Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Mayo Clinic patient humiliated at Dallas Love Field

More trouble for those who are ill:
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2695022.shtml?cat=1
"...Deaton says a TSA officer at Dallas' Love Field threw out her soft foods in her carry-on bag, did not give her secondary screening in a "private room" and required, and "embarrassed her," in front of other passengers..."

The video mentions that instead of a private room they put her behind a screen, separated her from her luggage and threw out her pudding. When she complained to a supervisor, he took the pudding out of the garbage, disappeared with it to test it, and then put it back in her carryon. They then forced her to check her carry on. The reporter seems unaware that medically necessary food is exempt from the freedom baggie restrictions.

This article is even worse (and not just for the video still image).

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

They had physically stripped her and saw the tube coming out of her stomach, and they decided that they needed to check it for explosives, so they had to physically handle the tube," John Deaton said.

Besides handling the tube, agents swabbed it for bomb-making material, Melinda Deaton said. Her husband said it put his wife at risk of infection.

"Any time you put a harsh substance on it, you run the risk of contamination," he said. "They put stuff on there that we don't know what it is and identify. She has a weak immune system as part of her medical condition, and it can be very fatal to her.

Of course the TSA had to weigh in:

TSA spokesman Luis Casanova would not comment on what chemicals were on the swabs but did say that touching the device is not supposed to happen.

Lots of things are "not supposed to happen" at the checkpoint, but they keep happening. How long before the TSA actually kills someone?

“As I mentioned before, we respect the right to privacy of the passenger in question and will reach out directly to her," Casanova said. "Once we have further information, I will provide a statement as necessary."I'll save you the trouble Luis:
"We have reviewed the video and our officers followed correct procedure".

This article is even worse (and not just for the video still image).

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



Of course the TSA had to weigh in:

TSA spokesman Luis Casanova would not comment on what chemicals were on the swabs but did say that touching the device is not supposed to happen.


Lots of things are "not supposed to happen" at the checkpoint, but they keep happening. How long before the TSA actually kills someone?


They keep fiddling with gastric tubes, not long.
(Please, gawd, let them at least have changed their gloves.)


~~ Irish

Right then, right there, this is the kind of thing that needs to be escalated on the spot. Call for the airport paramedics, get transported to an emergency room and have the situation evaluated, managed and documented by a doctor.

Right then, right there, this is the kind of thing that needs to be escalated on the spot. Call for the airport paramedics, get transported to an emergency room and have the situation evaluated, managed and documented by a doctor.

Except in the end it greatly inconveniences the pax and TSA doesn't care at all.

Note: Mrs. Deaton has flown back-and-forth to Mayo before without these problems. This was not a 'rogue' agent - this was at least two agents acting in concert. I think they were acting like children - 'ooh, gross, I want to see, I want to touch'. It's too hard to believe not one, but two agents both forgot or misunderstood their training.

TSA's response is also sickening. A 'private' conversation with the Deatons out of 'respect for their privacy' - it's a bit late. Why didn't the agents show Mrs. Deaton 'respect' at the checkpoint? There should be stiff sanctions for the agents (I think this justifies termination, myself) and they should be forced to publicly apologize to Mrs. Deaton.

Someone's going to say it: "What's it going to take before these people get their act together? Someone dying?"

Think again. If and when a pax is seriously injured or dies because of something a TSO does or doesn't do, nothing will change. TSA will indicate any way in which the pax was guilty or complicit in his/her injury/death and offer to talk to the family in private. TSOs will continue without consequences for their behavior - just as they've done for the last decade.

I'll save you the trouble Luis:
"We have reviewed the video and our officers followed correct procedure".

Correction:

"Video was not available for review during our investigation. Upon speaking with the TSOs involved, we've noted inconsistencies between the passenger's claims and our findings. We believe our officers acted professionally and, out of an abundance of caution, followed correct procedure."

Does anyone else remember that Iraqi war minister who stood there insisting that absolutely nothing was wrong as the regime around him was being wiped out piece by piece?

Does anyone else remember that Iraqi war minister who stood there insisting that absolutely nothing was wrong as the regime around him was being wiped out piece by piece?

Why do you think people refer to the TSA's primary blogger as "Blogdad Bob?"

Right then, right there, this is the kind of thing that needs to be escalated on the spot. Call for the airport paramedics, get transported to an emergency room and have the situation evaluated, managed and documented by a doctor.

Agreed. Let the 'system' escalate this into the media as far as it can go.

When a doctor is asked, "what are the risks of contamination?" they WILL respond with the worst case scenario, MRSA infections, and the CDC and WHO will inevitably get drawn into the fray. These organizations don't exactly downplay these types of risks. Pitting one large organization against another large organization with the public as a pawn in the middle, is a great way to get attention.

Agreed. Let the 'system' escalate this into the media as far as it can go.

When a doctor is asked, "what are the risks of contamination?" they WILL respond with the worst case scenario, MRSA infections, and the CDC and WHO will inevitably get drawn into the fray. These organizations don't exactly downplay these types of risks. Pitting one large organization against another large organization with the public as a pawn in the middle, is a great way to get attention.

But in the end, TSA keeps on doing what they're doing with impunity.

I don't notice 're-training' being used as frequently these days...

Right then, right there, this is the kind of thing that needs to be escalated on the spot. Call for the airport paramedics, get transported to an emergency room and have the situation evaluated, managed and documented by a doctor.

But in the end, TSA keeps on doing what they're doing with impunity.

I don't notice 're-training' being used as frequently these days...

The "impunity" part isn't a given. If I have an open wound, I would not let anyone except a trained medical person, or someone I trust, touch it, examine it, or even expose it to the air.

The TSA don't fall into these categories. I would make it very clear that if they attempted to touch it? They would lose an eye. Not a threat - a promise.

I'm talking about significant risk of infection here - so it's just not going to happen. If I'm told I can't fly unless they inspect it? Then I don't fly. My choice. One i'm willing to make no matter the reason for my need to travel. But if they attempt to examine it without my permission - all hell breaks lose. I have a personal responsibility for my own well being, the TSA don't get to violate that under any circumstances.

We all put up with a lot of nonsense, silliness, ignorance, thuggery and plain stupidity from this organization, but there are lines we cannot, must not, allow them to cross. This is one of them. We only have ourselves to blame when we give them permission to violate our person.

Why do you think people refer to the TSA's primary blogger as "Blogdad Bob?"

I'd assumed it was because he represented an agency that acts much like the Saddam Hussein often did--without justification or explanation.

Pitting one large organization against another large organization with the public as a pawn in the middle, is a great way to get attention.

Who wants to bet Sasha Whatsherface sends out a note "strongly cautioning" the media not to cover this story?

I'd assumed it was because he represented an agency that acts much like the Saddam Hussein often did--without justification or explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

Al-Sahhaf is known for his daily press briefings in Baghdad during the 2003 Iraq War. His colorful appearances caused him to be nicknamed Baghdad Bob (in the style of previous propagandists with geographical aliases - some of them alliterative, such as "Hanoi Hannah" and "Seoul City Sue") by commentators in the United States and Comical Ali (an allusion to Chemical Ali, the nickname of former Iraqi Defence Minister Ali Hassan al-Majid) by commentators in the United Kingdom; commentators in Italy similarly nicknamed him Alì il Comico.

...

On April 7, 2003, two days before Baghdad fell to US forces, al-Sahhaf claimed that there were no American troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates. He made this statement while standing on the east bank of the Dijli (Tigris) River in the center of Baghdad. His back was to the river and reporters could see two American Army M1 Abrams tanks behind him on a road on the far side of the river. His last public appearance as Information Minister was on April 8, 2003, when he said that the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender."

Except in the end it greatly inconveniences the pax and TSA doesn't care at all.

Might not be quite as inconvenient as developing MRSA or some other illness at the hands of vectors for disease.

I don't notice 're-training' being used as frequently these days...Perhaps they have realized it isn't a 'training' issue, but one of enforcement.

Some people are untrainable and some simply ignore whatever instruction they were given. It's my impression a lot of both kinds work for the TSA.

In this particular instance all the perpetrators, up to and including the manager, should be fired. Period. Won't happen.

