstanding example of security theater in action?

In summary, I ask rhetorically, can anybody justify how this panicky reaction makes any sense whatsoever, in light of what remains in force?

TSA Magic Math where 2 + 2 = 5!

All liquids under 3oz or 100ml or 3.4oz are all inert.
All liquids over 3oz or 100ml or 3.4oz are highly toxic and unstable
All liquids over 3oz or 100ml or 3.4oz purchased airside for 3x street price are all inert
All liquids under 3oz or 100ml or 3.4oz outside a 1 qt bag are all explosive
All liquids under 3oz or 100ml or 3.4oz inside a 1 qt bag are all inert
Toner cartridges with a capacity over 16oz are all explosive
Toner cartridges with a capacity under 16oz are all inert
All other receptacles with a capacity over 16oz are all inert (unless filled with explosive dihydrogen monoxide)

Can't answer many of your questions. Yet I'm hearing that 12- will still get a "standard patdown", just not the "enhanced patdown". 13+ gets the full treatment.

Seriously, as this blogger (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/69660.html) and others have noticed, why is under 12-years-old (http://www.prisonplanet.com/big-sis-in-retreat-no-pat-downs-for-children-under-12.html) suddenly the magic number?

If security is still the main and overriding issue, won't the terrorists now utilize 11-year-olds?

Do the TSA experts consider that a 13-year-old girl or boy are less sensitive about having their bodies checked out than 11-year-olds?

Could the TSA experts explain why this isn't an outstanding example of security theater in action?

In summary, I ask rhetorically, can anybody justify how this panicky reaction makes any sense whatsoever, in light of what remains in force?

The gropers don't want to grope pre-teens?

Obviously because that's the age amusement parks start charging for full adult admission. Someone probably figured that all teenagers (13+) should also have to "pay" full adult "fare" to get through security checkpoints.

Can't answer many of your questions. Yet I'm hearing that 12- will still get a "standard patdown", just not the "enhanced patdown". 13+ gets the full treatment.

Which goes smack in the face of what our esteemed TSA posters have stated here, multiple emphatic times - "there are only two types of patdown". This implies that there is a third:

Standard - for those 12 & under (public, unless private room requested)
Enhanced - for opt-outs or initial alarm resolution (public, unless private room requested)
Resolution - for second alarm resolution (private room required, traveler has no choice, detention by TSA until resolved)

Probably because a "You must be this tall to be groped" height limit would be discriminatory towards short adults.

Which goes smack in the face of what our esteemed TSA posters have stated here, multiple emphatic times - "there are only two types of patdown". This implies that there is a third:

Standard - for those 12 & under (public, unless private room requested)
Enhanced - for opt-outs or initial alarm resolution (public, unless private room requested)
Resolution - for second alarm resolution (private room required, traveler has no choice, detention by TSA until resolved)

To be fair, I think the under 12 thing is new. The first I think anyone heard of it was yesterday when Pistole was on his media blitz. He did say that it is "policy" though. When the "policy" was enacted, otoh... For all we know, it could have been made up on Sunday, announced on national TV on Monday, and told to the screeners on Friday. :p

Child molestation is a crime involving a range of indecent or sexual activities between an adult and a child, usually under the age of 13 or 14.

Small victory: on interview with Melissa Block just now (11/16, about 4:25 pm ET) on NPR, Pistole said that children under 12 would not be subject to the enhanced pat downs.

But teen and tweens above age 12 will definitely be subject to them.

:(

It's nowhere near enough! Do you want some pervert ogling or molesting your 13+ year old daughter?

Keep fighting to stop this madness.

How will they know as you don't need an ID to fly if you are under 18 or whatever age it is.

How old are you son?

Twelve.

You're sprouting quite a beard growth there for a twelve year old.

Developed early.

So now the perverts will only be able to feel up the kids who HAVE started puberty. That's supposed to be a solution?

I'm glad they won't be doing it to kids under 12, but it needs to stop completely.

So now a terrorist just has to strap the underwear bomb to a kid? That makes sense.

Welcome to FT. ^

I started a similar thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1148801-why-age-12-now-magic-number-escape-new-searches.html) here just a bit earlier but didn't include the NPR interview. :)

So now the 'terrorists' have a viable solution... just give the exploding underwear package to little Tommy who's only 10 years old to carry through. :rolleyes:

And they call this security?

