Practical Travel Safety Issues - TSA's official response to traveler's complaints about new groping protocols

Recently, the TSA responded to the growing number of complaints and inquiries from travelers about the agency's September 22 pat-down protocol changes:


Pat-down, Other Screening Enhancements Must be Carried Out Appropriately

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is committed to constantly reviewing screening procedures to ensure our measures are targeted to counter potential threats, and recently changed passenger screening procedures to strengthen our ability to detect explosives at the security checkpoints. One significant enhancement, which has generated discussion and concerns among some passengers, involves more frequent use of pat-down searches, which are to be done in a professional, respectful manner. We take each situation seriously and procedures are in place to address all concerns.

Pat-down, Other Screening Enhancements Must be Carried Out Appropriately

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is committed to constantly reviewing screening procedures to ensure our measures are targeted to counter potential threats.

On Sept. 22, TSA made changes to passenger screening procedures to strengthen our ability to detect explosives at the security checkpoints. One significant enhancement, which has generated discussion and concerns among some passengers, involves more frequent use of pat-down searches. We take each situation seriously and TSA has procedures in place to address any and all concerns.

In addition, TSA screeners are trained to conduct the inspections in a professional, respectful manner, while maintaining our high level of security. Here is more information on the new procedures:


To better allow TSA to identify explosives, the agency implemented new passenger screening procedures that, in addition to expanded use of pat-down searches, increase the use of explosives trace detector machines and provide screeners more latitude to refer individuals for additional screening.

The changes are in line with a recent recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Report that all passengers selected for additional screening be checked for explosives.

Additional screening, including pat-down searches, may be required of passengers based on visual observations by screeners, even if an audible alarm has not gone off.

Screeners are also required to communicate their actions to the passenger prior to conducting the inspection.

Federal Security Directors are responsible for ensuring at the local level that screeners are properly trained in the new protocols. TSA Headquarters is also closely involved in ensuring that such training has taken place. In addition, the training regimen is available to screeners on TSA’s Online Learning Center.

TSA policy is that screeners are to use the back of the hand when screening sensitive body areas, which include the breasts (females only), genitals, and buttocks.

For non-sensitive areas, including other parts of the torso, screeners are required to use the front of the hand.

Screeners are required to offer private screening to passengers who are subject to additional screening. If you are not offered private screening you have the option to request a private screening location.

Screeners of the same gender as the passenger will conduct the additional screening (except in extraordinary circumstances).

http://www.tsa.gov/public/

http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=40&content=09000519800ce037

That enough people have complained about the new groping to cause the TSA to respond like this is very encouraging.

Too bad it took this out of control bureacracy over a month to post this on its website. "Grope first, explain why later" is consistent with the way this agency does things.

What if you feel you have been touched inappropriately?? The agency goes on to say:

TSA will investigate all reports of inappropriate conduct and, if warranted, take disciplinary action.

If a passenger believes the screening was done inappropriately, he or she should immediately ask to talk to a screening supervisor. A passenger may also obtain a feedback form, which is available at all checkpoints. Alternatively, passengers may call the TSA Contact Center toll-free at (866) 289-9673 or via E-mail (TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov).

Members of the traveling public who believe they have been unlawfully discriminated against by a TSA employee may contact the External Compliance Division in the Office of Civil Rights. That office can be reached by sending an email to TSA OCR-External Compliance (TSA.OCR-ExternalCompliance@DHS.gov) or by calling the Office of Civil Rights toll free at 1-877-EEO-4-TSA (1-877-336-4872) or (866) 536-9679.

Unless, of course, the overzealous screener decides you have "interferred with screening" by complaining. Then you can expect to receive in the mail a notice of determination of a civil penalty.

Recently, the TSA responded to the growing number of complaints and inquiries from travelers about the agency's September 22 pat-down protocol changes:



http://www.tsa.gov/public/

http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=40&content=09000519800ce037

That enough people have complained about the new groping to cause the TSA to respond like this is very encouraging.

Too bad it took this out of control bureacracy over a month to post this on its website. "Grope first, explain why later" is consistent with the way this agency does things.

What if you feel you have been touched inappropriately?? The agency goes on to say:



Unless, of course, the overzealous screener decides you have "interferred with screening" by complaining. Then you can expect to receive in the mail a notice of determination of a civil penalty.

Utter crap. There was no real training, nor will there be. These bozos have absolutely no idea how to provide real security. They have absolutely no regard for the rights and privacy of US citizens.

These absurdities are merely excuses to impinge on our rights by taking advantage of peoples' fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. As a matter of fact, more people have been hit by lightening in the US since 9/11/01 than died in the attacks. Those attacks were terrible events, but the US needs to get some perspective.

TSA and government apologists, flame away. :td:

Utter crap. There was no real training, nor will there be. These bozos have absolutely no idea how to provide real security. They have absolutely no regard for the rights and privacy of US citizens.

These absurdities are merely excuses to impinge on our rights by taking advantage of peoples' fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. As a matter of fact, more people have been hit by lightening in the US since 9/11/01 than died in the attacks. Those attacks were terrible events, but the US needs to get some perspective.

TSA and government apologists, flame away. :td:


No flaming. Posts like this just proves my point. As opposed to discussion, the name calling, false accusations and ridicule begins.

Let's keep the posts in this Forum on the issues and not on the opinions and comments of other posters.
Thanks for your cooperation.

_______________________________

Cholula

Travel Safety/Security Forum Co-Moderator

TSA and government apologists, flame away. :td:

OK, well that probably isn't necessary.

And besides, shouldn't it be "disrupt" or "discomboobulate" instead of flame? :D

If you hate the system that much then do something more constructive about it than sling mud.

They have absolutely no regard for the rights and privacy of US citizens.

I am not an apologist, but a realist and a legalist.

With the exception of:
* the "no-fly" list
and
* pat down searches not triggered by either a) an alarm or b) specific and articulable facts together with rational inferences from those facts (the "articulable suspicion" standard as borrowed from the authority to pat-down in other areas of the law)

I have yet to see ANYTHING in airport security that I think could be held to be a violation of existing Constitutional law. Do you have a "right to travel" in this context? Yes, you probably do. But, just like all the other Constitutional rights, it is not an absolute right. You are entitled to your anarcho-libertarian viewpoint, but it is not supported in fact by law.