Truthfully, I think it's the passenger's own fault. Don't they have any hospitals in Dallas? If she didn't want to deal with the repercussions of flying while sick, she should have driven to Rochester.

Mike

Truthfully, I think it's the passenger's own fault. Don't they have any hospitals in Dallas? If she didn't want to deal with the repercussions of flying while sick, she should have driven to Rochester.

Mike

I hope you have your Nomex underwear on.






(Your sarcasm may be a bit too subtle for some of the folks here.)

Truthfully, I think it's the passenger's own fault. Don't they have any hospitals in Dallas? If she didn't want to deal with the repercussions of flying while sick, she should have driven to Rochester.

Mike

There are probably plenty of people who will make this same point -- minus the finely-crafted tone. :D

Truthfully, I think it's the passenger's own fault. Don't they have any hospitals in Dallas? If she didn't want to deal with the repercussions of flying while sick, she should have driven to Rochester.

Mike

They have hospitals where I live - but when my husband had a possible need for a serious heart valve operation - we flew to Minnesota and went to Mayo to see the person who was at the time perhaps the top surgeon in the US in this specialty. And if either of us got an exotic cancer - we might wind up at MD Anderson in Houston (or elsewhere).

I can understand why certain very sick people shouldn't fly (especially if they're contagious) - but people who can fly should be allowed to do so with dignity. Maybe one day you or a family member or a friend will get colon cancer and wind up with a colostomy bag. Would you want the TSA people fiddling around with that? Robyn

Truthfully, I think it's the passenger's own fault. Don't they have any hospitals in Dallas? If she didn't want to deal with the repercussions of flying while sick, she should have driven to Rochester.

Something smells fishy here...you sure you're not just trolling to see who bites?

Truthfully, I think it's the passenger's own fault. Don't they have any hospitals in Dallas? If she didn't want to deal with the repercussions of flying while sick, she should have driven to Rochester.

Mike

Obviously a VIPR team would have stopped her if she drove. :D

What gets me about stories like this, is that there isn't one screener who has the common sense to say "Wait...are you sure we should be doing this? This doesn't seem right." TSA SOP seems to exclude common sense and independent thought. It just seems like at least one screener would actually think and see this woman wasn't a threat. Then we would likey see the headline "TSA Worker Fired for Using Common Sense".

Of course this is the same agency that says my shoes are dangerous, but my child's shoes are not. Also, one 500 ml bottle of water is dangerous, but five 100 ml bottles of water in a baggie are not.

Perhaps they have realized it isn't a 'training' issue, but one of enforcement.

Some people are untrainable and some simply ignore whatever instruction they were given. It's my impression a lot of both kinds work for the TSA.

In this particular instance all the perpetrators, up to and including the manager, should be fired. Period. Won't happen.

Yes, they should be fired. But they won't be, and they will quite possible do something similar again.

I was being sarcastic about the training - having been a trainer myself, I couldn't agree more (although it's common sense, really) - some people really are untrainable (at least for some functions) and some are trainable but will do whatever they please on the job unless prevented from doing so by competent supervision (something in short supply at TSA).

Of course this is the same agency that says my shoes are dangerous, but my child's shoes are not. Also, one 500 ml bottle of water is dangerous, but five 100 ml bottles of water in a baggie are not.

Don't forget - it's only the shoes on your feet as you approach the checkpoint that are dangerous.

Shoes (even heavy hiking boots) that are safely enclosed in a carry-on bag are no threat whatsoever, even size 12's.

The "impunity" part isn't a given. If I have an open wound, I would not let anyone except a trained medical person, or someone I trust, touch it, examine it, or even expose it to the air.

The TSA don't fall into these categories. I would make it very clear that if they attempted to touch it? They would lose an eye. Not a threat - a promise.

I'm talking about significant risk of infection here - so it's just not going to happen. If I'm told I can't fly unless they inspect it? Then I don't fly. My choice. One i'm willing to make no matter the reason for my need to travel. But if they attempt to examine it without my permission - all hell breaks lose. I have a personal responsibility for my own well being, the TSA don't get to violate that under any circumstances.

We all put up with a lot of nonsense, silliness, ignorance, thuggery and plain stupidity from this organization, but there are lines we cannot, must not, allow them to cross. This is one of them. We only have ourselves to blame when we give them permission to violate our person.

It would be more interesting if they say that you are required to complete screening once you submit yourself to screening.

Yes, they should be fired. But they won't be, and they will quite possible do something similar again.

I was being sarcastic about the training - having been a trainer myself, I couldn't agree more (although it's common sense, really) - some people really are untrainable (at least for some functions) and some are trainable but will do whatever they please on the job unless prevented from doing so by competent supervision (something in short supply at TSA).

I, too, am a trainer. In my specialty we have long recognized a rule of thirds.

In any training session of randomly selected individuals:


1/3 will be there to learn and will pay attention and learn.

1/3 could not care less and will do nothing to make sure the training is effective.

1/3 would like to learn but are truly incapable of comprehending the material.


It sort of matches the mix of TSO's I meet.

It would be more interesting if they say that you are required to complete screening once you submit yourself to screening.

That's true. It does become interesting at that point. The answer will still be, "No, you are not touching the bandage. Levy a civil fine if you wish, but you're not touching the bandage." at that point, where things go next is entirely up to them.

This isn't really up for discussion - no TSA is going to examine a bandaged wound of mine, or any member of my family, if I am anywhere nearby.

I'm surprised is took DAL this long to have a major incident. Usually it's over at DFW where they have all the fun. They must be gearing up for the gropepoint of the future. http://www.lossofprivacy.com/index.php/2012/06/checkpoint-of-the-future-to-track-passengers-from-parking-lot-to-tarmac/

They have hospitals where I live - but when my husband had a possible need for a serious heart valve operation - we flew to Minnesota and went to Mayo to see the person who was at the time perhaps the top surgeon in the US in this specialty. And if either of us got an exotic cancer - we might wind up at MD Anderson in Houston (or elsewhere).

I can understand why certain very sick people shouldn't fly (especially if they're contagious) - but people who can fly should be allowed to do so with dignity. Maybe one day you or a family member or a friend will get colon cancer and wind up with a colostomy bag. Would you want the TSA people fiddling around with that? Robyn

Robyng, please see post #17. ;)

Something smells fishy here...you sure you're not just trolling to see who bites?

I was just trying to be a little koi about the whole thing.

Mike

Robyng, please see post #17. ;)



I was just trying to be a little koi about the whole thing.

Mike

And while many of us who have read your posts for years understand your "fishy" comments, with the recent influx of TSA sympathizers and sockpuppets in this forum, you might want to be more clear about what is real and what is sarcasm.

The TSA assures us that everything was done by the book -- just another passenger who lied:

The TSA issued a statement Thursday that said:

"TSA's mission is to safely, efficiently and respectfully screen nearly 2 million passengers each day at airports nationwide. We are sensitive to the concerns of passengers and we invite those individuals to provide feedback to TSA through a variety of channels. In this specific incident, an investigation was initiated and it was determined that the Transportation Security Officer (TSO) followed standard operating procedures conducted in the presence of a Supervisor TSO. We take the professionalism of our workforce and the integrity of our security procedures very seriously and will address any alleged issues directly with the passenger."

They must actually believe it themselves. :mad:

The TSA assures us that everything was done by the book -- just another passenger who lied:



They must actually believe it themselves. :mad:

Then the idiots assaulting Americans book is wrong, but most of us already knew that.

Here's hoping that the passenger, after having any "alleged issues" addressed by the TSA, continues to address those "alleged issues" with the media. God knows the media's willing to run with it right now; anti-TSA stories are the flavor of the week, and it's up to all of us to leave that taste in everyone's mouths--particularly the candidates in November's elections--until something is done.

That is to say, write your Congressperson and Senators. Again.

I'm not clear on what this statement from the TSA is supposed to mean? Are they accusing the passenger of lying about about what happened at the checkpoing.....or are they admitting it's SOP to dust an indwelling medical device with an unknown substance?

I'm not clear on what this statement from the TSA is supposed to mean? Are they accusing the passenger of lying about about what happened at the checkpoing.....or are they admitting it's SOP to dust an indwelling medical device with an unknown substance?