I'm sorry, but the whole lunacy around crotch grabs has to stop, and stop now. Nobody should get felt up by TSA just because they have chosen to fly somewhere... period. The only people who should suffer through this type of indignity are those who have done something to be suspected of committing a crime.

I'm thinking it relates to assumptions about a child's development of judgment and ability to understand what's going on, not whether or not it will bother him/her. Probably along the lines of how most courts will to a large extent allow a 12 or 13 year old child choose which parent he/she will live with in divorce proceedings.

That's really all it could be, right? Afterall, anybody who remembers being one or raising one knows that adolescents are exponentially more sensitive about their bodies and their privacy than probably all other groups of people combined.:rolleyes:

@cordelli makes a great point, though, which also applies to passing into the secure area (i.e., you don't need ID and therefore can't prove that you're not yet 18 years old... or 12... or whatever). One of my sons at 15 could easily pass for 18 or 19 years old (if not older) due to being over six feet tall, and having a very heavy, black beard and mustache (heavier than one of his then-adult brothers, who still can't grow a beard even now that he's in his 30s). We actually used to carry his passport just in case "somebody" refused to accept our word for it.

I also recall a close friend in my sixth grade class who, at age 11, was so well developed, parents often mistook her for one of the teachers. Not exaggerating. Witnessed it myself more than once.

More absurdity.


~mrs~

So we know where all the mad bombers who can't find a suitable body cavity or cargo shipment will smuggle their bombs now, right? There's no need to detonate a bomb in the line of people backed up at a TSA airport barricade, or at a sporting event, concert, park, or anywhere else people congregate if you can just slip it in an 11-year-old's underpants and put him on a plane, right? Oh, nooooooooooo!

"TSA Head Defends 'Enhanced Pat-Downs' And Safety Of Scanners", by Alison MacAdam, November 16, 2010, National Public Radio's All Things Considered:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/11/16/131364772/tsa-head-defends-enhanced-pat-downs-and-safety-of-scanners

Pistole addresses an issue that has enraged some parents: pat-downs of kids. It sounds like the TSA recognizes there is some room for improvement here.

Pistole tells ATC's Melissa Block:

We did not do frankly a very good job of communicating initially that there would be an exemption, if you will, from the thorough pat-down for children 12 and under. That was under review when the policy came out, and so we have clarified that. It does not apply to children 12 and under.

So, 13 and up — there's no exemption.

I'm thinking it relates to assumptions...

I'm thinking it relates to assumptions by the politicians as to what they can get away with and where they have to beat a hasty retreat. @:-) It makes bad visuals to see scared three-year-olds getting searched, with all of the overtones about pedophilia and the warnings to kids about being touched inappropriately. :td:

As for me I think this hasty decision absolutely blows the entire rationale for the security theater right out of the water (pardon the explosive figure of speech). :mad:

I'm surprised everybody isn't jumping on the glaring contradiction of this latest move, but there are a lot of stupid moves to keep track of.

Right... I forgot terrorists had standards and would never use a child to carry explosives.

So, do we bring birth certificates to the airport to prove the child's age?

Interesting. eyecue posted elsewhere that procedures were in place for clearing children, including infants. When I asked what would happen with a parent travelling with an infant in arms (parent can't hold child in NoS and child can't stand in NoS unassisted), he specifically said TSAs procedures did not allow a TSO to hold the child but that there was a way to handle it (no pun intended).

Pistole tells ATC's Melissa Block:

We did not do frankly a very good job of communicating initially that there would be an exemption, if you will, from the thorough pat-down for children 12 and under. That was under review when the policy came out, and so we have clarified that. It does not apply to children 12 and under.


A tactful way of saying that the itself policy is great but the citizens were just too stupid to understand it so we have to explain it again to them verrry slllowwly. :rolleyes:

Apparently there's been a lot of that going around this November. :p

I'm sorry, but the whole lunacy around crotch grabs has to stop, and stop now. Nobody should get felt up by TSA just because they have chosen to fly somewhere... period. The only people who should suffer through this type of indignity are those who have done something to be suspected of committing a crime.

