Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

TSA overstepping in Denver [gate searches of flight with women headed to DC march]

TSA overstepping in Denver [gate searches of flight with women headed to DC march]

Old Jan 22, 2017, 4:20 pm
  #46  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
There is one report of gate screening and in that case it is said that 80% of the passengers on that one flight were female. TSA will not do a pat down by opposite sex screeners except in limited situations and that wasn't reported to have happened. With 80% of the passengers being female it is very likely that more women were selected on this one flight and that screening could have been no more than an ID and/or bag check.

The point I have been making all along is that there is not enough information from that tweet to determine if it was TSA business as usual or not. I doubt there is anyone on this forum that believes I am a TSA supporter but if we are going to throw stones lets have enough information to make them hurt. TSA is badly flawed and it wouldn't surprise me if this flight was in fact targeted but we need more evidence.
And I agreed with you that there is not enough information, which is why I started my sentence with "IF." I was responding to another poster who didn't seem to understand how statistics could be used to prove violations of the First Amendment.
PTravel is offline  
Old Jan 22, 2017, 4:24 pm
  #47  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Stats can indeed be used to demonstrate violations of laws and legal rights, whether or not the data is able to be used to make everyone comfortable about causal and/or correlation aspects.

Originally Posted by nexttime
You want nefarious intent where none existed. And if we are going to discuss facts, please use the facts to prove me wrong. I offer you a statement from the Airport.

""We had a large group with a large number of bags to be checked and because of a certain item in those bags there was additional screening necessary," said Bill Begley with Hobby Airport.

A spokesman for the airport says the sorority members were apparently given thick booklets at the convention that could be mistaken for explosives when packed into checked bags. The booklets forced TSA officials to hand check most of the luggage."
I would suggest that perhaps the point of chollie's post was missed by some.

What happened in the Sorority matter was clear, but it had nothing to do with something being mistaken for explosives despite the PR machine indicating just that.

Some thick collections of some kind of paper and/or printed material create scan images that look nothing like explosives but need resolving by physical examination due to concerns about what the opaque object is.

Last edited by GUWonder; Jan 22, 2017 at 4:30 pm
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jan 22, 2017, 4:25 pm
  #48  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by s0ssos
Hmm, never encountered that in statistics class.
I did, both in my doctoral statistics course and in law school.

To show how farcical your example is, imagine you go to a place and you meet x number of people, which compromises y percent of the population, and 98% of the people you meet are men. You conclude that most of the population is men.
And thus you conclude India has 98% men in their population.
It is absolutely wrong.
Yes, it is, which is why it is completely inapt.

Firstly, you didn't mean statistical. You mean anecdotal.
No, that's not anecdotal. The OP's original post is anecdotal.

Secondly, statistics is about trying to account for different variables that you don't know about, usually trying to balance them out so they neutralize each other, to get a sense of what is really going on.

<redacted>
Statistics is about trying to identify specific variables that have a correlation with specific outcomes. Read some of the reported cases in which statistics were used to prove discrimination.
PTravel is offline  
Old Jan 22, 2017, 4:59 pm
  #49  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 5,975
Originally Posted by GUWonder
I have observed a lot of gate searches by TSA, and a lot by CBP, and some done by both. It's very infrequently the case that people film the TSA or CBP doing all of these search activities at their own flights' gates or even at the flight gates for other people subjected to this. If you haven't noticed, filming people in law enforcement style uniform sometimes gets people hassled or worse.

Flights to D.C. airports getting extra gate screening attention has been going on for years. But it becomes more extensive around big event periods.
Lots of gate searches by TSA in the last few years? I fly 150k - 200k a year and have not seen even one in about 3 years, maybe longer. (I do not fly to or via DC a lot, but in the few times I have, I have not seen one.)

I take you at your word you have seen "a lot" in your experiences. In mine, I have seen none. And if I did, I would snap a picture!
Global321 is offline  
Old Jan 22, 2017, 5:47 pm
  #50  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Global321
Lots of gate searches by TSA in the last few years? I fly 150k - 200k a year and have not seen even one in about 3 years, maybe longer. (I do not fly to or via DC a lot, but in the few times I have, I have not seen one.)

I take you at your word you have seen "a lot" in your experiences. In mine, I have seen none. And if I did, I would snap a picture!
I used to see these TSA ones way more a decade ago than in the past three years.

The CBP ones are way more prevalent now than a decade ago.

The DCA-bound flights have been getting the TSA ones way more frequently than other domestic flights when controlling for year; but except for say major events in DC, they are now very infrequently done.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jan 22, 2017, 6:42 pm
  #51  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 2,403
There is widespread variability, but certain US airports seem to spend a lot more of their resources on gate screening. Denver is one of them, as is Cleveland.

Since about 2003-04, I don't recall ever seeing it in other airports that were my hometown airports: San Francisco, Seattle, or any of the three New York airports. I'm sure it's happened, but with far less frequency than Denver.

In fact, I think I've seen at least one TSA cart at a gate every time I've gone through Denver.

It is unfortunate that they picked a flight with a political element to it. I doubt we'll ever know, but I don't think that the TSA is all that clever. They might specifically have gate searches for flights to Washington/National, so that gives the unfortunate impression that they were targeting those going to a protest march.