...pat down searches not triggered by either a) an alarm or b) specific and articulable facts together with rational inferences from those facts

I think it is point b that is the cause for many of us to believe TSA has minimal regard for our civil rights; unless on refusing to remove their shoe is a "specific and articulable fact with a rational inference".

Or maybe the rational inference of a missing screw on a laptop is that it is a bomb...

I think it is point b that is the cause for many of us to believe TSA has minimal regard for our civil rights; unless on refusing to remove their shoe is a "specific and articulable fact with a rational inference".

Or maybe the rational inference of a missing screw on a laptop is that it is a bomb...

Your first example is precisely what I'm talking about. I agree that failure to remove shoes can't give rise to an articulable suspicion that a person is concealing explosives, at least not elsewhere on the body. ETD swab the shoes if you wish. But that doesn't mean other forms of searching -- to the person or to luggage -- are unconstitutional.

I disagree on the laptop issue. It is easy to articulate that electronic devices missing screws are more likely to have been opened and altered than devices that are fully intact. Given the minimally intrusive nature of the ETD swab (heck, courts probably wouldn't even hold it to be a search, much like a dog sniff) that's not going to pose a legal issue.

Utter crap. There was no real training, nor will there be. These bozos have absolutely no idea how to provide real security. They have absolutely no regard for the rights and privacy of US citizens.

These absurdities are merely excuses to impinge on our rights by taking advantage of peoples' fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. As a matter of fact, more people have been hit by lightening in the US since 9/11/01 than died in the attacks. Those attacks were terrible events, but the US needs to get some perspective.

TSA and government apologists, flame away. :td:
Killed in car accidents 42,116*
Killed by the common flu 20,000*
Killed by murders 15,517*
Killed in airline crashes
(of 477m passenger trips) 120 (1)
Killed by lightning strikes 90*
Killed by Anthrax 5
* Average annual totals in the U.S.
http://www.unitedjustice.com/stories/stats.html
Lightning-related fatality, injury, and damage reports in the US were summarized for 36 years since 1959, based on the NOAA publication Storm Data. There were 3239 deaths, 9818 injuries, and 19,814 property-damage reports from lightning during this period. On average, 90 people are killed every year in the U.S. by lightning. [NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-193

I am not an apologist, but a realist and a legalist.

With the exception of:
* the "no-fly" list
and
...

* pat down searches not triggered by either a) an alarm

it has happened to me

or b) specific and articulable facts together with rational inferences from those facts (the "articulable suspicion" standard as borrowed from the authority to pat-down in other areas of the law) ...

same


I want a court to order a stop to the UNCONSTITUTIONAL searches and the UNCONSTITUTIONAL no-fly list and UNCONSTITUTIONAL secret laws and the UNCONSTITUTIONAL civil fines.

Now that the election is over, I am writing a letter to my elected representatives as well as assisting the ACLU in any capacity. The gloves are off, buddy!

As a matter of fact, more people have been hit by lightening in the US since 9/11/01 than died in the attacks. Those attacks were terrible events, but the US needs to get some perspective.
Maybe some of us do have the proper perspective. You know, the one where being struck by lightening is an accident, and a terrorist attack is ... a terrorist attack.

If you hate the system that much then do something more constructive about it than sling mud.

I hate the system that much. Please, tell me what I can do, because at this point I think the score is TSA: 20 GradGirl: 0. TSA gets to put its hands all over my private parts, and I get to shut up and take it. TSA gets to threaten me with not flying if I complain about the unwelcome sexual contact, and I get to shut up and take it. TSA gets to stick a wand inside my labia, and I get to write a formal letter of complaint that doesn't change policy one iota. Where is the constructive action I can take, Decomposing screener?

What's really disingenuous about the TSA response to groping complaints is that their articulated policy that passengers should allow complete strangers to touch their breasts, genitals, and buttocks is in itself inappropriate. They give us a number to call if we've been touched inappropriately, but the secondary search as they describe it is absolutely inappropriate. Requiring sexual contact between passengers and strangers in order to board a plane can not in any worldview be considered appropriate. Is this an airport or a Turkish prison?

Killed in car accidents 42,116*
Killed by the common flu 20,000*
Killed by murders 15,517*
Killed in airline crashes
(of 477m passenger trips) 120 (1)
Killed by lightning strikes 90*
Killed by Anthrax 5
* Average annual totals in the U.S.
http://www.unitedjustice.com/stories/stats.html
Lightning-related fatality, injury, and damage reports in the US were summarized for 36 years since 1959, based on the NOAA publication Storm Data. There were 3239 deaths, 9818 injuries, and 19,814 property-damage reports from lightning during this period. On average, 90 people are killed every year in the U.S. by lightning. [NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-193

Wrongo back atcha. Read my post -- struck by lightning since 9/11, not killed by lightening per year.

Their announcement says "more frequent use." Huh? I thought that the whole genital grope thing was new. If it was a policy earlier this year no one knew about it. Are these just wienie words from our beloved gov?

The original statement to which you refer was pretty harsh.

But he didn't state all TSA Screeners are perverts.

I intrepreted his comment to mean a pervert will get plenty of chances to fill people up if working at TSA. WIth the current security policies allowing more use of "pat downs" if somebody has even the slightest amount of suspicion, I can see where this comment is rooted.

removed by poster.............

The original statement to which you refer was pretty harsh.

But he didn't state all TSA Screeners are perverts.

I intrepreted his comment to mean a pervert will get plenty of chances to fill people up if working at TSA. WIth the current security policies allowing more use of "pat downs" if somebody has even the slightest amount of suspicion, I can see where this comment is rooted.

Everyone here knows exactly what it meant.

I guess that makes you a Passenger apologist. :rolleyes:

Their announcement says "more frequent use." Huh? I thought that the whole genital grope thing was new. If it was a policy earlier this year no one knew about it. Are these just wienie words from our beloved gov?

I have endured occasional genital groping by TSA staff since the first white shirted jbs took over in 2002, usually at the gate gropings, a couple times at random/continuous screening secondaries. It isn't new - it's just more common.