It is a confusing statement (likely meant to be). They stop short of calling the Deatons liars, but a spokesperson initially said that the tube shouldn't have been touched by the gropers and the final statement seems to indicate that that never happened.

BTW...I don't believe they 'dust' the device, they rub a swab over it and then test the swab for residue. IIRC, they are supposed to have the pax handle the device/area; then they test the pax's hands. Presumably TSA provides a pax with some way to disinfect on the spot if necessary. Supposedly the swabs are inert, nothing on them, they are just used to collect a testing sample.

Let me guess...there is no video of the incident. Did the investigation just involve asking the screeners if they did it? The spokesman originally said that the device wasn't supposed to be touched. Now is it ok to be touched? The food was supposedly thrown in the trash, retrieved, tested, and returned. Did that not happen now? The TSA response stinks, but it isn't unexpected from this joke of an agency.

I really hope these people continue with their complaint publicly and don't privately deal with the TSA.

It is a confusing statement (likely meant to be). They stop short of calling the Deatons liars, but a spokesperson initially said that the tube shouldn't have been touched by the gropers and the final statement seems to indicate that that never happened.

BTW...I don't believe they 'dust' the device, they rub a swab over it and then test the swab for residue. IIRC, they are supposed to have the pax handle the device/area; then they test the pax's hands. Presumably TSA provides a pax with some way to disinfect on the spot if necessary. Supposedly the swabs are inert, nothing on them, they are just used to collect a testing sample.

Whatever the collection or testing technique, unless it is sterile, there is a risk of introducing an infection. Are we to believe they carry sterile swabs at checkpoints and/or that the screeners have some understanding of sterile technique??

Whatever the collection or testing technique, unless it is sterile, there is a risk of introducing an infection. Are we to believe they carry sterile swabs at checkpoints and/or that the screeners have some understanding of sterile technique??

The 'pads' are supposed to be sterile (like the gloves). Like anything sterile, it starts out that way - if TSOs act properly, there should not be any contamination, but it does happen (other posts on false positives, etc, elsewhere in this forum).

In this instance, it's not clear that sterility was an issue - if she walks around with it under her blouse (see the photo), that's not exactly sterile, but it's also possible she keeps it covered with a sterile dressing and only removed the dressing for the photo.

Nevertheless, according to TSA (well, the latest 'out-of-date' rules on the website, not the invisible SSI SOP randomly unpredictable rules TSA actually operates by), the screener should never directly touch anything sterile like this - proper procedure is (again, allegedly) to ask the pax to handle the item or area and then to swab the pax hands. As I mentioned elsewhere, if sterility really is a concern, then presumably TSA will have some means available in the private room for the pax to sterilize his/her own hands before handling the medical device/body area.

There were two gropers, one of whom was a supervisor (who definitely should have known better. No video. I know whose account I believe.

I'm not clear on what this statement from the TSA is supposed to mean? Are they accusing the passenger of lying about about what happened at the checkpoing.....or are they admitting it's SOP to dust an indwelling medical device with an unknown substance?

It's an ambiguous statement. The TSA does not deny that the tube was touched, but they also insist that SOP was followed. It's designed to be an inconclusive conclusion. The real meat to that statement, for me, is the last line:

We take the professionalism of our workforce and the integrity of our security procedures very seriously and will address any alleged issues directly with the passenger.

Emphasis mine. If the TSA wasn't intending to cast the passenger as someone who was exaggerating and/or lying, why bring up the "alleged" issues at all? That sentence, combined with the part of the statement that says TSOs followed SOP, leads me to believe that the implied story in that statement is that the TSOs did not touch the tube, therefore SOP was followed and the passenger is lying.

In the interest of fairness, it needs to be pointed out that people do, in fact, lie about and/or exaggerate unpleasant encounters with the TSA. It also, however, should be pointed out that this is exactly the type of "non-accusatory accusation" that fits the TSA's MO. If the tube wasn't touched, say that the tube wasn't touched. If SOP says the tube is to be touched, say that SOP now says that the tube is to be touched. By saying that SOP was followed without clarifying what SOP is in that situation, and by addressing "alleged" issues, the TSA is trying a little too hard to convince people that the passenger is lying without telegraphing their true intentions.

My personal belief? There's a good deal of truth to what the passenger claimed, maybe the whole bit is true. One of two things is going on on the TSA's end. Either they're (once again) lying to cover their tails and avoid being eaten alive in the press, or their SOP really has changed, and some sort of resolution procedure now requires agents to handle feeding tubes. If the latter is the case, they definitely don't want that getting out, because the medical community would have a lot to say about medical implants being handled by untrained workers in a non-sterile environment.

Are we to believe they carry sterile swabs at checkpoints and/or that the screeners have some understanding of sterile technique??

You owe me a new keyboard. And a Coke.

From my observations of the handling of gloves from the box and the dispensing of the swabs for the ETD, it can be assumed that nothing at the checkpoint is immune from cross contamination and that nothing is sterile.

It is bad enough that I hit the Purell dispenser after the CP and rub down my hands, arms and the handles on my carry on luggage. I am taking medication that reduces my immune response and it literally frightens me that the procedures are so nonchalant as it relates to good hygiene and spread of contagions from passenger to passenger.

It is one of two reasons that I finally surrendered to the ATR system. Even new gloves from the box come from a box that someone has rummaged through with potentially contaminated hands. I can not risk cross contamination from the grope.

It's an ambiguous statement.Yeah, the usual and predicted TSA "**** off!" response to any criticism. So one of two things:
1) SOP was followed, which is disturbing if the passenger's account is accurate;
2) The TSA spokesman is lying, which isn't news at all.

From my observations of the handling of gloves from the box and the dispensing of the swabs for the ETD, it can be assumed that nothing at the checkpoint is immune from cross contamination and that nothing is sterile.

It is bad enough that I hit the Purell dispenser after the CP and rub down my hands, arms and the handles on my carry on luggage. I am taking medication that reduces my immune response and it literally frightens me that the procedures are so nonchalant as it relates to good hygiene and spread of contagions from passenger to passenger.

It is one of two reasons that I finally surrendered to the ATR system. Even new gloves from the box come from a box that someone has rummaged through with potentially contaminated hands. I can not risk cross contamination from the grope.

(bolding mine)

A couple years ago, I was reading a list of suggestions submitted by TSA employees. One of the suggestions was from a female TSO. She suggested that the gloves be color-coded by size. She explained that gloves were always getting pulled out of their boxes and that careless people would stuff the gloves back into the boxes without paying attention to the sizes. She said it was a real hassle to grab for fresh gloves and get ones that didn't fit because they'd been stuffed back into the wrong box.

I remember the suggestion clearly: very well presented, well thought out - she came across as a tidy, conscientious sort of person. Never a thought that a slight delay in processing a pax because a screener grabbed the wrong size gloves was nothing compared to the fact that gloves routinely fell out of the boxes and were stuffed back in.

One of the 'good' TSOs who used to post here said he never thought about carrying a couple spare pair in his back pocket until he read this forum and realized that from the pax point of view, that wasn't the best practice.

The 'pads' are supposed to be sterile (like the gloves). Like anything sterile, it starts out that way - if TSOs act properly, there should not be any contamination, but it does happen (other posts on false positives, etc, elsewhere in this forum).

In this instance, it's not clear that sterility was an issue - if she walks around with it under her blouse (see the photo), that's not exactly sterile, but it's also possible she keeps it covered with a sterile dressing and only removed the dressing for the photo.

Nevertheless, according to TSA (well, the latest 'out-of-date' rules on the website, not the invisible SSI SOP randomly unpredictable rules TSA actually operates by), the screener should never directly touch anything sterile like this - proper procedure is (again, allegedly) to ask the pax to handle the item or area and then to swab the pax hands. As I mentioned elsewhere, if sterility really is a concern, then presumably TSA will have some means available in the private room for the pax to sterilize his/her own hands before handling the medical device/body area.

There were two gropers, one of whom was a supervisor (who definitely should have known better. No video. I know whose account I believe.

Two things

1- I really don't know the nature of the device the woman is using and whether she, in fact, uses sterile technique for handling it. My guess is that she does not, because it appears to communicate to her gastrointestinal system. Nonetheless, there is a wound involved...and it is one thing to use clean technique (which, by the way, isn't sterile technique) on that wound at home, and quite another to use any non-sterile technique in other environments. Would you want someone from TSA putting their gloves onto the dressing pad of a band-aid that goes over a wound on your skin? Of course not. Same thing is happening here.

