Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - I wonder how the TSA will respond to this coming future scenario?

http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html

What's to wonder? They'll blame the passenger for anything untoward that ensues.

What's to wonder? They'll blame the passenger for anything untoward that ensues.

He says the glasses are attached to his skull - and they retained images.

Bad luck for an agency that doesn't like unedited, uncontrolled (by itself) camera footage....

"...camera footage of the incident is unavailable, and there are certain inconsistencies between what the passenger's video claims occurred and what our investigation found. The TSOs involved acted professionally and appropriately for the situation."

How are eyeglasses treated nowadays?

I would suspect Google Glass will be treated just like any other glasses or wearable devices -- the user has to remove it and put it through the xray with the rest of their belongings, unless it's a medical device, which wouldn't be removed.

Isn't that how other devices that are worn (watches, etc) are treated nowadays?

How are eyeglasses treated nowadays?

I would suspect Google Glass will be treated just like any other glasses or wearable devices -- the user has to remove it and put it through the xray with the rest of their belongings, unless it's a medical device, which wouldn't be removed.

Isn't that how other devices that are worn (watches, etc) are treated nowadays?

Well, an ostomy bag has been ruptured, a pax was forced to remove a required back brace, folks have been asked/forced to disconnect insulin pumps....

And I think TSA's going to have a problem with any recording device that they can't 'turn off' or confiscate...

Isn't that how other devices that are worn (watches, etc) are treated nowadays?

We've been told repeatedly by various TSA personnel that the TSA will not require the removal of jewelry in order to pass through a checkpoint.

Obviously, that's a matter of semantics, considering how many times we've heard "the alarm must be resolved or you will not fly today..."

Well, an ostomy bag has been ruptured, a pax was forced to remove a required back brace, folks have been asked/forced to disconnect insulin pumps....

As true as that all is, they're combinations of a) poor training on the part of the TSOs involved, and b) the pax not saying "no."

I have a friend who has a pacemaker. TSOs will often try to make him go through the WTMD, often by threatening him with not flying. He simply says "You make me go through there, I will die. It's that simple. Now you want to do this the right way?"

If I had a specialized medical device and knew that the rules say I don't have to remove it, I'd insist.

(And no, I'm not in any way excusing TSAs for lack of training. It's pathetic how badly trained many of them are. On the other hand, cops are often poorly trained, too, and many take try to step on rights that we have. What's more likely to happen: an individual knows which of their rights to stand up for, or law enforcement gets disbanded entirely?)

And I think TSA's going to have a problem with any recording device that they can't 'turn off' or confiscate...

Entirely speculation, at this point. Given that the individual in the story is the first individual I've heard of with a surgically attached Borg implant, I don't see this as being a situation we'll encounter often. Google Glass can be removed.

poor training on the part of the TSOs involved

Redundant. Unless, of course, you can point to any extant examples of "good training" provided to TSA clerks.

So far, we've seen TSA clerks rupture ostomy bags, cajole/harass diabetics into going through WBI wearing insulin pumps, force elderly travelers to remove incontinence undergarments, et cetera, ad absurdum, all while stealing various items from their baggage (or carefully looking away while their cow-orkers do the stealing.)

I see the whole notion of "augmented reality" or "medical assistive devices" becoming a serious problem given the nature of the typical TSA interaction with a passenger who presents other than "expected" at the checkpoint.

Especially given how many TSA clerks like to call real medical doctors "stupid."

How are eyeglasses treated nowadays?

I would suspect Google Glass will be treated just like any other glasses or wearable devices -- the user has to remove it and put it through the xray with the rest of their belongings, unless it's a medical device, which wouldn't be removed.

Isn't that how other devices that are worn (watches, etc) are treated nowadays?

Aren't glasses a medical device and should never have to be removed?

Aren't glasses a medical device and should never have to be removed?

Perhaps - doesn't stop them from insisting I take them off when they take a retinal scan. Which happens more often these days

Perhaps - doesn't stop them from insisting I take them off when they take a retinal scan. Which happens more often these days

The TSA does retinal scans? Where does that happen?

I have had CBP ask me to remove my glasses for the entry-photo. But never the TSA.

I can only imagine what would happen if I had to send my glasses through the bag x-ray: unable to see hand-signs by TSA
(including pointing), unable to keep an eye on my property, unable to reply to "who's is this bag?" etc. Really would not work.

At least for CBP I am just standing there at the desk with a camera in my face.

DanishFlyer

The TSA does retinal scans? Where does that happen?

I have had CBP ask me to remove my glasses for the entry-photo. But never the TSA.

I can only imagine what would happen if I had to send my glasses through the bag x-ray: unable to see hand-signs by TSA
(including pointing), unable to keep an eye on my property, unable to reply to "who's is this bag?" etc. Really would not work.

At least for CBP I am just standing there at the desk with a camera in my face.

DanishFlyer

Not TSA - various CBP around the world. Heathrow for one. YYZ for another if i remember correctly.

Not TSA - various CBP around the world. Heathrow for one. YYZ for another if i remember correctly.
My understanding for iris (not retina!) scans based on the NEXUS descriptions is that you should remove eyeglasses when taking the scan that will be recorded in the system, but that you usually do not have to remove them for a successful recognition scan.

