Boggie Dog

Why even go to that trouble when a baggage handler can just waltz around all 20 layers of TSA's security?

The real security threat is not from passengers but from the incompetence of TSA.

chollie

I would really like to believe that before TSA arrived at this conclusion, it was tested thoroughly.

Yeah, an FBI-sting idiot might handle a prohibited substance with bare hands and get caught.

A serviceman was stopped at a checkpoint in Fayetteville a couple years ago. TSOs found a live grenade in his bag (which he 'surrendered' because they gave him a choice).

They missed two bricks of unconcealed government-issue C4.

?? What happened? Did TSA not swab the bag? Not swab his hands?

Would the swabs have found traces?

I used to travel with nitro pills. Mine are dispensed in a very tiny bottle, which is put inside a regular small pill bottle. The outer bottle was swabbed, as was everything else in my bag during a very thorough 'unpack and swab everything' exercise. The TSO did not open the outer pill bottle and swab the inner bottle. Nothing alarmed.

Was this because medical nitro doesn't alarm? Quantity too small (trace)? That seems unlikely, because there are reports that the glycerin in some hand lotions is enough to alarm - and TSOs have been the source of that information.

My point is, I'm sure someone thinks asking an adult in the offending party to volunteer for a grope and wipe is a viable alternative to opening sterile containers. I just wonder if this was cooked up in an office or if there is an actual, tested scientific basis for the alternative. In a group, one wonders why TSA wouldn't be suspicious that the adult volunteering for the extra handling is doing so because s/he isn't the one who handled the nastiness.

I know it's SSI, of course.

Boggie Dog

The idea that a pat down of a person can in some way help devine the nature of the contents of a sealed container eludes me. But of course I'm not one of TSA's Security Experts.

gsoltso

Right. We (and by extension the OP) are talking about two different things aparently. Most airports have those, but the strips are not placed in a machine like the OP described. That is why I am interested in this technology that I am completely unaware of. I know that at one time we had a system like the "FIDO" sensors, where it had a tab on the end of the device, and it sampled air and processed - but the OP indicates that the TSO used - a wand, waved it over the LAG to collect vapors, and then placed the wand in a machine (loosely restated mind you, not quoted verbatim). I have never heard of tech like that and am interested.

chollie

It shouldn't be difficult for you to find out - it's apparently in use at BOS. Perhaps it's something in test.

saizai

The latter is true in my experience.

I'm not sure I would describe e.g. my SFO experience (or the numerous other times I've been denied properly declared medical liquids) as punitive per se; it's more like the screeners are petty tyrants, feel like they have authority to just invent rules on their own or override TSA policy & national law (e.g. Rehabilitation Act), and there does not exist any national TSA office that has the authority to override the screeners on the spot.

FWIW, after my SFO video got on BoingBoing & national TV, SFO's entire TSA workforce (including CAS') got retrained on medical liquids. I've had a couple incidents since then with medical liquids, but much rarer than I'd had before. I guess at least some people got the memo that they will in fact get sued for this kind of BS.

TSA claims that it's always had a policy of allowing medical liquids — including water and juice — in any amount, without requiring a prescription. That would be what the law requires. As you're aware, that's not what they actually do, though.

So there are plenty of people who haven't gotten the memo… or have gotten it and outright refuse to obey, like the asshat in my SFO video (who for some reason no longer works for the TSA, dating to around the same time as it got posted on BoingBoing).

Hopefully when I sue 'em for the SFO events (which should happen within a few months), I'll be able to get discovery, include all the various incidents that have happened before and after (both to me and others), and have the court enter a permanent injunction with external oversight and enforcement.


PS They said I was right on national TV over two years ago now, and they had 180 days to respond to my formal complaint filed in January 2013. But they still haven't, and they're fighting me in court right now to prevent me from forcing them to respond like they promised and the law requires.

lg10

Wow, thanks for all the thoughtful comments! So I'm not sure now, memory-wise, if the wand itself went into the machine or if there was a swab at the tip that was released into the machine. The agent definitely said she was "testing the vapors". Or maybe she said she had a case of the vapors. (j/k)

lg10

@saizai - wow, I just read your page and watched your video. I got a little nauseated watching your obvious physical distress and how those people treated you. I am so so sorry that you had to deal with that. I hope your case happens soon and with a good result. That guy was so obviously just punishing you and getting on his power trip. (Mostly, why wouldn't he let you drink directly at least, while waiting??)

Boggie Dog

Read the information at the link provided by GSOLTSO in post #41. Read it carefully. It seems that TSA does not agree that you can travel with your medical LGA's unless they want you too.

Terms like adequate amounts, can require you to open, and other such requirements can easily result in ruining the item, not having enough of the item, or TSA not allowing the item for any reason or no reason. You the traveler have no defense or recourse.

