Originally Posted by
goalie
Bolding mine: Because the TSO said it is
As to having a witness present during a private screening, the answer is yes and hubby and/or wife should have stated just that. Also, it does appear from the article that hubby and wife are somewhat seasoned travelers so my question is why did wifey ask after the fact/the gloves "beeped" if the TSO had changed their gloves prior to the opt-out patdown? It is sop for me to ask the TSO to change their gloves if I don't see them change their gloves in front of me prior to my secondary shoe swab.
I don't want to inadvertently stray into victim-blaming. After all, I doubt the secondary screener asked the lady passenger if she wanted a witness present. These situations get out of hand rather fast.
I would definitely want my husband present, because I think that the bully mentality is significantly influenced by an awareness of witnesses. I would also ask if their secondary screening
had to be performed privately - but that's just me. Privacy isn't as important to me as avoiding being alone with a really nasty thug is. Besides, what's "private" about being in a room with a total stranger whom I must permit to thoroughly maul me? I'm "safer" jay-bird naked in Central Station.
Feelings aside, the TSA isn't telling people their rights any more than police officers do. If you insist on your rights, then they're inconvenienced. You have to know your rights and stick up for yourself if you're to hope for those rights to be considered at all. Even then, you can expect that the TSA will get revenge against you for insisting on your rights.
It's unlikely this couple would have made their flight if they'd "inconvenienced" the TSA thugs any further.
I guess I'm rambling. Sorry for that. I just think that citizens are in a heck of a bind when it comes to dealing with scope n' grope, and smirking policy makers such as Janet Napolitano deliberately set us these coercive practices.