How about subjecting DHS/TSA employees to this type of indignity? If so, the irony would be DHS/TSA employees being considered competent adults granting informed consent to allow all passengers to grope them in the way DHS/TSA employees have felt up passengers under cover of conducting an "administrative search".

Pistole goes from being dumb to dumber, but at least it's becoming increasingly obvious that Pistole is on the defensive and attempting to mislead the public.

One other group deserves to be subjected to this type of indignity: DHS/TSA employees, whom -- as a condition of their job -- should be adults consenting to allow all passengers to grope them in the way DHS/TSA employees have felt up passengers.

Thanks for sharing your fantasy, not that there's anything wrong with that. ^ It's certainly not one of mine, but enjoy! :p

I'm glad they won't be doing it to kids under 12 . . .

Really? And how many TSOs do you think were actually listening to NPR when this announcement was made? Given that enhanced patdowns of children under 12 have already begun, I think it will be a long time before we see the last of them. It's difficult enough convincing a TSO to stick to the rules published on the TSA website . . . I'd love to hear someone make the argument that a TSO can't pat down a kid "because that's what I heard on NPR."

But hey, maybe I'm being unduly cynical and this new rule will be implemented promptly and consistently.

And I'll win the lottery tomorrow.

Besides, as I asked rhetorically here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1148801-why-age-12-now-magic-number-escape-new-searches.html), why is age 12 the magic number?

Napolitano and Pistole have reacted in near-panic (especially considering what they're running) to the political pressure. It doesn't make any sense at all otherwise. :rolleyes:

I would like to see "Pissy" stand on TV and publicly get an "enhanced pat down" with the aggressive attention that others have been describing. On second thoughts.....:D

Following some subtle hints in one of the threads, I've merged in a couple of closely related threads on the under 12 exemption

Jenbel
Temporary helping out...

Obviously because that's the age amusement parks start charging for full adult admission. Someone probably figured that all teenagers (13+) should also have to "pay" full adult "fare" to get through security checkpoints.Just a minor quibble: Children's admission media stops at 10 for all the Disney parks, and 9 for Universal Studios.

I'm surprised everybody isn't jumping on the glaring contradiction of this latest move, but there are a lot of stupid moves to keep track of.

Mr. Pistole said that this was always the policy, not a "latest move".

His TSA just didn't do a good job of communicating it :rolleyes: :bateyes: :bs:

This is all unbelievable. The TSA announcing policy on some TV or radio show? Where can I read the "official" policy of the pornoscope and genital grope?
Can you imagine the IRS making policy and announcing it on some obscure radio show?

It makes the TSA look like a fly by night organization that can't think through a single procedure. These morons are paid to do a job for the American people and if they can't do that with some competency then let's get rid of them and bring in someone that is at least professional and can make a policy and adhere to it.

What we have now is something from a comedy. We must be the laughing stock of the rest of the world that seems to get security right.

So now a terrorist just has to strap the underwear bomb to a kid? That makes sense.

Yes. There have been so many suicide bombers using their kids. :rolleyes:

isn't the TSA essentially telling terrorists to hide stuff in children under 12?(who are not subjected to pat-downs?)

isn't the TSA essentially telling terrorists to hide stuff in children under 12?(who are not subjected to pat-downs?)

Yes, but since it hasn't happened yet, it's not the TSA's problem. Remember, they only fight yesterday's wars.

The lack of consistency in their logic is worse than the new procedures in place. And I honestly don't understand how the "everything to keep us safe" crowd doesn't see that.

I just went down to the airport to talk with the local TSA staff. I was looking for some document, memo, whatever that would explicitly state what the rules were for under 12 kids and searches.

He said there was nothing he could give me or show me, that in fact was secret information that could not be directly shared.

So there is no way to know how the screeners will behave at the four different airports my family will be passing through.

The only thing I have as a parent to go by is the information I heard on the radio, second hand.

...And if a screener touches my 9 y.o. daughters vagina, i should fill out a form and submit it online.

I just went down to the airport to talk with the local TSA staff. I was looking for some document, memo, whatever that would explicitly state what the rules were for under 12 kids and searches.