The is absolutely uncalled for, insulting and is name calling.


So is the touching of airline travelers' genitals. Welcome to our world. :mad:

But whattcha gonna do? All I hear from the white shirted jbs is to relax, lie back and enjoy it. " 'Cause everything changed on September 11." Yea - it sure did - it provided perfect cover for over 60,000 Americans to treat hundreds of millions of other Americans very badly. And if genital groping continues unabated, I suspect that it won't be long before we hear about some more screeners arrested for child molesting and other similar offenses. Those who victimize children tend to be found where contact with children is permitted. Increasingly, that might just be at airport checkpoints. If wanted to feel up vulnerable children and teenagers, where better to work than for the TSA? That way, I could get paid for victimizing innocent victims.



If the moderators are going to remove posts that advise a poster that all he will get here is bashing of the TSA then this post must be removed immediately. Failure to do so would certainly constitute a bias against the TSA on the part of the FlyerTalk staff.


You certainly seem to have an awful lot of public complaints about the moderation of FlyerTalk. Have you tried contacting the four moderators privately with your complaints?

I think it's perfectly valid to point out that allowing screeners to touch sexual areas of a passenger's body is investing screeners with a fairly humongous level of responsibility. In the same way that letting baggage screeners and baggage handlers touch people's belongings is scary for the abuses it enables, letting screeners touch people's private parts is positively terrifying.

We know for sure that a number of baggage handlers have been fired and prosecuted for stealing passenger belongings. I think it's perfectly valid to ask whether there are screeners who use their positions to sexually abuse passengers. And I for one, think it's not that unlikely, given the male screeners I've observed trying to grope young female passengers in blatant disregard for the TSA's own rules.

I am somewhat confused. I thought I read on the board that the reason for the "grope" was SSI, but the TSA missive says the reason is to search for explosives (as opposed I guess to weapons). What am I missing or did the TSA give out SSI?

I think it's perfectly valid to point out that allowing screeners to touch sexual areas of a passenger's body is investing screeners with a fairly humongous level of responsibility. In the same way that letting baggage screeners and baggage handlers touch people's belongings is scary for the abuses it enables, letting screeners touch people's private parts is positively terrifying.

We know for sure that a number of baggage handlers have been fired and prosecuted for stealing passenger belongings. I think it's perfectly valid to ask whether there are screeners who use their positions to sexually abuse passengers. And I for one, think it's not that unlikely, given the male screeners I've observed trying to grope young female passengers in blatant disregard for the TSA's own rules.

If anyone one of our managers or supervisors had any suspicion of a screener using their position to purposely fondle a passenger for their own personal gratification they would be pulled immediately off the line. I know that our other screeners would "give up" a screener that was doing this. I am sure the matter would be discussed with the Airport and County Police (we have both) and we would support criminal charges.

I agree a male screener should not be secondary screening a female passenger. There is a stipulation that if there is no female screeners due to unexpected absences then a male can be used under extraordinary circumstances. If a male screener states that he will be doing the secondary screening immediately advise him to get his supervisor. If the supervisor states there are no female screeners on duty (not unavailable but not there at all), the my suggestion is to request a female LEO to perform the pat down under direction of the TSA supervisor.

You certainly seem to have an awful lot of public complaints about the moderation of FlyerTalk. Have you tried contacting the four moderators privately with your complaints?

Don't worry about my dealings with the moderators.

Utter crap. There was no real training, nor will there be. These bozos have absolutely no idea how to provide real security. They have absolutely no regard for the rights and privacy of US citizens.
Are you serious or just trolling?

You do realize that the "bozos" you refer to have no say over the policies that are enacted by the agency nor how they are carried out, right? It seems awfully disingenuous to lambaste the screeners for what is ultimately the agency/administration that you apparently have an issue with.

Food for thought.

Mark Arsenault
Screeners Central

Duplicates earlier post

I have endured occasional genital groping by TSA staff... It isn't new - it's just more common.
Boy, this post is going to make me popular with the passengers... :rolleyes:

There is a big difference between "groping" and a legally conducted pat-down/pat search.

Anyone who is truly "groped" (i.e., the victim of what in California is called Battery and/or Sexual Battery in the Penal Code) should immediately report it to law enforcement so that the crime can be immediately investigated and -- if justified -- the offending screener arrested and removed from the checkpoint.

To avoid a lengthy post here in this forum, I'll simply point you to an article I wrote on the topic. I invite everyone to read it. And when you do, please bear in mind that I do not work for TSA...

"Don't Touch My Breasts!" (http://tsa-screeners.com/start/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3033)
by Mark Arsenault (Sep 30, 2004)

Mark Arsenault
Screeners Central

If the supervisor states there are no female screeners on duty (not unavailable but not there at all), the my suggestion is to request a female LEO to perform the pat down under direction of the TSA supervisor.
Do the LEOs at your airport actually accomodate this sort of request? Deputies I know would laugh and tell screeners to do their own job. :rolleyes:

Seriously, though, in law enforcement the issue about opposite sex pat-down searches is all but non-existent. We did searches on each other in the academy and opposite sex searches occur all the time on the job.

If professionalism and ethics reign, there is no basis for any complaint save the searchee's discomfort... which is probably the least of their worries if they are being searched by a cop. ;)

"Don't Touch My Breasts!" (http://tsa-screeners.com/start/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3033)
by Mark Arsenault (Sep 30, 2004)




Pat-downs (also sometimes referred to as "frisks") have been conducted by law enforcement officers for years and withstood legal challenges in court on the grounds that they are non-intrusive and they are intended not to search for contraband but for weapons (making it more an issue of safety, not enforcement).


Pat-downs have withstood court challenges when they are conducted by LEOs on suspected criminals under reasonable suspicion, Terry stops, etc. Those patted down do not consent, and that's fine, because there is suspicion of crime or a need to protect the officer.

I would hope that the courts would not uphold it if my local police agency decided to set up a checkpoint on I-65 and pat down every driver and passenger that passed by, or certain drivers with SSSS on their plates, or random drivers under the guise of "continuous screenings," with no suspicion whatsoever that any of these drivers/pax are criminals.

