BladeRunner

Take JB often to RDU and recently opted out of Nuto and had to ask twice for fresh gloves. TSA agent did a bow down motion, like your worship. What crap, these guys should get Nuto'd every day - they could not be much dumber then they already are. Done venting. <g>

JakiChan

Well, the TSA does have a claims process. If I wasn't insured I'd follow up with that.

I also would have to be STRONGLY convinced it was an accident. What happens if you think a TSO has intentionally dropped/damaged something in front of you? Could you summon the police?

Pesky Monkey

Yes, but the video tape would be "lost".

janetdoe

In any case, there is definitely a vocabulary disconnect when people claim to be randomly selected 10 times in a row - if that is really true, they should be filing a complaint/lawsuit against TSA for harassment. Routed through the NoS is generally different from TSA-defined 'random selection', but I think people are using the terms interchangeably.

I thought surely my example (where every few dozen people, they would open the NoS and direct one person through it, instead of the WTMD) surely counted as random selection. I guess I'll just wait until TSA publishes its definitions.

StanSimmons

Just do like I do, lock your carry on, with a non-tsa lock... or at least use zip-ties. That will keep their grubby fingers off your lenses until you can get to your stuff. Then be polite, but stern, if they start acting like 4 year olds.

bdschobel

Available evidence -- not much -- suggests that the number of claims approved is infinitesimal compared to the number filed.Well, sure you can. Anybody can summon the police. The better question is what happens when the police arrive. They tend to side with the TSA, though not always. In any case, "proving" that someone intentionally damaged your property when they deny doing so is a pretty tough case to make, as you must know. Even videotapes are unlikely to be very helpful. The TSA won't hold up a sign first, saying, "Watch me damage this guy's property now." But you must know that.

Bruce

bdschobel

That comment is insulting to 4-year-olds. Please apologize.

Bruce

JakiChan

Good idea - my StreetWalker HardDrive does lock up very nicely.

NotaCriminal

This morning (about 5:45 a.m.) at CMH, Concourse A, Line 1.

For starters, I was relieved there was no barking at passengers and the line was non-existant. Everyone was polite for the most part.

All passengers (except a few) were directed through the NOS. I was directed to the NOS and I opted out.

No screaming for a female assist or for the opt-out (they use radios). I was directed to stand near the NOS with another gentleman that opted out. I stated that a) I didn't wish to stand near the device I had opted out of and b) I couldn't see my possessions. No argument ensued luckily, as my pat down employee showed up promptly. She let me through the gate, asked which bins were mine, and took me over to the station.

She put on fresh gloves without me asking and explained the procedure. She didn't say resistance, but did say "sensitive areas" and she'd use the "back of my hands". She did say that she'd only touch clothed areas (I was wearing a long sports bra and spandex shorts shorter than bike shorts but not booty shorts like dancers wear) so there was little area to pat down. She did ask about sensitive areas and medical devices.

Interestingly, she went down my clothed legs - not up - so no chops. I was asked to widen my stance, so I moved a whole half-inch which apparently was good enough. My breasts were not touched - there was that side-of-hand deal, but nothing was actually touched. She didn't go into my waistband - she ran her fingers around the hem of my sports bra (which I forgot to tuck in). She tested the gloves and I was on my way.

I thanked her for the professional pat down and for not molesting my breasts like October, although I objected to the Fourth Amendment violation. She seemed surprised that someone said thank you for the professionalism while still stating an objection.

Also, there were plenty of comment cards immediately outside the screening area, and the number for the CMH TSA Coordinator's Center is on the back. It's 614-239-3015, in case anyone wants it and one of the TSA employees refused to provide it despite allegedly finding it.

However, there are two employees waiting at my gate. This may end my relatively harmless interaction with TSA for the day. We'll see.

exbayern

This is one of the (several) things which frustrates me about the current female search in the US. Standing with legs astride (or doing the skirt lunge) is humiliating, physically difficult for some people to achieve, and has a negative connotation.

In the last few weeks I have been physically searched in Germany, the UK, Canada, and India and never once have I had to 'spread em'.

sheneh

While there are still many checkpoints without scanners or <100% scanner use, I haven't heard anyone claim scanner selection was only 3%. That rate I think is increasing faster than patdown rate. If you are constantly selected for a patdown without opting out or setting off the metal detector that is another issue. But the 3% patdown rate is for all passengers and is going to be higher for those who opt out and set off the wtmd. Without the scanner selection rate, probably for the specific airport(s) where one feels harassed, it's difficult to say. It's nit clear that TSA knows these numbers themselves. And any human 'random' selection is not random.

Lara21

I'm surprised they don't require everyone on their backs with their legs spread for the resistance check.

bdschobel

I just don't think we'll be sufficiently "safe" until each checkpoint has a gynecologist on duty for every shift. You never know what one of those women could be hiding, right? Karate-chopping their "resistance" just isn't good enough when we know that there are people who mean to do us harm.[/sarcasm]

Bruce

Boggie Dog

Gonna need a proctologist to go along with the OB/GYN.

bdschobel

There's no question that the TSA prefers to humiliate women. And men tend to resist more unpleasantly.

Bruce