He said there was nothing he could give me or show me, that in fact was secret information that could not be directly shared.

So there is no way to know how the screeners will behave at the four different airports my family will be passing through.

The only thing I have as a parent to go by is the information I heard on the radio, second hand.

...And if a screener touches my 9 y.o. daughters vagina, i should fill out a form and submit it online.

Look, TSA couldn't even get its people on the same page with the shoes on the belt/shoes in the bin thing. Nor can TSA teach its employees what ID's TSA says are acceptable.

How much luck do you think TSA will have with a policy that discriminates based on age alone getting rolled out to all facilities?

I just went down to the airport to talk with the local TSA staff. I was looking for some document, memo, whatever that would explicitly state what the rules were for under 12 kids and searches.

He said there was nothing he could give me or show me, that in fact was secret information that could not be directly shared.

So there is no way to know how the screeners will behave at the four different airports my family will be passing through.

The only thing I have as a parent to go by is the information I heard on the radio, second hand.

...And if a screener touches my 9 y.o. daughters vagina, i should fill out a form and submit it online.
First off, allow me to say: Welcome to FT!

You have just been hit with the infamous SSI claim (Security Sensitive Information). TSA is improperly classifying material behind a classification shield that does not exist. They claim that all of their policies are SSI, and that releasing any information publicly would allow the boogeymen to get us. The rank and file TSA screeners are apparently well-trained in using it as a defensive technique, both to not respond to passenger concerns and to shield inappropriate actions by themselves and/or their brethren at the checkpoint.

Per sworn testimony in front of Senate committees over the past two days, the TSA administrator Pistole has stated that passengers under the age of 13 will not receive the new frisk (the one that involves direct contact with clothed genitalia). However, they are still subject to being frisked, with the Morton's Fork that TSA provides (either sending them through the WBI and exposing an image of their body to an unknown person in a secluded room or allowing them to receive a frisk from a TSA screener).

Anecdotal evidence here, and in the media, shows that implementation of this "newly" issued policy will be a crapshoot. I wish you well in your travels. If you are lucky, and flying through an airport that does not have WBI or allows you to select a lane without WBI machines, the chances of any frisk happening appear to be reduced. If you get stuck in a lane with WBI, you will then be forced to choose between the outcomes I mentioned in the preceding paragraph).

For reference, this post (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1143027-radiation-has-nothing-do.html#post15055305) contains images of what the two types of WBI apparatus look like.

isn't the TSA essentially telling terrorists to hide stuff in children under 12?(who are not subjected to pat-downs?)

One of our TSO posters noted in an earlier thread (when the news of 'coming changes' first started) that there were procedures in place for dealing with infants/children.

I think the under-12s have just been spared temporarily to take some of the heat off until this all blows over. I think Pistole decided the under-12 issue might resonate with the conservative family travellers, the ones who are particularly likely to be travelling over the holidays. I suspect that sometime early next year, after the holidays are over, there will be some 'incident' that will conveniently serve to remind us that those dastardly terrorists are not above using children and their belongings and that will be the end of the exemption for under-12s.

So, do we bring birth certificates to the airport to prove the child's age?

My point exactly! Who's to say you don't have a 'condition'?
They're not doctors and certainly not "federal agents" (in terms of a charge of 'false statements to a federal agent' - I'd hope).

6'3", full beard, voice mistaken for his father's at 18...

"Yes I'm 12 years old. Is there a problem with that?"
(Imagine the voice of Bubba Smith from "Police Academy" or the inmate from "Raising Airzona")

About the only thing you'd want to confirm is that you don't use an ID that expressly states your birthdate (something other than a DL or passport) they can reference.

And once an LEO is called over, you can politely state to them in private that you wish to discontinue the screening process.

Legal Eagles - what's the chances of getting away with this one?!

:D :p

So what should the process for us be if they decide to patdown a "kid" - ask for a LEO to be present to watch and make sure no molestation takes place? I couldn't care less about patdowns for me but, to be perfectly b lunt, I think that I would kick the living daylights out of a TSA person who, imo, touched my daughter inappropriately under the all-encompassing get-out-of-jail-free-card of "security". At the least I should be allowed to video it as evidence if needs be but is the ideal to have an LEO present?