I similarly don't see why it is acceptable to treat airline passengers as suspected criminals, especially when they do not alarm the WTMD or otherwise raise suspicion. Touching people, especially in private places, crosses the line from "screening" to "treating like a suspected criminal" IMO. I expect better in the USA.

I also do not accept the claim that I have voluntarily consented to these searches. The government has coerced me into consenting as a condition of conducting my business and visiting my friends/relatives.



The bottom line is that under the current law pat-down searches -- of anyone, under certain conditions -- are allowed before people enter court and other government buildings, jails, and now airports.


I don't have to be patted down to enter my county courthouse if I don't alarm the WTMD. (They also don't object to me carrying a pocket-knife into the courtroom.)

Do the LEOs at your airport actually accomodate this sort of request? Deputies I know would laugh and tell screeners to do their own job. :rolleyes:

It doesn't happen often but when asked they will.

Could someone explain to me why pat-down searches are necessary simply because one chooses to keep his or her shoes on through security? This assumes, of course, that the metal detector did not go off. Am I correct in believing the reason for such a search is purely punitive?

Or, is it because *real* terrorists would be much more likely to leave their shoes on through security (defying all logic about being low key) so it's in the nation's security interest to pat down shoe "violators?"

Are you serious or just trolling?

You do realize that the "bozos" you refer to have no say over the policies that are enacted by the agency nor how they are carried out, right? It seems awfully disingenuous to lambaste the screeners for what is ultimately the agency/administration that you apparently have an issue with.

Food for thought.

Mark Arsenault
Screeners Central

Calling someone a troll is really not appreciated, particularly when I have over 700 posts on this Board having to do with many different subjects.

The 'bozos' I was referring to (if you had actually read the context of my post you would have realized this) are the bozos who make the policy. I was not 'lambaste(ing)' any screeners. I was lambasting the PR morons who put out the utter crap of an explanation for groping.

Think again.

Calling someone a troll is really not appreciated, particularly when I have over 700 posts on this Board having to do with many different subjects.
Okay, so we switch to semantics mode. (Click!) I didn't actually call you a troll. I asked if you were trolling. That is, were you posting the comment solely or primarily to illicit a reaction? Inquiring as to your intent is not the same as making a direct personal attack or casting an insult.

The 'bozos' I was referring to (if you had actually read the context of my post you would have realized this) are the bozos who make the policy. I was not 'lambaste(ing)' any screeners. I was lambasting the PR morons who put out the utter crap of an explanation for groping.
Noted. Thanks for clarifying.

Think again.
I'd rather not. It's getting late. ;)

Could someone explain to me why pat-down searches are necessary simply because one chooses to keep his or her shoes on through security?
There are two important events that influenced the policy, as I understand it.

1. The "shoe bomber" incident.

2. The Russian plane bombings.

In reaction to certain events or potential threats, the TSA generates a "profile" and anyone falling meeting these (usually overly broad) profiles is put through secondary screening.

Sneakers? Profile shoes. Heavy coat? profile. Bad attitude? Profile.

I'd invite any screeners here to confirm or deny these comments but I know it would require them to violate SSI policy so we won't ask. ;)

Bad attitude? Profile.


Bingo. And that is the problem most of us have. Civil Rights entitle one to have a Bad Attitude when treated poorly; provided that attitude doesn't extend to otherwise uncivil behavior (not following lawful instructions, or breaking other laws).

Groping somebody because they have a bad attitude smacks of retribution.

Pat-downs have withstood court challenges when they are conducted by LEOs on suspected criminals under reasonable suspicion, Terry stops, etc.

Aha! Someone who understands! :D

You are correct. The "safety" issue becomes paramount, and the searches must be conducted in a manner that do not violate the subject's 4th Amendment rights.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment... It is the same at the airport, is it not? An issue of safety?

I would hope that the courts would not uphold it if my local police agency decided to set up a checkpoint on I-65 and pat down every driver and passenger that passed by,

No, but they do uphold restrictions on movement and searches at certain public events, visits to secure areas and government buildings...

Flying on a public airline is not the same as driving one's private automobile on a public highway, I would think. Public transportation involves some issues that one doesn't generally apply to private transportation.

...or certain drivers with SSSS on their plates,

No, but each state's Dept. of otor Vehicles can put restrictions on a driver's license, which law enforcement can enforce ("No night time driving" restriction being one example).

...or random drivers under the guise of "continuous screenings," with no suspicion whatsoever that any of these drivers/pax are criminals.

DUI checkpoints. 'Nuff said.

I similarly don't see why it is acceptable to treat airline passengers as suspected criminals...

That's not what's happening. Perhaps it's how some passengers perceive it, but that's not what's actually happening, IMO.

...especially when they do not alarm the WTMD...
Two female Chechen terrorists didn't set off metal detectors either. Sadly, their flights also didn't land safely.

Touching people, especially in private places, crosses the line from "screening" to "treating like a suspected criminal" IMO. I expect better in the USA.

Then pray that you never get arrested for a felony, as those folks are searched quite thoroughly. Jail officers have routinely founds drugs, narcotics, and other items concealed in orifices that were not designed to contain such things. Searches in jail (or prison) are much more invasive than the simple pat-downs that occur at airports.

I also do not accept the claim that I have voluntarily consented to these searches.

Well, unless/until that policy is either changed by the federal government or challenged and overturned in the courts it's here to stay, I fear.

The government has coerced me into consenting as a condition of conducting my business and visiting my friends/relatives.

I would agree that there is merit to the argument that U.S. citizens are entitled to free movement within the country, as a Constitutional issue. However, the mode of said movement isn't so guaranteed. Of course, a current court case may change that. Time will tell.

I don't have to be patted down to enter my county courthouse if I don't alarm the WTMD.

You would if the officers in charge were told that someone resembling you was thought to be trying to smuggle narcotics or explosives into the building...

(They also don't object to me carrying a pocket-knife into the courtroom.)

Then yours is one of the rare court systems that hasn't modified its rules. Things used to be more lenient at the court house I worked at, but things have tightened up (Much like airport screening has).

