InkUnderNails

I do not have panic attacks either, but I sympathize with those that do. I do have royally PO'ed attacks, if that counts.

tanja

What is that?

InkUnderNails

Lame humor.

Let's say: Aggrieved and aggravated to the point of great distraction and verging on irrepressible anger. And royally (as in hugely) so.

tanja

Not lame at all. More honest.

TSA is :td

exbayern

I have long said that this board and certain posters have turned people off the 'anti-TSA' message; numerous people I know and who I find quite intelligent have read here and been turned off by the hyperbole from some posters, as well as the tone. Sometimes the tinfoil hat view of those who are anti-TSA is reinforced by TS&S and some of the more frequent posters.

Having said that, however, I know that for some people panic attacks are a very real situation.

I consider myself rational and post in a measured fashion, but also try and present what may happen to people based on my own experiences. I often say 'hope for the best, but prepare for the worst' and believe that having factual information is important.

But I agree with you that there are some posters here who seem to enjoy fanning flames and posting hyperbole over fact. It's really a shame.

InkUnderNails

On an internet forum? No way.

littlesheep

Panic attacks are a silent problem. Unless you have to speak in public, you're probably the only one who knows you're having one.

Colostomy bags are a private problem.

Insulin pumps are a private problem.

If people actually made a fuss every time their privacy was invaded - if every single person whose private medical problem was invaded by the TSA or whose body was touched in an unseemly fashion were to weep out loud - many more people would notice.

What's happening is a conspiracy of silence. Between the desire to get it over with, embarrassment, fear, machismo, cowing to authority, calculating your odds of a successful protests (zero), whatever the operating mechanism is, most people who are invaded do not voice their discomfort.

As for the onlookers, there's the discomfort of seeing someone else assaulted, the natural instinct being to avert your eyes when something embarrassing happens to someone else. There's wanting to make your own flight and fear of retaliation if you try to intervene. Add to that the fact that many won't believe that this stuff happens or are deluded to believe it serves some greater good. At the end of the day, we remain silent IRL, and let the TSA travesty go on.

This internet forum is one of the few places we can talk about it.

exbayern

I absolutely agree, and so long as it is discussed calmly and rationally (as in your OP), we may have more people come on side and understand that this is an issue.

But some of the posts here were so over the top in the past year or two were so over the top that I believe that the discussion was lost in the hyperbole promoted by some posters.

I know several FTers who wandered over here and read some of the posts and decided that this was the loonybin (their words). I used to think that this was the tinfoil hat gang, until I overlooked some posts and posters and read the relevant and factual information.

Again, panic attacks are very real. The experiences of many people here are real, and often posted in a factual manner. But some people do seem to enjoy hyperbole, and it is sad to me that the real issues and real experiences are often overshadowed by that hyperbole.

We have an important message to deliver, but the message is being drowned out.

myrgirl

I hope you don't mind that I snipped your post but I wanted to address this point in particular. Panic attacks are something I've never witnessed at work and swabbing hands that patted insulin pumps is, what's the word?, status quo? I've never seen a passenger object or be bothered by it that I can recall. I wanted to address the act of screening someone's medical device and how it can affect them emotionally. I wanted to present the question of where is the line between screening a device and not invading someone's privacy or causing them distress and how do we find this line? As a TSO I see the need to screen devices; I read intel briefings and I read the news and I understand the need to screen something such as a colostomy bag because it could be faked and such. As a human being, I also see the need for privacy and discretion as well as the need for compassion and humanity. How does a TSO such as myself reconcile the two? It's like saying one believes in both Darwinism and Christianity and that the two are reconcilable. That's the way I feel about this issue. I feel that the need to follow the SOP and do my job to the letter AND the need to use compassion and discretion are reconcilable. A few weeks ago I was called to go to private screening to screen a woman's colostomy bag that had of course been flagged by our gumby software on the AIT. It was a simple matter of her patting the bag over her clothing and me swabbing her hands, but it still bothered her. I stayed with her and talked for a bit, explained the need for the screening and empathized with her, and listened to what she had to say. She cried a little which really bothered me because I hate to see someone sad especially when I know that I'm essentially the cause of the sadness. I couldn't help but place an arm around her shoulder and give her a good side hug. Out of line, I know, but damn I'm human and comforting someone is my first instinct. She could had thrown off my arm and said to not touch her and it would have been my own fault but the hug and sympathy seemed to help. She explained that the bag was fairly new, she was having trouble adjusting, and to then get pulled aside because of it was a reminder of her struggles. I asked her, "So we basically added 'insult to injury,' yes?" and she agreed. We talked some some more and I hope she felt better when she left to go to her gate. Which brings me back to: How do we screen situations like this and avoid the "insult to injury" factor?

exbayern

If you don't see anything wrong with forcing someone to go to a private room alone, then I don't think that I can explain to you the issue. Nor is it about someone being 'sad'.