2 - The gloves the TSA uses absolutely, positively are not sterile. Sterile gloves are packaged in pairs in a sterile manner in a container designed to be opened and donned with sterile technique. Those boxesof blue gloves are not an example of sterile gloves in any way, shape or form. Anything that is touched by those blue gloves is, by definition, not sterile, either.

Robyng, please see post #17. ;)...I was just trying to be a little koi about the whole thing.

Mike

I remember reading that post - I had to look up Nomex :D. I guess I'm a little touchy about this because my husband wears a big leg brace to walk - and we have had our hassles with airport security. One particularly ridiculous one at CDG which I have written about previously here - where my husband wound up dropping his pants at security (and almost got arrested for indecent exposure). FWIW - these days - when he travels wearing long pants - he wears gym shorts underneath - just in case he winds up having to drop his pants again.

Note that the TSA isn't the only game in town when it comes to institutional stupidity:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/us/florida-fired-lifeguard/index.html

Robyn

Just FWIW - although my husband has a brace - not an in-dwelling tube - it isn't rubbed with anything. There's something that's kind of like an ear syringe with a brush attached - and they poof some kind of powdery substance on his brace. Also - many years ago - he did have an indwelling tube for the administration of IV antibiotics (called a Hickman Catheter). The sterile technique we had to follow when changing the dressing around that tube was somewhat lengthy and very complex. To try to do it in a public place like an airport would be ridiculous (here's a brief description of what you have to do):

http://www.cdha.nshealth.ca/patientinformation/nshealthnet/0214.pdf

Robyn

Only person who has posted here has any familiarity at all with a feeding tube. My husband had one implanted after being intubated so long that he could no longer swallow. He had it for 4 months without incident, but taking care of it was very precise and there is no way on earth I ever would have allowed a non-medical person to even look at it - let along handle it. I've seen the photo of the subject person and the tube looks infected already. No wonder s/he is under extended medical care.

The very instant someone at the airport said they had to inspect it, swab it, whatever - that would have been the end of the discussion. It would've been far preferable to be arrested than to undergo what that person went through. I am absolutely amazed at the ignorance exhibited by the TSOs. What next, EMTs stationed at every checkpoint to inspect colostomy bags, feeding tubes, and other medical devices?

The extremely expensive liquid food that is used with a feeding tube must be poured into a large syringe and slowly injected through the tube. Then the tube must be "flushed" with bottled water. Everything must then be thoroughly cleaned and allowed to air dry, under very clean conditions. The food is by prescription only and the cans state that. Why her food was confiscated is beyond comprehension.

Honestly, I get furious every time I have to go through security and I don't fly unless there's no other way to get there. This story really is the last straw.

PV basically says "The passenger is lying, nyah nyah, nyah nyah":

"TSA does not conduct strip searches. Since the traveler did not let TSOs know that she was wearing a medical device, an alarm went off, requiring a resolution. Our investigation concluded that proper procedures were followed: The passenger, in a private room with a supervisor as a witness, patted down the area around her feeding tube, as required by our standard operating procedures. At no time did an Officer touch the feeding tube area. The TSO then swabbed the passenger’s hands and tested the swab for explosives. Contrary to what is being reported, the individual was not asked or required to remove her clothing at any time."

"TSA does not conduct strip searches. Since the traveler did not let TSOs know that she was wearing a medical device, an alarm went off, requiring a resolution. Our investigation concluded that proper procedures were followed: The passenger, in a private room with a supervisor as a witness, patted down the area around her feeding tube, as required by our standard operating procedures. At no time did an Officer touch the feeding tube area. The TSO then swabbed the passenger’s hands and tested the swab for explosives. Contrary to what is being reported, the individual was not asked or required to remove her clothing at any time."

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1567.shtm

You should be offered a disposable paper drape for additional privacy before the beginning of a pat-down.

Why does the TSA offer a "paper drape" if they're not performing strip searches?

You should be offered a private screening before the beginning of a pat-down inspection if the pat-down will require the lifting of clothing and/or display of a covered medical device.

Once again, we see a disconnect between what is said on the TSA website, what the spokeshole excretes, and what happens in reality.

PV basically says "The passenger is lying, nyah nyah, nyah nyah":

I know I'm going to catch flak for this, but ... can we back off the use of the "L"-word here?

People of good will can disagree about what happened without claiming that one party is willfully distorting the facts.

PV basically says "The passenger is lying, nyah nyah, nyah nyah":

"TSA does not conduct strip searches. Since the traveler did not let TSOs know that she was wearing a medical device, an alarm went off, requiring a resolution. Our investigation concluded that proper procedures were followed: The passenger, in a private room with a supervisor as a witness, patted down the area around her feeding tube, as required by our standard operating procedures. At no time did an Officer touch the feeding tube area. The TSO then swabbed the passenger’s hands and tested the swab for explosives. Contrary to what is being reported, the individual was not asked or required to remove her clothing at any time."

?? So ...if the traveler had told the TSOs know she was wearing a medical device, how would this have been any different?

If she told the TSOs, the alarm would still go off and a resolution would still be required.

I wonder if she was told her husband could (and should!) be her witness to the grope.

With all due respect, these folks have apparently flown this route with this device before and had no problems. In the absence of other evidence (TSA refuses the pax adequate protections in the private screening area, most notably, pax should have the option to film), we are left with a 'she said, she said' situation.

TSA's account of what happened this time in private (patting around undisplayed device, no clothing removed, device never touched or even exposed) sounds exactly like what Mrs. Deaton says has happened every other time she's flown with the device. So...why was it necessary to have a 'private' screening this time?

The only reason I can see why Mrs Deaton would lie on this trip (and no others) would be retaliation for humiliating treatment (unlike her other flights) or possibly someone looking for 15 minutes of fame.

Very easy to understand the two TSOs motivation for lying, particularly when one of them is a supervisor - hardly likely her underling is going to call her out publicly and still keep her job.

Spare me the euphemisms. These accounts are too far apart to be reconciled as a simple misunderstanding (and those do happen). Someone is lying here. I believe it is TSA (again).

I know I'm going to catch flak for this, but ... can we back off the use of the "L"-word here?

People of good will can disagree about what happened without claiming that one party is willfully distorting the facts.

If only any TSA employee were a "person of good will," I'd agree with you - but the entire premise for the existence of the TSA is at best a "distortion of the facts," if not an outright lie.

The extremely expensive liquid food that is used with a feeding tube must be poured into a large syringe and slowly injected through the tube. Then the tube must be "flushed" with bottled water. Everything must then be thoroughly cleaned and allowed to air dry, under very clean conditions. The food is by prescription only and the cans state that. Why her food was confiscated is beyond comprehension.

It should be pointed out that in this particular case the device was apparently a "gastric tube," used for lavage, not an actual "feeding tube."

That's true. It does become interesting at that point. The answer will still be, "No, you are not touching the bandage. Levy a civil fine if you wish, but you're not touching the bandage." at that point, where things go next is entirely up to them.

This isn't really up for discussion - no TSA is going to examine a bandaged wound of mine, or any member of my family, if I am anywhere nearby.

+1

The problem is sheeple allow the clerks to do as they wish and move on and we never hear about the abuse.

I know I'm going to catch flak for this, but ... can we back off the use of the "L"-word here?Only when the actual lying stops.

+1

The problem is sheeple allow the clerks to do as they wish and move on and we never hear about the abuse.

Out of personal and professional reasons I've done a fair bit of reading on the spread and attempts to control infections like MRSA. Hence my certainty about how I will respond in the "I want to examine your dressing" scenarios. It's merely that I value my life more than my desire to fly at that point. Making the right decision is easy when you know the odds and stakes involved.

I know I'm going to catch flak for this, but ... can we back off the use of the "L"-word here?

No, we can't. The passenger is telling the truth and the TSA is lying. To say otherwise, given what we know, is disrespectful to the passenger. Demands for "civility" are frequently demands to control the speech of other people - to restrict the range of acceptable viewpoints to those with which you are comfortable. Rather than ask people to restrict their speech, you should examine the facts and make an argument supporting your views. You should explain what makes you believe that the TSA may not be lying, how there could be a misunderstanding of a set of different understandings of the event, or some other set of conditions compatible with something other than TSA abuse of a passenger and lying to cover it up.