On the other hand, you never know. Maybe the TSA was trying to rattle some protestors, but I an ID check or bag search wasn't going to deter anyone. Just look at the footage of the Atlanta police force giving high five's to all of the marchers. There you can see law enforcement clearly offering their support and well wishes.
Mats is offline  
Old Jan 22, 2017, 6:53 pm
  #52  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,092
They were on a flight to D.C. on inauguration day when there were numerous threats to disrupt the inauguration festivities ranging from harmless protests to assassination threats. A good number of militant left-wing extremists did show up and rioted as well.

I think it's prudent to exercise additional caution and do extra screening for D.C.-bound flights around events like that.
Ber2dca is offline  
Old Jan 22, 2017, 11:27 pm
  #53  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 5,975
Given all the activities this past weekend in DC - inauguration to marches to protests - combined with emotions running very high, extra security/searches seemed very prudent.

And if 80% of the people on an extra security flight are wearing blue shirts, it would stand to reason that 80% - aka the vast majority - of extra search people would be wearing blue shirts. No conspiracy. No bias.
Global321 is offline  
Old Jan 22, 2017, 11:53 pm
  #54  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by Global321
Given all the activities this past weekend in DC - inauguration to marches to protests - combined with emotions running very high, extra security/searches seemed very prudent.
TSA's mission at airports is limited to ensuring that weapons, explosives and incendiaries don't get on board aircraft. It does not include searching people solely because they may be traveling to exercise their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

It is not "prudent." It is patently unconstitutional.

And if 80% of the people on an extra security flight are wearing blue shirts, it would stand to reason that 80% - aka the vast majority - of extra search people would be wearing blue shirts. No conspiracy. No bias.
This is my original post that started this digression:

"If the conduct is part of a pattern of searching women going to attend the women's march, it is a First Amendment violation."

I have no idea what you mean by an "extra security flight."
PTravel is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2017, 1:02 am
  #55  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 5,975
Originally Posted by PTravel
TSA's mission at airports is limited to ensuring that weapons, explosives and incendiaries don't get on board aircraft. ...
Threats have been made against the now president of the USA. It is very prudent to conduct searches on flights to DC.

Originally Posted by PTravel
...It does not include searching people solely because they may be traveling to exercise their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

It is not "prudent." It is patently unconstitutional.
...
As far as you know, they did not focus on any group. Just flights going to DC. Nothing unconstitutional about that. As many have stated, flights in/to certain cities get more searches. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. Many people have tried to take TSA to court about their searches. At this point, it is safe to say their practices have been thoroughly vetted.

But if you do not think so, you can certainly file a complaint with DOJ.

Originally Posted by PTravel
...
"If the conduct is part of a pattern of searching women going to attend the women's march, it is a First Amendment violation."
You simply have NO evidence of any focus on any group.
Global321 is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2017, 2:02 am
  #56  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Ber2dca
They were on a flight to D.C. on inauguration day when there were numerous threats to disrupt the inauguration festivities ranging from harmless protests to assassination threats. A good number of militant left-wing extremists did show up and rioted as well.

I think it's prudent to exercise additional caution and do extra screening for D.C.-bound flights around events like that.
It requires an astronomically high level of belief in the absurd to accept the notion that TSA gate screening on domestic DC-bound flights is an effective way to stop assassination threats and rioting. These gate screenings were effectively useless in doing what the above suggests such screenings may do.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2017, 3:51 am
  #57  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 5,975
Originally Posted by GUWonder
It requires an astronomically high level of belief in the absurd to accept the notion that TSA gate screening on domestic DC-bound flights is an effective way to stop assassination threats and rioting. These gate screenings were effectively useless in doing what the above suggests such screenings may do.
Useless? Agreed.

Targeting/discriminating/bias against any particular group? Absurd.
Global321 is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2017, 5:40 am
  #58  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by Global321
Useless? Agreed.

Targeting/discriminating/bias against any particular group? Absurd.
I am not sure that claims about targeting/discriminating/bias against particular groups is absurd. There have been times where some group of passengers and routes being used by the groups have been targeted by DHS for additional scrutiny of passengers "fitting the profile".
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2017, 6:41 am
  #59  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Programs: SkyMiles, AAdvantage, TrueBlue, Rapid Rewards, Global Entry
Posts: 204
Originally Posted by Global321
Useless? Agreed.

Targeting/discriminating/bias against any particular group? Absurd.
^ Completely useless and if I ever got stopped at the gate I would voice my displeasure to them. That being said, until someone comes out with further proof/evidence this was clear targeting/discrimination, I'm just going to say they picked a random flight and made a bad choice.
Super80Fan is offline  
Old Jan 23, 2017, 7:01 am
  #60  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by nexttime
You brought up checked bags being searched when you attempted to validate the claim of harassment against the women in Denver by using the experience of the Sorority. The Sorority Sisters checked bags were searched. The checks were conduct due to a thick book that alarmed the machines for checked bags. The Sorority experience does not support claims are of harassment against the women in Denver.
Sorority sisters had their books in their carry-on bags; that's why they were searched. I never attempted to "validate" anything, just said it reminded me of the sister searches.
petaluma1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.