Now, I'm not saying people have no reason to be uncomfortable with the searches. I just am of the opinion that a pat-down is not worthy of the outrage that some folks have expressed over it all.

Discomfort at having someone in our personal space or touching us is a far cry from being abused. Of course, that's all covered in my column, as well.

Where is the constructive action I can take, Decomposing screener?

I believe you said in a old post you did complain about your "traumatic" experience and they did respond didn't they? Something like that could be called constructive. You as the passengers hold much more sway over management than we do. Get everyone together and do something. Pretty much anything would be more constructive than insulting the front line people who are only doing what they are told and have no control over the rules. But I guess it's just easier to bash the people you can see eh?

I believe that we have all sent "constructive" letters and it has just gotten worse. So, I ask again, what can we do to IMPROVE the situation?????

I believe that we have all sent "constructive" letters and it has just gotten worse. So, I ask again, what can we do to IMPROVE the situation?????

Write to your local congressional representatives and senators.

Seriously.

Mark Arsenault
Screeners Central

Already done. I believe by many of us. I even have a personal friend that is a US Senator (the minority whip :) ) and still nothing...

Already done. I believe by many of us. I even have a personal friend that is a US Senator (the minority whip :) ) and still nothing...

Soon to be the Minority Leader (Good bye Daschle; don't let the door hit you on the way out) if word on the street is correct.

Quote:
...or certain drivers with SSSS on their plates,


No, but each state's Dept. of otor Vehicles can put restrictions on a driver's license, which law enforcement can enforce ("No night time driving" restriction being one example).

Ahh yes; but the rationale for putting restrictions on one's drivers license has at least a bit of logic to it -- poor eye sight = day time only restriction; under 18 = day time restrictions, can't drive with others under 18 etc.

One does not get a driving restriction simply because they drive a nice car, or because they are driving cross country instead of commuting (one way versus round trip).

If anyone one of our managers or supervisors had any suspicion of a screener using their position to purposely fondle a passenger for their own personal gratification they would be pulled immediately off the line. I know that our other screeners would "give up" a screener that was doing this. I am sure the matter would be discussed with the Airport and County Police (we have both) and we would support criminal charges.


Damage to the victim has already been done though and no criminal charges are going to make a blind bit of difference to the mental state of the victim.

Ahh yes; but the rationale for putting restrictions on one's drivers license has at least a bit of logic to it

As do the security policies that TSA has enacted. They may not be the best "logic" in your opinion, and you may flat out disagree with their rationale, but the fact of the matter is that there is some logic being used despite your assertion that there is none.

Try to look at it objectively.

One does not get a driving restriction simply because they drive a nice car, or because they are driving cross country instead of commuting (one way versus round trip).

I understand that you are trying to make the "apples and oranges" argument against the similarities I tried to illustrate. Obviously you're quite passionate in your dislike (disdain?) for the TSA. I respect that.

An argument whose conditions keep changing, however, and where one side keeps qualifying exceptions and the like quickly beomes circular. Rather than getting involved in a protracted debate perhaps it's simply best to agree to disagree at this point.

I hope things improve. I hope TSA makes (IMO) needed positive changes for both the flying public and its under-appreciated employees. 'Nuff said.

Mark Arsenault
Screeners Central (http://www.tsa-screeners.com)

Damage to the victim has already been done though and no criminal charges are going to make a blind bit of difference to the mental state of the victim.

And how is that different from any other crime??

Civil Rights entitle one to have a Bad Attitude when treated poorly; provided that attitude doesn't extend to otherwise uncivil behavior
Absolutely.


Groping somebody because they have a bad attitude smacks of retribution.
I wonder how the angry passengers in this forum would react if their complaints were characterized and referred to as "whining?"

Think about it for a moment. A lot of people are referring to the legal pat-down searches as "groping," which is inaccurate and emotionally charged. Is turnabout fair play?

My preference would be for everyone to use accurate terms to participate in civil discourse.

Mark Arsenault
Screeners Central (http://www.tsa-screeners.com)

Pat-downs have withstood court challenges when they are conducted by LEOs on suspected criminals under reasonable suspicion, Terry stops, etc. Those patted down do not consent, and that's fine, because there is suspicion of crime or a need to protect the officer.

And the rationale behind any screening checkpoint, whether it's at an airport or a government building, is that there is a heightened suspicion that individuals may carry weapons or explosives into the building. So, at the airport checkpoint, there is a suspicion of crime until the screening determines otherwise.

I would hope that the courts would not uphold it if my local police agency decided to set up a checkpoint on I-65 and pat down every driver and passenger that passed by, or certain drivers with SSSS on their plates, or random drivers under the guise of "continuous screenings," with no suspicion whatsoever that any of these drivers/pax are criminals.

You are correct. Read City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). There, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting) held that a vehicle checkpoint was unconstitutional because its purpose was only to find evidence of crime (specifically, drugs.) The court held that only two types of roadway checkpoints were currently permissible: border checkpoints (looooong been held constitutional) and DUI or other safety related checkpoints (furthers the government interest in roadway safety.)

Now, if you want to get up in front of a court and say that weapons and explosives searches at the airport don't further the government interest in aviation security, I would be more than happy to argue against you :D

I also do not accept the claim that I have voluntarily consented to these searches. The government has coerced me into consenting as a condition of conducting my business and visiting my friends/relatives.

No more than the government "coerces" you into paying your taxes, registering your vehicle, purchasing a driver's license, registering with Selective Service....

I wonder how the angry passengers in this forum would react if their complaints were characterized and referred to as "whining?"

It is, all the time. Both here and your site.

Think about it for a moment. A lot of people are referring to the legal pat-down searches as "groping," which is inaccurate and emotionally charged. Is turnabout fair play?

The term groping is perfectly accurate. These screeners are NOT LEO's, they are overpaid window dressing. A "Pat Down" by an LEO occurs when a SUSPECT is in custody. We are NOT suspects, nor are we in custody. A "pat down" is performed by a TRAINED professional who knows what they are looking for. Over 90% of the front line screeners are NOT trained LEO's, nor do they know what they are looking for. Therefore, It is groping. PERIOD.

My preference would be for everyone to use accurate terms to participate in civil discourse.