Redundant. Unless, of course, you can point to any extant examples of "good training" provided to TSA clerks.


I can, but I suspect it would fall on deaf ears.

Honestly, I'd have liked to hear a few TSOs talk about how they intend to handle this issue or if they have received guidance on it -- that would be pretty useful for me given what I do for a living. But it seems they've all been driven away from the constant "Who cares about rational discussion? Let's just bash the TSA."

I can, but I suspect it would fall on deaf ears.

This is the typical non-response of someone who really doesn't have any examples.

This is the typical non-response of someone who really doesn't have any examples.

Or, of someone who knows better than to wrestle with a pig in mud.

(Way to keep it on a high level!) ^


I can only imagine what would happen if I had to send my glasses through the bag x-ray: unable to see hand-signs by TSA (including pointing), unable to keep an eye on my property, unable to reply to "who's is this bag?" etc. Really would not work.

That's interesting -- are you saying that TSA (not CBP, as you've already reported) has never made you remove your eyeglasses? Being a medical device, they shouldn't *have* to be removed, but I was expecting to hear people say that TSA required their removal anyway.

If you're saying TSA doesn't require you to remove eyeglasses to pass through WTMD or WBI, that seems to corroborate the thinking that medical electronic glasses wouldn't need to be removed, but non-medical electronic glasses (Google Glass, at least for now) would need to be removed.

That's interesting -- are you saying that TSA (not CBP, as you've already reported) has never made you remove your eyeglasses? Being a medical device, they shouldn't *have* to be removed, but I was expecting to hear people say that TSA required their removal anyway.

If you're saying TSA doesn't require you to remove eyeglasses to pass through WTMD or WBI, that seems to corroborate the thinking that medical electronic glasses wouldn't need to be removed, but non-medical electronic glasses (Google Glass, at least for now) would need to be removed.

TSA or any other security check at airports have never asked me to remove my glasses. I would remember that. But I have seen people with sunglasses on top of their head asked to remove them and send through the x-ray.

Now, I never went through a scanner (always opt out, and narrowly missed it at MAN last month, phew), so I can't speak for those.

DanishFlyer

Being a medical device, they shouldn't *have* to be removed, but I was expecting to hear people say that TSA required their removal anyway.

Tell us again how well-trained these TSA thugs are, and how politely and professionally they deal with people with medical conditions and devices.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/TSA-Agents-Allegedly-Strip-Search-Woman-Fiddle-With-Feeding-Tube-162985046.html

Tell us again how well-trained these TSA thugs are, and how politely and professionally they deal with people with medical conditions and devices.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/TSA-Agents-Allegedly-Strip-Search-Woman-Fiddle-With-Feeding-Tube-162985046.html

From the article (Mrs. Deaton's husband speaking):
""It outrages me to think that they can get away with that because they have a single female with a medical condition that is not going to stand up to authority figures and TSA, and say, 'Guys, this is really across the line,'" he said."

If she had stood up to them, they would have immediately demanded to make copies of her boarding pass and ID - for their 'reports'. Why? Why does her name end up on a government database when the TSOs are at fault? Why is her future travel potentially at risk because of these TSOs? Why are they not sanctioned in any way? She would have been written up as a hostile, uncooperative pax interfering with the screening process.

Had she requested supervisors and LEOs, they would almost certainly have sided with the TSOs - and perhaps the LEOs would have also made a 'report' of the incident, with Mrs. Deaton as the villain.

'Cause that's the way business is done at TSA.

Once again, this was not a single rogue agent - this was at least two agents, acting in concert, and not doing what even their spokesperson suggests might be SOP - touching the pax medical device, instead of having the pax touch the device and swabbing her hands.

Note: she has made this trip before without these problems on either end. But this time she ran into TSA's much-touted 'unpredictability'.

:td::td::td:

Where's Ron to tell us how TSA procedures are designed to be ambiguous?

Tell us again how well-trained these TSA thugs are, and how politely and professionally they deal with people with medical conditions and devices.


Excuse me, don't misquote me. I said nothing of the sort. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

In fact, in the very post of mine you quoted, I *specifically* said I had expected to hear that TSA required the removal of certain medical devices (eyeglasses) despite the fact that medical devices are not to be removed. Ugh.

Redundant. Unless, of course, you can point to any extant examples of "good training" provided to TSA clerks.

I can, but I suspect it would fall on deaf ears.

You'd stated you had examples of "good training," and since the context of this thread was "implanted devices," I'm still looking to you to provide such.

You'd stated you had examples of "good training," and since the context of this thread was "implanted devices," I'm still looking to you to provide such.

You can keep looking, but I'm not interested. As I said, I know better than to wrestle with a pig in mud.

In either case, saying I have "examples" is in no way the same as saying I believe they are consistently well trained across the board.

In any case, back to the topic.

In either case, saying I have "examples" is in no way the same as saying I believe they are consistently well trained across the board.

Let's see you provide just one example of how any TSA employee has been "well-trained" in such a fashion as to perform a task that is actually necessary and beneficial to the traveler.

Just one.

I'm willing to bet a beer you can't.