If you have the film, go You-tube with it! Publish it!

Also, if you have the name of the airport and the FSD, privately e-mail it to me. I am enlisting the help of all of everyone on this blog site to help me assemble a list of FSD's and their airports. The protocol for their contact is [email protected]. It is very important to get this information to the FSD, because their subordinates are very effective and very efficient at hiding violations from the FSD, and they are highly motivated to do so since it affects their pay and promotional opportunities. I have discovered, especially at SMF (Sacramento) that they play a game of making sure that the FSD only gets good reports. Afterall, when a bad one comes through, it looks bad on their performance reports, so they really are effective at hiding things.

You wouldn't believe what I went through just to get a mailing address! Also, contact your State Senators and local Congressional Representative. Especially know that Rand Paul of KY is your friend regardless of what state you live in. I am in California, and he has gone out of his way to assist me with regard to TSA issues.

I hope he runs for president. It's the only way I can vote for him.

Good Luck!

+1

The comments about how is TSA/Federal gov't able to restrict someone's right to fly are totally misunderstanding the rationale behind TSA creation. Someone referred to restricting a right to drive - there are restrictions - they are called speeding laws!!!!!

I think the OP should complain to TSA but it's not a clear cut situation. Her attitude was no help in this situation and unnecessary. OK that she taped but I suspect she pushed her limit and that caused the situation to get difficult.

Perhaps some of them, but hardly most of them. You're creating a false dichotomy. It isn't a question of "all or nothing". It's a question of "how much and by whom".


~~ Irish

You're falling into the same fallacy. It's not a question of "security or not". It's a question of "how much security and by whom".


It's a perfectly clear cut situation. Speaking as a government employee who manages a public contact staff, I'm here to tell you that OP's attitude - whatever it may have been - is completely irrelevant. If one of my staff acts out against one of the citizens we serve, regardless how aggravating the citizen is, that staff member faces disciplinary action. Further, if one of my staff retaliates against a child (even a teenaged child) for some perceived insult by its parent, that staff member faces suspension. Period.

(Incidentally, you keep referring to OP as "she", even though OP has clearly stated that he is male. Sexual stereotype much?)


~~ Irish

I certainly won't be the 1st to defend the TSA, but I agree with you. There's so many people out there looking for a fight or to instigate the TSA guards. I see it all the time. I opt out and get the pat down. The TSA have never been anything but courteous. They are really good about announcing , i have to pat near some sensitive areas, they've never groped or anything inappropriate. I've seen parents instigate horrible situations, using their children as props for their own agenda. Glad I've got the TSA pre-screen and can usually avoid this behavior.

Or maybe I didn't read close enough.....seems you jump to conclusions quickly.

However, your argument is absolutely incorrect. You can't just assume the employee is wrong. We only have one side of the story from the OP. From their own admission I suspect there is a lot more to the story than they are alluding.

Is a pat down really that much of an invasion of security especially when the person going through security knows that refusing entry to the screening machine means a pat down. There are many other security techniques that would be far more intrusive.

I personally believe the OP was looking for a problem and created a situation where a problem occurred. They are wasting our time and the government's time with this matter...it's sad....

This is further evidence the TSA carnival is just one big Obedience Test
and anyone who shows anything but blind compliance for TSA
or other agents of the Surveillance State is destined to "suffer the consequences."

Maybe you should provide some proof to back up this statement.

A. No one is prohibited from driving. TSA has the power to prohibit citizens from flying.

B. There is actual evidence to support the safety benefits of speed limits. There is no evidence that TSA procedures result in significantly improved safety.

C. To restrict a citizen's rights, you must prove that it is crucial to do so and that the restriction will be minimized. TSA has yet to justify its existence (e.g., by providing independently verified cost-benefit analyses supporting TSA procedures), so there is no proof that TSA's power to prohibit flying is crucial to national security. Given that TSA indiscriminately requires (or has required) citizens' to turn over cupcakes, bottled water, and other innocuous items in order to fly, TSA's restrictions on citizens' right to travel by air are hardly minimized.

It's nice that you have Pre Check. How about the majority of travelers who do not?