If you have something to contribute to the discussion, contribute it. In the meantime, I will express my views and encourage others to express theirs.

On the one hand, we have a woman who has gone through this procedure previously without incident or complaint. SHe is now saying that, in her latest interaction with the TSA, one of the screeners exposed her body and touched her device. She's filed a complaint and contacted the media about the incident.

On the other hand, we have the TSA insisting this device was never touched and the woman wasn't exposed. We also have them admitting that they do, in fact, expose people's bodies and we have an admission that they have, in fact, in the past, damaged people's medical devices by handling them.

Where is the truth most at stake? Which story is the most plausible?

On the one hand, we have a woman who has gone through this procedure previously without incident or complaint. SHe is now saying that, in her latest interaction with the TSA, one of the screeners exposed her body and touched her device. She's filed a complaint and contacted the media about the incident.

On the other hand, we have the TSA insisting this device was never touched and the woman wasn't exposed. We also have them admitting that they do, in fact, expose people's bodies and we have an admission that they have, in fact, in the past, damaged people's medical devices by handling them.

Where is the truth most at stake? Which story is the most plausible?

If this was the first time this woman had flown with the tube, I could see that maybe she was exaggerating what happened. The fact that she has flown multiple times without incident makes me believe her side of the story. This isn't the first time the TSA said that they followed procedure and was later discovered to have not acted properly. I hope this woman keeps pursuing this publicly and doesn't deal with the TSA in private.

This isn't the first time the TSA said that they followed procedure and was later discovered to have not acted properly.

And as long as people are willing to let the TSA get away with lying, they'll continue to do it.

No, we can't. The passenger is telling the truth and the TSA is lying. To say otherwise, given what we know, is disrespectful to the passenger. Demands for "civility" are frequently demands to control the speech of other people - to restrict the range of acceptable viewpoints to those with which you are comfortable. Rather than ask people to restrict their speech, you should examine the facts and make an argument supporting your views. You should explain what makes you believe that the TSA may not be lying, how there could be a misunderstanding of a set of different understandings of the event, or some other set of conditions compatible with something other than TSA abuse of a passenger and lying to cover it up.

If you have something to contribute to the discussion, contribute it. In the meantime, I will express my views and encourage others to express theirs.

^^^^

There is no "interpretation" here that could cause legitimate differences of perspective. There are two simple and directly contradictory statements as to what happened. TSA backs their own people, no shock, and conveniently there is no video. Why, pray tell, was this woman taken to a private room, or "privacy screen", if she was not going to be subjected to further invasive searching?

There is no benefit in this for the female victim to lie, just as there was not for those three elderly women strip searched at JFK. There is a great deal of benefit for the responsible clerks and TSA itself to lie.

The court of public opinion already assumes the woman was telling the truth, and this is amply justified by current and past TSA acts.

^^^^

There is no "interpretation" here that could cause legitimate differences of perspective. There are two simple and directly contradictory statements as to what happened. TSA backs their own people, no shock, and conveniently there is no video. Why, pray tell, was this woman taken to a private room, or "privacy screen", if she was not going to be subjected to further invasive searching?

There is no benefit in this for the female victim to lie, just as there was not for those three elderly women strip searched at JFK. There is a great deal of benefit for the responsible clerks and TSA itself to lie.

The court of public opinion already assumes the woman was telling the truth, and this is amply justified by current and past TSA acts.

(bolding mine)

OTOH, Mrs. Deaton puts herself at risk by coming forward about this. She has apparently been flying this route regularly for her medical treatment. By coming forward, she risks perpetual delays and harassment at this airport in the future.

Ask Yukari Miyamae and Staci Amato about their checkpoint experiences subsequent to making their complaints.

I know I'm going to catch flak for this, but ... can we back off the use of the "L"-word here?

People of good will can disagree about what happened without claiming that one party is willfully distorting the facts.

I take your point that the language can get hyperbolic, but in this particular case, based on what we know, I don't see how suspecting that TSA lied is inappropriate, and I think it's disinegenuous (not to mention unfair to innocent parties) to suggest otherwise by avoiding the 'L' word.

If you knowingly issue a falsehood, you are lying. Although I do not know the Deatons, and wouldn't presume to judge moral character based on appearance or a brief sound bite, I do know TSA's history with the truth. In this particular instance, I didn't see anything that raised red flags in the pax account, but I absolutely saw contradictions and lies in TSA's response.

I am also not sure that I would generally characterize the folks at TSA, in their role of researching and publicly responding to complaints, to be what I would consider 'People of good will'.

People of good will can disagree about what happened without claiming that one party is willfully distorting the facts.

I suppose you would agree with "The TSA investigated themselves and once again declared themselves innocent"?

I suppose you would agree with "The TSA investigated themselves and once again declared themselves innocent"?

Yeah, probably. At least that comment sticks to the facts in evidence.

There's a difference between saying "that statement is incorrect" and "that statement is a lie". It's a subtle difference. Notice that TSA never calls the complainant a liar, while folks here are more than happy to call the TSA employees involved in this story liars. IMHO, that concedes the high ground to the TSA --- even if the name-calling is justified.

(Excuse me, there's a windmill over here that must be defeated. Sancho, my lance ...)

There's a difference between saying "that statement is incorrect" and "that statement is a lie". It's a subtle difference.

The difference isn't subtle at all. The difference is dramatic. And justified.

Notice that TSA never calls the complainant a liar, while folks here are more than happy to call the TSA employees involved in this story liars.

I didn't read a single comment that identified a TSA employee. I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself.

And I agree that the TSA never used the word "liar", but that doesn't mean they didn't "basically say" the complainant was lying.

And I agree that the TSA never used the word "liar", but that doesn't mean they didn't "basically say" the complainant was lying.

But that difference is important. It's the difference between a discussion of the issues at hand and name-calling.

There are plenty of explanations for the discrepancy between the two stories. One side or the other (or both) mis-remembered the sequence of events. One side exaggerated the events, because of the offense taken by the other party, reading their own anger into the events. Or, of course, one side willfully lied about the events at hand.

None of us will know for sure which story is the true one. We'll make assumptions as to which party we trust more --- and those assumptions will reveal plenty about our own biases on the issue, and nothing about what actually happened that day.

But that difference is important. It's the difference between a discussion of the issues at hand and name-calling.

There are plenty of explanations for the discrepancy between the two stories. One side or the other (or both) mis-remembered the sequence of events. One side exaggerated the events, because of the offense taken by the other party, reading their own anger into the events. Or, of course, one side willfully lied about the events at hand.

None of us will know for sure which story is the true one. We'll make assumptions as to which party we trust more --- and those assumptions will reveal plenty about our own biases on the issue, and nothing about what actually happened that day.

All good points.

But...we have an agency with a record of outright lying as well as routinely playing word games and dancing around the truth. (One obvious example: TSA allegedly never does 'strip searches' or demands that a pax remove clothing (beyond outerwear). Then why does the TSA website inform us that we, the taxpayers, are apparently paying for paper drapes that will be available during the 'back room violation'?

We have agency employees with a powerful motivation to lie (job preservation) and zero incentive to tell the truth.

OTOH, we have a couple who have made this trip multiple times and have not encountered this problem before, a couple who presumably will be making the trip again and frankly, have every motive in the world not to complain for fear of future retaliation.

Either the tube was touched or not. Either the food was thrown in the trash and retrieved, or not. I just don't see a lot of latitude for 'mis-remembering' or 'different perspectives' on what happened here. At the very least, TSA's version is so flawed that if I'd had any doubts before reading it, I no longer do.

Mind you, I did understand the confusion in the Yukari Miyamae episode. Without knowing her history or understanding the stature of the players involved, it was possible for two people two participate in the same event and view it differently. When TSO 'Big Bertha' approached Miyamae with a "I'm going to grope you, whether or not like you like it", she was physically dominating (I've seen her) and I can understand that when Miyamae reflexively put up defensive hands, Ol' Bertha took as reciprocal attitude.