I have asked TSA, via the TSA blog what quantity a reasonable amount of a medical LGA is for a flight from DFW to MIA is. Surely it must be a defined quantity since TSA allows its most junior employees to enforce this requirement.

So far TSA has not responded to my question.

My opinion is that TSA is on some very shakey ground when saying they can regulate if and how much medical LGA's a person can travel with. I'm afraid it's going to take a case going all the way through the judical system in order to force any possible change at TSA. Keep in mind that the front line screener may be legally accountable for any restrictions of this type if they restrict a persons medical items.

saizai

I appreciate the support.

It'll probably take another 2-4 years of litigation, though.

E.g. Stacey Armato (detained for an hour over breast milk): incident in February 2010, filed suit in December 2011, settled in April 2014.

For me: SFO incident in March 2013, filed formal complaint within a week, they had 180 days to reply, on BoingBoing & TV in April 2013 (with official statement by TSA's PR department to TV that I was right), sued in January 2014 under FOIA / Privacy act (TSA claims I never asked for the complaint response), sued in January 2015 under Rehabilitation Act (TSA claims I have no right to get a response to my complaint), still no official response.

The SFO one was just the one I got on video. Basically the same thing, or variants of it (e.g. "pick two of your bottles to take with you"), has happened to me multiple times in airports across the country — JFK, MIA, ORD, RIC, RDU, etc.


FWIW, I think my BOS incident was much worse. And they're digging in even deeper on that one. See their response to my complaint @ that link, especially p. 5-7…


TTBOMK, that language was added after my SFO incident. (I'd appreciate if anyone can track down the original date of those phrases being added anywhere.)

They have no authority to determine what is a "reasonable amount" of medical liquids, nor to enforce such a restriction. It's either WEI or it isn't; a gallon of shampoo or ginger beer isn't any more of a WEI than 8 ounces is.

They can swab containers, and they have devices that can scan liquids in translucent / transparent containers directly. I've been asked to open containers, but I refuse to do so unless it's already opened, and they've always backed down on that. (If they deny my liquids, it's not over whether I open the container or not.)


That's what I'm intending to do.


FWIW: I'm broke and get no compensation for the (huge) amount of time & energy I put into pursuing this. Unlike a lawyer, I actually can't. (Cf. Kay v Ehrler.) Maybe in some years I'll get a settlement, but there's no guarantee, it won't compensate for my time over the last two and a half years, and it doesn't pay the bills in the meantime.

If you can support me financially (it's literally so I can afford to pay for rent & food, not to mention filing costs and all that), I'd really appreciate it. Patreon, Bitcoin & PayPal links are @ sidebar on http://s.ai.

janetdoe

I'm going to say you're right, but for the wrong reasons. The problem is not that people are exaggerating their kids' allergies.

The problem is now that people are ABSURDLY PARANOID about stuff spoiling. It's a sealed carton of sterile product. It's a quantity designed for the length of the flight / travel day. It's almost certainly been UHT pasteurized with an expected shelf life of a year or more, unrefrigerated. There is no reason that can't be opened. There is no reason you couldn't pour it into a sippy cup or thermos before you left for the airport. Similarly, there is no reason a toddlers' juice can't be opened. It is sterilized when it is bottled and there is NOTHING that is going to grow on it in 24 hours. People who are all, "Oh no, my precious flower will wilt if a germ crosses their tiny pink lips" really do annoy me. And yet they are likely to be the same people who use the same filthy sponge in their kitchen sink until it falls apart. There is absolutely no concept or sense of perspective of the real risks...

Now if your child has been on chemo or had an organ transplant or has an otherwise severely compromised immune system, I'll give you a break on this one. Also, maybe the people pumping breast milk have a legitimate concern, that is unprocessed and would tend to spoil/degrade quickly. There are of course exceptions like that.
[/rant]

I totally agree with everyone that the liquids testing is ridiculous. I suspect the 'logic' is something like, "Well, we have a simple test that will prove it's not an explosive... but if we can't do that, we need to do every other trace explosives test we have: rubdown, bag swabbing, etc, to try and absolutely minimize the possibility that anyone can bring liquid explosives through." Once again, no perspective on the likelihood of the risk.

We're so damn safe we make up dangers out of boredom.

saizai

FWIW, I'm one of the people who objects to TSA opening a sealed container. I don't believe I'm paranoid in the sense you or Steve mention.

E.g. TTBOMK current evidence supports that childhood exposure to non-lethal bacteria improves the immune system, and non-exposure (e.g. in overly sterile environments) causes allergies and other immune system disorders.

And yes, the product is sterile so long as it's sealed.

However, you assume something that's wrong:
Often I carry medical liquids that are supposed to be kept refrigerated, like kefir. (Preemptively: it's medical because I need hydration and sugar, and it helps settle my stomach.)