See above.

The term groping is perfectly accurate.

No, I'm afraid it's not.


These screeners are NOT LEO's,

That is irrelevent. Non-sworn uniformed officers working for LE agencies conduct pat-downs, too. Those are legal even though the officers are not peace officers. The issue is the authorty for conducting the search and like it or not, TSA screeners (as far as I can tell) have the authority...


...they are overpaid window dressing.

Why do these discussions always seem to quickly devolve into name-calling? It's childish and unnecessary, not to mention unlikely to convince someone on the other side of the debate to consider your position.


A "Pat Down" by an LEO occurs when a SUSPECT is in custody.

Wrong again. Pat-down searches also occur in non-custodial situations. I know. I've conducted many of them.


We are NOT suspects...

That's arguable, depending on one's definition. But I digress.


A "pat down" is performed by a TRAINED professional who knows what they are looking for.

And how, exactly, does this definition not apply to screeners? :confused:


Over 90% of the front line screeners are NOT trained LEO's,

I'm curious. What's the source of the above statistic?


...nor do they know what they are looking for.

They know a far sight more about what they are looking for than most passengers, I suspect.


Therefore, It is groping. PERIOD.

Despite your adamant refusal to deal with facts instead of emotionalism, your definition of "groping" is inaccurate.

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, "grope" is defined as (emphasis mine):

v. intr.
1. To reach about uncertainly; feel one's way: groped for the telephone.
2. To search blindly or uncertainly: grope for an answer.
v. tr.
2. Slang. To handle or fondle for sexual pleasure.

The legal pat-down searches, when properly conducted by screeners, are none of the above. I assure you that training to conduct a pat-down includes instruction to make such searches methodical, covering all areas (so as not to miss an area).

I seriously doubt your assertion that TSA screeners are "reaching about uncertainly." And even if they were, that would void any claims that they are "intentionally" touching genitalia, etc.

Discomfort over being searched and displeasure about a policy does not equal criminal wrongdoing nor does it justify mischaracterizing what's going on. Your personal feelings about something do not alter the facts any more than does using inaccurate terminology in discussions with the intention of stirring the reader's emotions.

One may not appreciate being subjected to a legal and properly conducted pat-down search, but such searches are not "groping."

Mark Arsenault
Screeners Central (http://www.tsa-screeners.com/)

Haven't any of you ever been to a concert? They do pat you down before you can go in even though you are not a suspect in custody. It's a condition for seeing the band the same way it's a condition for flying. Those patdowns are much more uncomfortable than the ones we give at airports by the way.

Let's face it the general flying public are not supermodels. YES i work for the TSA. NO i do not want to touch you. . . . not even with a 10 foot pole, some people i dont even want to look at. but it is my job and i will do it to the best of my ability. I do not get my jollies off becuse i have to feel around some womans chest area. big deal.

Haven't any of you ever been to a concert? They do pat you down before you can go in even though you are not a suspect in custody. It's a condition for seeing the band the same way it's a condition for flying. Those patdowns are much more uncomfortable than the ones we give at airports by the way.
I went to 2 concerts this month and was not patted down by anyone. One concert was in Sonoma and one was in Las Vegas at the MGM Grand...

I also find it funny how women are partial to who is doing the patdowns. I myself am a young accomplished male model while also working with TSA. When my older counter-parts are cunducting the patdowns they get groans and complaints. But if I or some of my other younger attractive co-workers are conducting a pat down were told, "this is the most action I've gotten in years", "Thank you", "No he cant pat me down but you can.", so on and so forth. Just a very contrasting view of what actually goes on.

Haven't any of you ever been to a concert? They do pat you down before you can go in even though you are not a suspect in custody. It's a condition for seeing the band the same way it's a condition for flying. Those patdowns are much more uncomfortable than the ones we give at airports by the way.

Try some of the hip and trendy clubs here in Los Angeles. The Highlands is the most recent place I've been where the bouncers give everyone -- especially males -- a rather frisky pat-down.

But, DS, there is a HUGE legal difference here. Private actors can pat you down for an hour, if they want. The Constitution doesn't reach private actors. When the government and its legal force enter the picture, the legal situation changes.

No, I'm afraid it's not.

See below


That is irrelevent. Non-sworn uniformed officers working for LE agencies conduct pat-downs, too. Those are legal even though the officers are not peace officers. The issue is the authorty for conducting the search and like it or not, TSA screeners (as far as I can tell) have the authority...

Please quote the LAW that states this?


Why do these discussions always seem to quickly devolve into name-calling? It's childish and unnecessary, not to mention unlikely to convince someone on the other side of the debate to consider your position.

What name calling?

ALL TSA employees are overpaid.
EVERY TSA function is window dressing.


Wrong again. Pat-down searches also occur in non-custodial situations. I know. I've conducted many of them.

Proof?


That's arguable, depending on one's definition. But I digress.

How in the heck are LAW ABDING taxpayers suspects?


And how, exactly, does this definition not apply to screeners? :confused:

Because they are NOT properly trained. As for professionalism, I'm still waiting for even 50% of the screeners I interact with to start behaving professionally.


I'm curious. What's the source of the above statistic?

I was being generous. The number is probably MUCH higher.


They know a far sight more about what they are looking for than most passengers, I suspect.

Maybe, but there are MANY passengers who know more about security than any employee of the TSA.


Despite your adamant refusal to deal with facts instead of emotionalism, your definition of "groping" is inaccurate.

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, "grope" is defined as (emphasis mine):

v. intr.
1. To reach about uncertainly; feel one's way: groped for the telephone.
2. To search blindly or uncertainly: grope for an answer.
v. tr.
2. Slang. To handle or fondle for sexual pleasure.

The legal pat-down searches, when properly conducted by screeners, are none of the above. I assure you that training to conduct a pat-down includes instruction to make such searches methodical, covering all areas (so as not to miss an area).

1. Accurate assesment of the TSA "Pat-Down"
2. Accurate assesment of the TSA "Pat-Down"
3. Accurate assesment of a small percentage of TSA "Pat-Downs".


I seriously doubt your assertion that TSA screeners are "reaching about uncertainly." And even if they were, that would void any claims that they are "intentionally" touching genitalia, etc.