Also happy you haven't been groped but your experience does not agree with others.

Tell me, exactly what about a person who travels often makes them any less of a threat than a person who only travels a couple of times a year?

A. No one is prohibited from driving. TSA has the power to prohibit citizens from flying.

YES - people are prohibited from driving. Think DUI or repeat other moving offsenses.


B. There is actual evidence to support the safety benefits of speed limits. There is no evidence that TSA procedures result in significantly improved safety.

There is evidence but it's NOT all public and for good reason.


C. To restrict a citizen's rights, you must prove that it is crucial to do so and that the restriction will be minimized. TSA has yet to justify its existence (e.g., by providing independently verified cost-benefit analyses supporting TSA procedures), so there is no proof that TSA's power to prohibit flying is crucial to national security. Given that TSA indiscriminately requires (or has required) citizens' to turn over cupcakes, bottled water, and other innocuous items in order to fly, TSA's restrictions on citizens' right to travel by air are hardly minimized.

Flying is not explicit right in the Constitution and this is more than an individual rights issue than a collective good situation. This Tea Party ideology is absolutely crazy and uphelpful in our democracy.

Highlighting above mine:

A pat down in order to fly on a commercial airliner is excessive if no reason can be presented to do such a pat down.

A pat down that involves touching "resistance"� is excessive if not done by law enforcement when a person is being incarcerated.

TSA screening methods are excessive and exceeds the scope of the current threat.

Only after being convicted of an offense.


Ah, yes, another TSA screener who presents "information" but won't back it up. Why should anyone believe you?



http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

Doesn't matter whether the pax was being nice. Professional behavior in a uniformed government employee is expected, no matter what the provokation. In other words, having a difficult job is no excuse for doing your job poorly. TSOs need to grow thicker skins and learn to deal with whatever crap is thrown their way by pax - or get a different job.

I call them inappropriate. Completely inappropriate. They are an un-Constitutional search, far more invasive than necessary, in light of current technology, to search for weapons and explosives, and not confined in good faith to that purpose - which puts them outside of the limited definition of the Administrative Search and therefore subject to 4th Amendment restrictions. Which also means they're a violation of the 4th Amendment, since they are done without warrant, probable cause, or articulable suspicion.

They're also routinely used as retaliation against those who fail to properly respect the TSO's authoritah! and are poorly regulated to insure that they adhere to the proper procedure.

I completely disagree with your disagreement.

There is no need to ASK at all about something that you have a right to do, much less ask politely. You just do it, and if anyone has a problem with it, they're free to express their opinion.

How do you consider it a priviledge? What legal, moral, or ethical basis to you have for considering a particular mode of travel any more "priviledged" than any other mode of travel, such as walking, riding a horse, riding a bike, or taking a bus or taxi?

And don't bother bringing up the whole "you need a license to drive a car" issue, because it's a Straw Man - you need a license to OPERATE a motor vehicle, just like you need a license to OPERATE a plane, but you don't need a license to be a passenger in either, because travel, by whatever means you choose, is not a priviledge, it's a right.

Well, for one thing, the CFR says "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." It doesn't mention commercial entities, companies, or anything else - it specifies citizens. It places no restrictions on the methods a citizen may choose to use for such transit. A citizen may choose to purchase their own plane and either pilot it themselves or hire a pilot, or may contract with a licensed business operator to fly them, or even hitch a ride with a friend.

Bull chips.

1) Name some on FT who fit that description and link to some quotes that back up your assertion.

2) Security is not an all or nothing proposition, and only a few way-out wack-jobs suggest "no security". Those of us with some brains realize that there should be some level of passenger screening for commercial air travel, we simply don't believe that the currently used methodologies are Constitutional or compatible with a free society.

And for the record, "lack" of security had nothing to do with 9/11. It was passenger attitude - full cooperation with hijackers - that led to 9/11, and that went out the window before the morning was even over, when the pax on United 93 fought back and prevented the aircraft from reaching its intended target at the cost of their own lives.

No, actually, under law flying is a right. If you pay the money for the ticket then you have a right (& a contract w/the carier) to access the service offered. EOS.