It keeps okay (a few days) non-refrigerated so long as it's kept sealed. Unrefrigerated and unsealed, it spoils very quickly.

I don't carry liquids just for the duration of one flight. I carry them to cover missed flights, potentially having to stay overnight in an airport (it's happened, unplanned, more than once), multiple connecting flights / trains / etc (which can easily be a couple days in total), plus enough to last me until I can find something suitable locally on arrival, which itself might take a couple days.

There, I agree.
With pre-9/11 security measures (+ cockpit door hardening), under current "threats", air travel would still be way safer than a slew of things that we as a society have decided are basically fine, like driving or using a shower. (Literally — ~29k people die from accidental falls & drowning each year. See 2010 CDC report on mortality by cause.)

By contrast, there are about 12 American deaths per year due to terrorism. 9/11 killed about 3,000 people. It's bad, yes, but consider that about the same number died in 2010 in the US from each of malnutrition, asthma, gallbladder disorders, accidental drowning, accidental smoke/fire/flame exposure, and surgical complications (CDC report, p. 38) — all of which happen every year, unlike 9/11.

In short, I think it's unreasonable to time, money, goodwill, and public sanity preventing terrorism far disproportionately to the actual risk thereof.

Somehow I doubt we'll be spending $7.4 billion per year to combat accidental drowning any time soon, even though it's killed far more people in the US than terrorism.

lg10

I agree about spoilage concerns in general (I don't think most kids' lunchboxes need ice packs, for example, and I think that cheese, butter, eggs, and yogurt are refrigerated more than they probably need to be in the USA). Juice I would leave for quite some time before worrying.

HOWEVER - milk and similar supplements are different, and once their seal is broken, it doesn't take long to start smelling "off". Particularly for a little kid.

Also, some of these one-time-sealed packages have literally no way to close them after their seal is broken (think straw hole punctured).

I'm pretty competent at risk analysis. And also, it's kind of my family's own damned business how and what to feed my small child, even if we are travelling via air. I believe people should have privacy rights even when we are checking for terrorism. What TSA does now is neither (neither the respect of privacy nor checking meaningfully for terrorism).

ETA - Sai's experience goes way beyond privacy rights, of course, into basic human dignity and ADA rights.

WillCAD

Blanket statements about how "there is no reason" are absurdly narrow-minded, because there ARE reasons, many of them, why those liquids shouldn't be opened at the c/p by untrained TSOs wearing filthy blue gloves who have been in direct contact with hundreds of traveling people on each shift. Spoilage is only one of a myriad of concerns, not the least of which is that even ultra-pasteurized milk products all require refrigeration after opening and can sour even over the course of a short-haul flight, depending on temperature.

Long journeys can take several days, which means I need several days worth of my medically necessary liquids with me. Maybe a carton of ultra pasteurized milk that some TSO opens at a c/p could last the first leg of my flight unrefrigerated, but it's not going to last the whole journey.

There are plenty of reasons why I don't want those juices opened, starting with the presence of those filthy TSOs and their blue gloves I mentioned earlier.

We're not talking about opening these things in your home, in a public park, or even in a shopping mall. We're talking about an airport setting, where thousands of people from all over the country and all over the world walk through on a daily basis. I'm not terribly worried about Ebola or Dengue Fever, but I do worry about being exposed to varieties of the common cold and strains of influenza from other parts of the world that I have no immunity to and have not been vaccinated against.

I'm also concerned with the fact that sanitary procedures vary from person to person. Even guys from New York and Seattle sometimes fail to wash their hands after using the bathroom. While I'm not the type to carry hand sanitizer everywhere or wash my hands fifty times a day, I am cautious when it comes to open food and beverages in a public place.

Whatever your opinion might be on "exceptions" or what your personal is of "legitimate concerns", how I keep myself and my (hypothetical) children healthy is none of your concern. There is no justification for forcing anyone to open their milk, formula, juice, or other medically necessary liquids in the open and unclean environment of an airport c/p.

I think you're missing the whole point - the additional screening has no logical benefit. It is entirely, completely, and obviously punitive in nature. It's nothing more than a punishment for not opening up your medically necessary or otherwise exempted liquids for some TSO to drool into, cough on, spill, spoil, or otherwise contaminate.

But you're right about one thing - the whole liquids testing thing is ridiculous.

chollie

It's also kind of ironic that TSA has chosen to develop a inconvenient and time-consuming demands to clear medical liquids when the previous head of TSA, Kip Hawley, has publicly stated that the liquid restrictions should have been eliminated on his watch.

Where were these requirements when a helpful TSO carried Britney Spear's 'Big Gulp' through the checkpoint for her?

Oh, right, that was different. Celebrity needs are more important than medical needs.