I understand where sometimes the video (pax videos, not anything TSA releases) is inconclusive.

I just do not see any of those extenuating circumstances here.

Yeah, probably. At least that comment sticks to the facts in evidence.

There's a difference between saying "that statement is incorrect" and "that statement is a lie". It's a subtle difference. Notice that TSA never calls the complainant a liar, while folks here are more than happy to call the TSA employees involved in this story liars. IMHO, that concedes the high ground to the TSA --- even if the name-calling is justified.

(Excuse me, there's a windmill over here that must be defeated. Sancho, my lance ...)

Your opinion is wrong. Calling something a "lie" is a factual statement; calling someone a "liar" is a factual statement. A lie is a knowing false statement; a liar is someone who has made a knowing false statement, or who habitually makes knowing false statements. The use of the word "lie" provides valuable information, and draws a distinction between the statement in question and an unknowing false statement. In this case, it's important to call attention to the fact that the facts we know indicate that the statement of the TSA is a lie. If the TSA did lie, knowing that helps us evaluate the motivations behind their conduct. For one thing, the TSA represents themselves as working to promote the safety of airline passengers. If (as seems evident here) the TSA contaminated a feeding tube and then lied about it), the fact that they lied indicates a knowledge of their own wrongdoing. An organization that is truly interested in the safety of passengers will admit their wrongdoing and seek to improve; they will not lie and falsely accuse the people they are supposedly protecting.

People who are confident in their ability to support their views are willing to let others express themselves as they like. People with week arguments often seek to limit the expression of others.

But that difference is important. It's the difference between a discussion of the issues at hand and name-calling.

There are plenty of explanations for the discrepancy between the two stories. One side or the other (or both) mis-remembered the sequence of events. One side exaggerated the events, because of the offense taken by the other party, reading their own anger into the events. Or, of course, one side willfully lied about the events at hand.

None of us will know for sure which story is the true one. We'll make assumptions as to which party we trust more --- and those assumptions will reveal plenty about our own biases on the issue, and nothing about what actually happened that day.

Yeah, there are plenty of explanations, one of which makes sense.

One side or the other (or both) misremembered the sequence of events. Right, the passenger falsely remembered that the screening clerk handled her gastric tube, or the screening clerk forgot that he handled the tube.

Sure...

The passenger exaggerated, saying that the screening clerk handled the tube when he didn't.

Sure...

One side willfully lied about the events

DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING


One viewpoint makes sense. The others, not so much. We don't have to base our conclusions on which "side" we "trust" more. We don't have to base our conclusions on our biases. We can base our conclusions on our understanding of human behavior and reactions - the motivations that cause people to lie, and the motivations present in this case.

If you have an analysis tending to support the view that the TSA didn't lie, or might not have lied, let's hear it.

I will continue to express my views as I wish, and will encourage others to express their views as they wish.

But that difference is important. It's the difference between a discussion of the issues at hand and name-calling.

There are plenty of explanations for the discrepancy between the two stories. One side or the other (or both) mis-remembered the sequence of events. One side exaggerated the events, because of the offense taken by the other party, reading their own anger into the events. Or, of course, one side willfully lied about the events at hand.

None of us will know for sure which story is the true one. We'll make assumptions as to which party we trust more --- and those assumptions will reveal plenty about our own biases on the issue, and nothing about what actually happened that day.


The traveler reports that her soft, medically needed food items, were confiscated and tossed in the trash by TSA screeners. Later retrieved, tested, and returned.

The TSA Blog article posted by Bob Burns, TSA Spokesman, says the screening complied with TSA policy.

I don't think confiscating food in this instance is according to TSA policy.

This alone brings into question TSA's account of events.

TSA claims to have conducted an investigation. TSA could easily provide some evidence of that investigation. Knowing who conducted the investigation, their qualifications to investigate, and who was questioned could give some credibility to the TSA case.

Based on past TSA claims I believe TSA has a very weak position.

An organization that is truly interested in the safety of passengers will admit their wrongdoing and seek to improve; they will not lie and falsely accuse the people they are supposedly protecting.

You assume that the TSA is truly interested in the safety of passengers. The TSA is truly interested in the ongoing activity of the TSA, and that requires them to instill fear of the boogeyman into the traveling public. They then need to convince the traveling public that body scanners, the shoe carnival, the Freedom Baggie, the laptop shuffle and now the post-checkpoint "magic strip" tests on liquids purchased in the secure area are all protecting them from the boogeyman. Finally, they need to stifle stories that would damage the TSA by spinning them. That's why video is never available for review (unless that video exonerates the TSA), and there are always "inconsistencies" between the passenger's account and the results of the "investigation".

And that's the fallacy. The TSA has no interest in actually protecting us; they want to protect themselves. And an organization that broken absolutely would lie and falsely accuse the passengers it's supposed to protect.

You assume that the TSA is truly interested in the safety of passengers. The TSA is truly interested in the ongoing activity of the TSA, and that requires them to instill fear of the boogeyman into the traveling public. They then need to convince the traveling public that body scanners, the shoe carnival, the Freedom Baggie, the laptop shuffle and now the post-checkpoint "magic strip" tests on liquids purchased in the secure area are all protecting them from the boogeyman. Finally, they need to stifle stories that would damage the TSA by spinning them. That's why video is never available for review (unless that video exonerates the TSA), and there are always "inconsistencies" between the passenger's account and the results of the "investigation".

And that's the fallacy. The TSA has no interest in actually protecting us; they want to protect themselves. And an organization that broken absolutely would lie and falsely accuse the passengers it's supposed to protect.

I resigned myself to the idea that much of what TSA does is, by design, done as theater and to enrich certain bank accounts.

I have never understood why they can't do it with civility and respect for the passenger. I have never understood why they can't do it professionally and with transparency and honesty.

These things are not incompatible with security - true security or security theater.

You assume that the TSA is truly interested in the safety of passengers.

No such thing. Read my post over again. Your points are valuable, but they respond to a point I never dreamed of making.

But...we have an agency with a record of outright lying as well as routinely playing word games and dancing around the truth.

Of course, we also have an agency with a record of false allegations lodged against it. Remember "TSA Took My Son" (http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/10/response-to-tsa-agents-took-my-son.html)? Remember the TSOs who post here about the folks who accuse TSA of stealing their personal items at a checkpoint, only to find the items still in the bins or in their luggage?

I'm not saying that true and false accusations against TSA happen with equal probability. Yes, at this point, I'm more likely to believe the passenger than TSA. But it's easy to toss around words like "lie".

Your opinion is wrong. Calling something a "lie" is a factual statement; calling someone a "liar" is a factual statement. A lie is a knowing false statement; a liar is someone who has made a knowing false statement, or who habitually makes knowing false statements.

Where, then, is the evidence that TSA knows that it is making false statements?


I will continue to express my views as I wish, and will encourage others to express their views as they wish.

You are certainly entitled to express your views as I wish, and since you are encouraging me to express my views, I will continue to express my view that your view is wrong. :)

Seriously ... call them "liars", don't call them "liars", it's completely up to you. But our choice of words sometimes governs how our words will be received by those we would seek to persuade. I don't think the word "liar" contributes to the conversation. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

And I'm done here.

Where, then, is the evidence that TSA knows that it is making false statements?

1) The TSA claims they do not perform "strip searches."

2) The TSA website clearly states that they provide "paper drapes" to be used during a search.

Surely you can see the contradiction. And that's just one of the many.

1) The TSA claims they do not perform "strip searches."

2) The TSA website clearly states that they provide "paper drapes" to be used during a search.

Surely you can see the contradiction. And that's just one of the many.

Maybe the spokespersons who keep saying TSA does not perform 'strip searches' have never read the website.

Or maybe the website is 'out-of-date' again.

Maybe the spokespersons who keep saying TSA does not perform 'strip searches' have never read the website.

Or maybe the website is 'out-of-date' again.

The website is always out of date. It's just another layer of security. :D

Has anyone here been offered a paper drape for additional privacy before a patdown?

Where, then, is the evidence that TSA knows that it is making false statements?


You are certainly entitled to express your views as I wish, and since you are encouraging me to express my views, I will continue to express my view that your view is wrong. :)

Seriously ... call them "liars", don't call them "liars", it's completely up to you. But our choice of words sometimes governs how our words will be received by those we would seek to persuade. I don't think the word "liar" contributes to the conversation. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

And I'm done here.