And if you had dared to try and hug me I would have definitely have lodged a complaint.

As to how to screen, I have said many times that the TSA needs to take lessons from other countries, but is too arrogant to do so.

coachrowsey

How can you keep a job that makes innocent people cry?

myrgirl

I honestly don't know why the private room was needed because it was a simple over the clothing pat and I didn't even need to touch her apart from swabbing her hands. I'm figuring, based on how she was feeling about the situation, that she must have asked for privacy. But from talking at length with her and listening - really listening to what she had to say - I really do think it was because it saddened her. It saddened her because it was a reminder of what she'd overcome to get where she was physically and emotionally.

That certainly would have been within your rights and if that had happened then I wouldn't have objected. I would have acknowledged my mistake and taken my punishment. Like I said, I'm only human.

I'm sad to say I haven't been to any other countries, but I have learned a ton reading here - which is why I joined this forum many years ago - I definitely see your point. There must be a happy medium somewhere and I hope TSA finds it soon.

exbayern

You seem very cavalier and accepting of the practices of your employer. Again, if you cannot see why any of this is wrong, we cannot explain it to you.

You are in a position of power and authority, and took someone into a private room and then embraced them. There are a number of things that could be said about it, but it was frankly incredibly foolish on your part. I suggest that you don't do such a thing again if you don't want to put yourself in jeopardy.

You can try and spin it that you are a warm and caring person, but it doesn't change the fact that it was completely inappropriate.

myrgirl

That's the first time it had happened to me and it sucked. Really. Sucked. I felt like crap. I love my job because I believe in the point behind it but I do believe reform is badly needed. I will do my job because if I don't, someone else will and they may not have the compassion and caring that I have. I don't want to make people cry and usually I don't. My day is usually full of laughing and joking with the passengers, making them feel wanted and important and trying to make the checkpoint experience as good as it possibly can be. I don't pass judgement on people, and I certainly don't retaliate. Of course, when I get those who just want to be left alone, I honor their wishes. I want traveling through our checkpoint to just be a minor blip on their radar of the day, not a traumatic experience to be prepared for. Some of the stories I read on here sadden me greatly and some make me downright angry. That's why this particular screening bothered me so much. Screening a colostomy bag is something that has to be done and I used as much decorum and tact as I use in everything I do. So I hated seeing her distressed over this. That why I posed my original question. You folks on this board travel way more than I have or ever hope to. Based on the confines of what the SOP says we have to do, how do we find the line to deal with a sensitive screening like this without distressing the passenger? Is there anything I could have said or done, that allowed me to still do my job, but yet made the screening easier for her?

InkUnderNails

Like you, I snipped a bunch so I could address a singular point.

You seem like a really nice and compassionate person. I appreciate that. You may not be cut from the right cloth to be a TSO. However, that is not the reason for my reply.

The system in which you work takes a person that has already been the subject of a difficult situation and submits them to even greater distress just because there is a possibility that a medical device they are using, one that is of an embarrassing nature to many people, may be "faked" as you say. You have a responsibility under your SOP to ascertain that it is real so that you can clear this person to complete the lawful contract they have made to purchase air travel on a common carrier.

Here is the problem with that. Until you can give her clearance to enter the sterile area, she is now both medically distressed and under a cloud of suspicion as a person with criminal intent.

It is a matter of perspective that we have discussed here many times. Hopefully you will understand this distinction. I will try to frame it as simply as possible. The process of air security used to be one in which the primary assumption was that everyone that entered the checkpoint was without nefarious intent, and it was the job of the screening process to identify those that may not be safe to proceed. Now, the assumption is that everyone that enters the checkpoint is under suspicion of criminal intent until the screening process can prove that they are not.

While the distinction may seem trivial, it is far from it. In the first instance, we need only come as our normal everyday selves. We wear what we normally wear, act as we normally act and have with us the things of life that we will have in any other situation in which you may find us outside of the checkpoint.

The second is quite different. We now must be concerned that what we normally are does not reinforce or multiply the suspicion that is inherent in the process. We must carefully analyze the everyday things that we carry or possess to assure that they also do not support the suspicions that we are under. We even must be concerned of the things we say, even those that are relatively benign in any other situation other than at the CP.

Where do you draw the line? You have no control over the line. It is positioned for you and any ability that you may have to move it only moves it around within a broken framework of everyone is a suspect that must be cleared.

Only your management can redraw the line and they have deliberately chosen where they want it. It is the insult added to injury that we endure just to travel for vacation, to work, to visit family or whatever the reason is today. You said it yourself. You have been taught to assume that medical devices can be faked and you must prove it is not. Our lives, and yours, would be much simpler if system were to assume that they were legitimate medical devices and that the screening would look for evidence that it is not.