See above.


Discomfort over being searched and displeasure about a policy does not equal criminal wrongdoing nor does it justify mischaracterizing what's going on. Your personal feelings about something do not alter the facts any more than does using inaccurate terminology in discussions with the intention of stirring the reader's emotions.

One may not appreciate being subjected to a legal and properly conducted pat-down search, but such searches are not "groping."

I contest that they are NOT legal, nor are they properly conducted.

Haven't any of you ever been to a concert? They do pat you down before you can go in even though you are not a suspect in custody. It's a condition for seeing the band the same way it's a condition for flying. Those patdowns are much more uncomfortable than the ones we give at airports by the way.

I spent a few years in the rave scene, and pat-downs at the door were the norm. However, those pat-downs were usually very quick and less intrusive than those done by the TSA. (To be sure, at many of the raves I attended, the pat-downs seemed to be nothing more than window dressing to make the authorites think that the event promoters really cared about keeping drugs out. It's amusing to see someone who was earlier doing pat-downs high on Ecstasy.)

As for concerts, only twice have I ever been patted down at such events, and those pat-downs were even less thorough than the rave pat-downs.

Perhaps the concerts you're attending attract a rougher crowd. :confused:

And how is that different from any other crime??

Because there is a potential for government employees to carry out the crimes. General crimes aren't facilitated by government mandate.

I also find it funny how women are partial to who is doing the patdowns. I myself am a young accomplished male model while also working with TSA. When my older counter-parts are cunducting the patdowns they get groans and complaints. But if I or some of my other younger attractive co-workers are conducting a pat down were told, "this is the most action I've gotten in years", "Thank you", "No he cant pat me down but you can.", so on and so forth. Just a very contrasting view of what actually goes on.

So is your airport considered an extreme situation where there are no female screeners to do patdowns on female pax?

Let's face it the general flying public are not supermodels. YES i work for the TSA. NO i do not want to touch you. . . . not even with a 10 foot pole, some people i dont even want to look at. but it is my job and i will do it to the best of my ability. I do not get my jollies off becuse i have to feel around some womans chest area. big deal.

Ha :D

Even fat ugly people have feelings too. But I do feel sorry for screeners whose job requires them to feel around people's fat rolls...

I don't feel sorry at all.

If they don't like, it they can find more meaningful employement. More meaningful would cover just about every job available in the USA.

See below



Yet another case of emotionalism as opposed to facts. The norm here "I say so therefor it is fact". Mark can state fact and experience as can several of us as opposed to prejudicial observation and here say.

Haven't any of you ever been to a concert? They do pat you down before you can go in even though you are not a suspect in custody. It's a condition for seeing the band the same way it's a condition for flying. Those patdowns are much more uncomfortable than the ones we give at airports by the way.

Concerts and concert halls are private events and the pat-downs are not government-mandated.

If the airlines themselves wanted to conduct these pat-downs, that would be one thing. It would also let the consumer decide whether to fly a carrier that conducts these pat-downs as opposed to one that does not. The government's forced use of pat-downs for travelers is not at all similar to concert pat-downs.

I don't feel sorry at all.

If they don't like, it they can find more meaningful employement. More meaningful would cover just about every job available in the USA.

In your thinking, so can passengers who state they need to travel for work and do not want to go through the checkpoints.

Wrongo back atcha. Read my post -- struck by lightning since 9/11, not killed by lightening per year.There are no current statistics for this number since 1999, where do you get your figures?

Concerts and concert halls are private events and the pat-downs are not government-mandated.

If the airlines themselves wanted to conduct these pat-downs, that would be one thing. It would also let the consumer decide whether to fly a carrier that conducts these pat-downs as opposed to one that does not. The government's forced use of pat-downs for travelers is not at all similar to concert pat-downs.

Yankee and Shea stadiums in New York are both government owned properties and one is subject to a search for any event held at those locations.

The government mandate is in order to enter a certain area of the airport (most local government owned) one must be subject to a search by a government agency.

There are no current statistics for this number since 1999, where do you get your figures?

Harper's. November issue.

If there are no current statistics, where did you get yours?

Please quote the LAW that states this?

The Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001 is a good place to start, CameraGuy.


ALL TSA employees are overpaid.
EVERY TSA function is window dressing.

If you want to continue to utter comments like the above, that's your right, i suppose.


Proof?

You want me to offer "proof" that I served as an active duty Security Police officer in the USAF and that I was employed by a law enforcement agency for 10 years and that I conducted non-custodial pat-down searches during those times? <LOL> Good one. I'm afriad you're going to have to take my word on that one, I guess.


Because they are NOT properly trained.

And what is the basis for this claim? What standards of training are TSA screeners held to? What training do they undergo, and what does that training consist of? Who conducts it? Who evaluates it? Do you know?

I don't believe that you are qualified to determine whether or not TSA screeners are properly trained.


As for professionalism, I'm still waiting for even 50% of the screeners I interact with to start behaving professionally.

This is a separate issue from the generaldiscussion of the workforce being properly trained.


Maybe, but there are MANY passengers who know more about security than any employee of the TSA.

I'm seeing a pattern of you dodging the direct questions that challenge or refute your assertions. Perhaps this discussion is more for the sake of arguuing than for engaging in reasonable discourse for you?


I contest that they are NOT legal, nor are they properly conducted.

Well, you're free to take that challenge to the courts, because ultimately it's the courts that will decide such an issue. You may well be correct. For the moment, however, the executive branch seems to disagree with you.

Utter crap. There was no real training, nor will there be. These bozos have absolutely no idea how to provide real security. They have absolutely no regard for the rights and privacy of US citizens.

These absurdities are merely excuses to impinge on our rights by taking advantage of peoples' fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. As a matter of fact, more people have been hit by lightening in the US since 9/11/01 than died in the attacks. Those attacks were terrible events, but the US needs to get some perspective.

TSA and government apologists, flame away. :td:

Well said and very true.

So is your airport considered an extreme situation where there are no female screeners to do patdowns on female pax?