The evidence comes from an analysis of the events. We can postulate and analyze alternative explanations, and exclude unreasonable explanations - as I did. According to my analysis, and those of others, presented above, is that the only reasonable explanation is that the TSA lied.

The word "lie" does contribute to the conversation, because it presents important information about what happened, and it influences how people should respond. The TSA abused a passenger, lied to cover it up, and falsely accused the passenger of lying. We should respond to those events differently than, for example, a scenario in which both the TSA and the passenger were confused about what happened and we can't be sure whether or not the TSA did anything wrong.

People who seek to restrict the speech of others, and to dictate what words they may and may not use, often do so because their arguments are not strong and they wish to shield their viewpoints from criticism, rather than back them up with argument.

Has anyone here been offered a paper drape for additional privacy before a patdown?

What is a paper drape do for you? Nothing really. Since you are just in your undies. Nothing has change dat all. Not to me any way.

I would/do the strip down to nothing in front of a female , if I ever get to that point. Cause that to me would show them nothing. The they could "shake" my clothes and so on.

If "they" want to get personal with me.is that not better to view ( when they see it is nothing there) then touching somebody?

Double moral USA.

There is no "interpretation" here that could cause legitimate differences of perspective.
Sure there is. And what happened is most likely not precisely what either side claimed happened. The fact is that people use language differently, especially when it comes to such issues as these. Is a topless woman "nude"? Many in the public would say "yes", but nudists, for example, would say "no". What does a "strip search" mean? Does it have to mean removing all clothing, as one definition requires, or can it mean removing other than the bottom layer or just pulling up clothing? Then you have the potential of interpretation of a question: does "can you do X?" mean "you must do X" or "is it possible for you to do X or do we need to do this some other way?" And then you have the fact that we aren't hearing directly from the person, but from a news article and that indirections adds more confusion.

There is no benefit in this for the female victim to lie, just as there was not for those three elderly women strip searched at JFK.
See above. "Lie" isn't really the issue here. And, by the way, there would be a benefit in somebody lying in such a situation: "15 minutes of fame".

1) The TSA claims they do not perform "strip searches."

2) The TSA website clearly states that they provide "paper drapes" to be used during a search.

Surely you can see the contradiction. And that's just one of the many.
I can't see the contradiction. If you're providing a "paper drape", then the person isn't being stripped: one piece of clothing is being replaced by another.

The TSA abused a passenger, lied to cover it up, and falsely accused the passenger of lying.
The TSA said the statement was "incorrect". As was discussed up-thread, that's not the same as calling somebody a liar.

I can't see the contradiction. If you're providing a "paper drape", then the person isn't being stripped: one piece of clothing is being replaced by another.

ok I was told in one of the forum answers that you cant be naked under the drape? Is that correct.? W ht then a drape? It is the same as a grope! The only thing different is that you are wearing a drape instead of cloths.
But it is the same thing in the end.

I can't see the contradiction. If you're providing a "paper drape", then the person isn't being stripped: one piece of clothing is being replaced by another.

A paper drape is a disposable piece of paper in the shape of a rectangle.....a very large paper towel. I don't know what sort of clothing you tend to choose, but there is nothing in my closet for which a paper drape is a replacement. It may provide some coverage (depending on the size of the drape and the size of the drapee), but it primarily provides an illusion of privacy.

The TSA said the statement was "incorrect". As was discussed up-thread, that's not the same as calling somebody a liar.

What statement? Are you referring to the TSA statement on the incident or the accusation made by the passenger that her tube was mishandled?

A paper drape is a disposable piece of paper in the shape of a rectangle.....a very large paper towel. I don't know what sort of clothing you tend to choose, but there is nothing in my closet for which a paper drape is a replacement. It may provide some coverage (depending on the size of the drape and the size of the drapee), but it primarily provides an illusion of privacy.

Plus if you have to have "clothes' underneath it doesnt do anything at all. It is just a "paper" cloth over your undies. Just like clothes is over you undies.

Anybody know if you are supossed to be naked under the drape or have you undies on?

In my birth country you are naked under it.

The TSA said the statement was "incorrect". As was discussed up-thread, that's not the same as calling somebody a liar.

Yeah it is.

Sure there is. And what happened is most likely not precisely what either side claimed happened. The fact is that people use language differently, especially when it comes to such issues as these. Is a topless woman "nude"? Many in the public would say "yes", but nudists, for example, would say "no". What does a "strip search" mean? Does it have to mean removing all clothing, as one definition requires, or can it mean removing other than the bottom layer or just pulling up clothing? Then you have the potential of interpretation of a question: does "can you do X?" mean "you must do X" or "is it possible for you to do X or do we need to do this some other way?" And then you have the fact that we aren't hearing directly from the person, but from a news article and that indirections adds more confusion.


See above. "Lie" isn't really the issue here. And, by the way, there would be a benefit in somebody lying in such a situation: "15 minutes of fame".

She said they touched the tube, they say they didn't.

"What does a "strip search" mean?"

It means removing any article of clothing in order to prevent the article from covering what it would otherwise cover.

Plus if you have to have "clothes' underneath it doesnt do anything at all. It is just a "paper" cloth over your undies. Just like clothes is over you undies.

Anybody know if you are supossed to be naked under the drape or have you undies on?

In my birth country you are naked under it.

I have no clue how it's meant to be used at the checkpoint.......which is why I asked if anyone had ever been offered one. I'm interested in what people's experience is with being offered a drape for a patdown. Why did you need it? What did you do with it?

Normally, in a medical procedure, the drape is meant to offer the illusion of privacy. If you are using one, you don't have any real privacy -- you are exposing some aspect of your body to a medical provider. The drape makes you FEEL less exposed, you are not actually less exposed. On the other hand, as you say, if your clothes are remaining on (whether for a medical procedure or a patdown at the checkpoint), you don't need the drape to provide the illusion of privacy. You have real privacy; you are covered by your clothing.

"What does a "strip search" mean?"

It means removing any article of clothing in order to prevent the article from covering what it would otherwise cover.
That's one definition. But a quick Google search shows that the definition in many court cases significantly differs from the above. And that's the point. There are things that one person would describe as a "strip search" that another would not. Neither is "lying".

What statement? Are you referring to the TSA statement on the incident or the accusation made by the passenger that her tube was mishandled?
I have no idea what the quote was referring to. What I was saying is that I haven't seen any evidence that the TSA called the passenger a "liar", just that some part of their "statement" was incorrect. Those two are very different.

To overstate the obvious, if you tell me "the last time I saw you, you were wearing a red shirt" and I say "that's incorrect", I'm not calling you a liar. I'm merely saying that I wasn't wearing a red shirt and making no claim about you at all: there could be a number of reasons why we disagree on that.

I have no clue how it's meant to be used at the checkpoint.......which is why I asked if anyone had ever been offered one. I'm interested in what people's experience is with being offered a drape for a patdown. Why did you need it? What did you do with it?
I forget the details, but I think the context is something like this: if a woman is wearing a skirt too tight for a pat-down to be done, she's offered a paper skirt that's loose enough to allow the pat-down. They're calling that a "drape".

There are things that one person would describe as a "strip search" that another would not. Neither is "lying".

And there are things that many people would describe as "groping," while the TSA has a different definition.

Their searches have been called into question by many who'd really know better, but I think this particular comment takes the prize:

Tim Ely in Raleigh News Observer (Dec. 14, 2010 ): Tim Ely, a retired Army officer who once commanded a military police unit in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, filed an online complaint after a Nov. 20 confrontation at RDU. He was subjected to an intimate pat-down because of a false alarm from the body scanner. After an agent groped around his genitals from in front and from behind, Ely challenged him to explain what sort of anomaly had turned up on his full-body scan. "He said there was something suspicious hanging from between my legs," Ely, 63, wrote in his RDU online comment. "I told him that something suspicious was my [genitals], you dummy."

The TSA prefers looser definitions for many things, simply because it affords them plausible deniability.

"Of course we didn't strip search that woman. She was allowed to keep her pantyhose on."

For example, the TSA Blog said:

It should be mentioned that you will not be asked to and you should not remove clothing (other than shoes, coats and jackets) at a TSA checkpoint. If you're asked to remove your clothing, you should ask for a supervisor or manager. (http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/response-to-young-boy-strip-searched-by.html)

I guess they define the back-room gropings as "not occurring at the checkpoint." Convenient for them, isn't it?

I have no clue how it's meant to be used at the checkpoint.......which is why I asked if anyone had ever been offered one. I'm interested in what people's experience is with being offered a drape for a patdown. Why did you need it? What did you do with it?

Normally, in a medical procedure, the drape is meant to offer the illusion of privacy. If you are using one, you don't have any real privacy -- you are exposing some aspect of your body to a medical provider. The drape makes you FEEL less exposed, you are not actually less exposed. On the other hand, as you say, if your clothes are remaining on (whether for a medical procedure or a patdown at the checkpoint), you don't need the drape to provide the illusion of privacy. You have real privacy; you are covered by your clothing.

Years ago I went to an american MD. That was for my only pregnancy in uSA.
His nurse put on a paper drape on me.

I never had that before during my other previous pregnancys in Sweden so I asked him what it was and why.

He said/told me that was to protect me for what they did. I was very puzzeled. He explained to me that in his experience that many women did not want to see their genitals touched by a stranger.
I told him to take it off. It made me feel very strange with that paper drape.

He did.

I have no idea what the quote was referring to. What I was saying is that I haven't seen any evidence that the TSA called the passenger a "liar", just that some part of their "statement" was incorrect. Those two are very different.

To overstate the obvious, if you tell me "the last time I saw you, you were wearing a red shirt" and I say "that's incorrect", I'm not calling you a liar. I'm merely saying that I wasn't wearing a red shirt and making no claim about you at all: there could be a number of reasons why we disagree on that.

The reason I wondered which statement you were referring to is because, as far as I knew (know), the TSA never said the passenger was "incorrect." What they said was:

In this specific incident, an investigation was initiated and it was determined that the Transportation Security Officer (TSO) followed standard operating procedures conducted in the presence of a Supervisor TSO

So, either of the following has to be concluded: 1- TSA is conceding that, yes, the passenger is truthful -- they touched her device and they did so because that's SOP or 2 - TSA is saying that the passenger is lying -- nobody at the checkpoint touched her device.

So there is an alternative view to this that avoids the passenger being accused of lying. But it's so sickening to consider that many people probably prefer to come down on the side of "the passenger is being accused of lying."

I cleared DAL security on Thursday morning. As my carry on was getting its usual swab test and I was putting myself back together (belt, shoes, ect) I was standing next to this partitioned area of about 8x8 that was made by simply hanging a black curtain on a rod to form three of the four "walls." I did not think anything much about it until a TSO came out and in the corner was a box, about 1.5 cubic feet estimated, that was labeled "Paper Drapes." I specifically remember the box and the screened off area because the black curtain made it a bit creepy-looking. I remember thinking at the time that this was the oddest private screening area I had seen in my travels. Most are real rooms.

Please allow me a moment to kick myself firmly for not getting a picture. (Darn.)

I cleared DAL security on Thursday morning. As my carry on was getting its usual swab test and I was putting myself back together (belt, shoes, ect) I was standing next to this partitioned area of about 8x8 that was made by simply hanging a black curtain on a rod to form three of the four "walls." I did not think anything much about it until a TSO came out and in the corner was a box, about 1.5 cubic feet estimated, that was labeled "Paper Drapes." I specifically remember the box and the screened off area because the black curtain made it a bit creepy-looking. I remember thinking at the time that this was the oddest private screening area I had seen in my travels. Most are real rooms.

Please allow me a moment to kick myself firmly for not getting a picture. (Darn.)

If people are not being asked to remove clothing.....is it possible that there is enough insanity at TSA that they are using a paper drape to cover VISIBLE arm, leg, neck or facial skin such that they are touching VISIBLE skin through the drape??

If people are not being asked to remove clothing.....is it possible that there is enough insanity at TSA that they are using a paper drape to cover VISIBLE arm, leg, neck or facial skin such that they are touching VISIBLE skin through the drape??

Unlikely. They've been rubbing down bald men's heads, bare arms and legs. One of the several TSA drones here stated they're looking for explosive traces from the bare skin by swabbing the gloves after the fact.

This, of course, is silly - given that so many TSA employees don't change their gloves unless requested, and do not seem to understand the concept of "contaminated sampling."

Unlikely. They've been rubbing down bald men's heads, bare arms and legs. One of the several TSA drones here stated they're looking for explosive traces from the bare skin by swabbing the gloves after the fact.

This, of course, is silly - given that so many TSA employees don't change their gloves unless requested, and do not seem to understand the concept of "contaminated sampling."

But, if your skin is draped....it's (stating the obvious) not bare, it's covered. Unless (again) there is insanity involved in which they are draping exposed skin like your arm and then reaching up under it to touch you.

Every scenario that involves leaving on all of your clothing obviates the need for a drape. (Except for scenarios that involve complete insanity.)

Perhaps I have answered my own question.

But, if your skin is draped....it's (stating the obvious) not bare, it's covered. Unless (again) there is insanity involved in which they are draping exposed skin like your arm and then reaching up under it to touch you.

That is exactly (to my understanding) what they're doing. They "cover" with the paper, then run their blue-gloved hands under the paper.

Much like a gynecologist or urologist, but without the pesky medical boards.

So, either of the following has to be concluded: 1- TSA is conceding that, yes, the passenger is truthful -- they touched her device and they did so because that's SOP or 2 - TSA is saying that the passenger is lying -- nobody at the checkpoint touched her device.
Or any of the numerous possibilities for what might have happened that are in between. For example, even "touch" is ambiguous: did it mean through clothing or when exposed? Even two perfectly honest people with perfect recollection who aren't trying to embellish or minimize anything can easily describe the same scene using such different words that they may appear to be contradictory even though they're both saying exactly the same thing in different ways.

Or any of the numerous possibilities for what might have happened that are in between. For example, even "touch" is ambiguous: did it mean through clothing or when exposed? Even two perfectly honest people with perfect recollection who aren't trying to embellish or minimize anything can easily describe the same scene using such different words that they may appear to be contradictory even though they're both saying exactly the same thing in different ways.

She was quite clear on what happened -- her tube was "physically handled" and they "put stuff on it" such that "it could kill her" -- as opposed to her previous flights, in which they had touched it through her clothing. She is accustomed to having it touched through her clothing and this particular experience was different. Either this new experience is SOP or she's lying.

The TSA said the statement was "incorrect". As was discussed up-thread, that's not the same as calling somebody a liar.

The woman's claim is simple: TSOs handled her feeding tube. How is saying that that's "incorrect" not calling her a liar?

The woman's claim is simple: TSOs handled her feeding tube. How is saying that that's "incorrect" not calling her a liar?

It's called 'doublespeak'

Or any of the numerous possibilities for what might have happened that are in between. For example, even "touch" is ambiguous: did it mean through clothing or when exposed? Even two perfectly honest people with perfect recollection who aren't trying to embellish or minimize anything can easily describe the same scene using such different words that they may appear to be contradictory even though they're both saying exactly the same thing in different ways.

In this instance, there's nothing ambiguous about 'touch'. According to TSA, the tube should never have been touched by TSA - through clothes, directly, with hands, a swab...

The pax may be asked to directly touch the tube to pick up explo*ive traces. It is supposed to be the pax hands that will be touched and swabbed.

It's called 'doublespeak'

In the case of the TSA (and DHS, by extension) it might be more accurately classifed as "newspeak."

I remember reading that post - I had to look up Nomex :D. I guess I'm a little touchy about this because my husband wears a big leg brace to walk - and we have had our hassles with airport security. One particularly ridiculous one at CDG which I have written about previously here - where my husband wound up dropping his pants at security (and almost got arrested for indecent exposure). FWIW - these days - when he travels wearing long pants - he wears gym shorts underneath - just in case he winds up having to drop his pants again.

Note that the TSA isn't the only game in town when it comes to institutional stupidity:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/us/florida-fired-lifeguard/index.html

Normally, I use my brackets, but sometimes, well, sometimes ya just feel like a nut. And sometimes ya don't.

Mike

Robyn