This has come under much arguement from the male workforce at BOS. Most male screeners, including myself, protested and outright refused to conduct cross-gender pat-downs. Many of us were uncomfortable with doing these pat-downs. As far as "Extreme situations" go, this has been an argument with the screeners and the TSA managers for some time now.Aparently and "extreme situation" is whatever an FSD deems it to be. Granted we are VERY short staffed at BOS most screeners feel it is not "extreme" enough to warrent cross-gender pat downs.

Furthermore, I do not know about other airports but here in BOS therfe was so much protest that a TSA memo was sent out to the screeners stating that any screener who refuses to conduct cross-gender pat-downs will be subjected to disiplinary action and/or termination.

This has come under much arguement from the male workforce at BOS. Most male screeners, including myself, protested and outright refused to conduct cross-gender pat-downs. Many of us were uncomfortable with doing these pat-downs. As far as "Extreme situations" go, this has been an argument with the screeners and the TSA managers for some time now.Aparently and "extreme situation" is whatever an FSD deems it to be. Granted we are VERY short staffed at BOS most screeners feel it is not "extreme" enough to warrent cross-gender pat downs.

Furthermore, I do not know about other airports but here in BOS therfe was so much protest that a TSA memo was sent out to the screeners stating that any screener who refuses to conduct cross-gender pat-downs will be subjected to disiplinary action and/or termination.

The FSD is then in violation of SOP 2.2.3 and by SOP 1.3 he is not to deviate from the SOP. Since the BOS FSD is now the Regional Director replacing the Area Director I guess he is like the rest of the TSA Administration and can do what he wants.

A law suit or media articles may need to be generated to bring this to light. GradGirl, going to BOS anytime soon?

Perhaps the concerts you're attending attract a rougher crowd. :confused:

I'm a fan of heavy metal and punk music so yeah I guess they would attract a rougher crowd. Some of the smaller venues will do a quick and painless patdown but larger places will give you a pretty rough one just short of a cavity search. No such thing as a sensitive area to those guys. :)

This has come under much arguement from the male workforce at BOS. Most male screeners, including myself, protested and outright refused to conduct cross-gender pat-downs. Many of us were uncomfortable with doing these pat-downs. As far as "Extreme situations" go, this has been an argument with the screeners and the TSA managers for some time now.Aparently and "extreme situation" is whatever an FSD deems it to be. Granted we are VERY short staffed at BOS most screeners feel it is not "extreme" enough to warrent cross-gender pat downs.

Furthermore, I do not know about other airports but here in BOS therfe was so much protest that a TSA memo was sent out to the screeners stating that any screener who refuses to conduct cross-gender pat-downs will be subjected to disiplinary action and/or termination.

Let me get this straight:

The idiot Nacarra is willing to fire a screener for refusing to perform a cross-gender grope, but not a screener who brings a loaded weapon to work!

Ladies and Gentleman, we have a winner in the dumbest FSD competition!

The FSD is then in violation of SOP 2.2.3 and by SOP 1.3 he is not to deviate from the SOP. Since the BOS FSD is now the Regional Director replacing the Area Director I guess he is like the rest of the TSA Administration and can do what he wants.

A law suit or media articles may need to be generated to bring this to light. GradGirl, going to BOS anytime soon?

They PROMOTED that moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just when I thought this agency could not stoop any lower!

That would explain why MHT went from one of the most professional stations in the country to one of the most un-professional overnight.

I have to agree that in my experience cross-gender patdowns at BOS are generally the rule rather than the exception. On a very recent trip I was sitting for quite a while outside the Burger King at terminal B (where there's nothing to look at except the screening line) and saw about 15 female passengers in a row screened by a male agent (despite the presence of a female agent who was just standing around). This generally happens every time I go through there.

I don't have an objection to cross-gender patdowns if it's done professionally (I've been patted down in international airports, for example, where this was the case). But if you have a policy in place, and consistently violate it, that only serves to make people angry and suspicious.

This has come under much arguement from the male workforce at BOS. Most male screeners, including myself, protested and outright refused to conduct cross-gender pat-downs.

. . .

Furthermore, I do not know about other airports but here in BOS therfe was so much protest that a TSA memo was sent out to the screeners stating that any screener who refuses to conduct cross-gender pat-downs will be subjected to disiplinary action and/or termination.

Wow! Well, this just goes to say several interesting things about some members of TSA administration. No wonder we read so many things about BOS here. Threatening screeners for trying to stand up for the national policy--jeesh.

Thanks for trying to stand up for us (and yourselves) though. Every little bit does help. ^

I must have had the cream-of-the-crop screeners at BOS (terminal C) last month when I got my SSSS. They were not doing cross-gender patdowns (for either woman in front of me in SSSS line or my male self), were rather professional, and quite swift. No complaints. After reading this, I think I probably should have filled out a (positive) comment card.

The FSD is then in violation of SOP 2.2.3 and by SOP 1.3 he is not to deviate from the SOP. Since the BOS FSD is now the Regional Director replacing the Area Director I guess he is like the rest of the TSA Administration and can do what he wants.

A law suit or media articles may need to be generated to bring this to light. GradGirl, going to BOS anytime soon?

I was planning to avoid BOS for the rest of my life, but I"m willing to take one for the team. What should I do? I know very well how to guarantee myself an SSSS, and in my experience I'm usually approached by a male screener who wants to do my patdown. What's my next step after that?

I wonder if Barbara Bush (G H W Bush's wife and G W Bush's mother) gets the full cross-gender patdown at Boston. She certainly seemed to beep at DCA.

... and a few squeezes around her bra and voila.....

I was planning to avoid BOS for the rest of my life, but I"m willing to take one for the team. What should I do? I know very well how to guarantee myself an SSSS, and in my experience I'm usually approached by a male screener who wants to do my patdown. What's my next step after that?

I would contact the ACLU and tell them you're willing to set yourself up. I'd think you would want to discuss objectives and rules of engagement. Also, I would think they would want to have a second person there to conclusively document what happens and doesn't happen.

You might be able to get someone (or a group of people) in very public trouble for the male vs female thing, but I'm not sure you'd be able to invent an incident to get the whole pat-down policy thrown out.

I'm not a lawyer -- just a former military strategist!

Good luck if you follow thorugh with this.