Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 27096176)

I read the quotes as being the essence of what the child said, not a verbatim account.

Originally Posted by theddo (Post 27095907)

I don't think a pacemaker is especially strange, given the amount of pacemakers, ICDs, DBS, SCS, VPS and different pumps people have these days so the TSA would probably see a few a day at any major airport (even if most of them won't be in children - that's pretty rare).

The screening with a metal detector was unacceptable to the parent, and he was offered another screening. I don't see him being turned away, I don't see them denying him access to the airport or actually I don't even see the "TSA denies screening" at any point.

They refused to do exactly what she said, but they aren't required to.



Europe has always had more sane security checks than the US, that is hardly news for anyone and couldn't come as a surprise for someone who asks for the usual at a TSA checkpoint. The point of the TSA checkpoint is to do the searches they require.

No pacemaker manufacturer recommends it?

But you also have people who've done studies on it, like http://content.onlinejacc.org/articl...icleid=1132369

There is currently a lawsuit in Pennsylvania regarding the issue. There is one incident reported where a pacemaker stopped working after going through a metal detector - and there was never any follow up to determine if the pacemaker was malfunctioning or not.



I don't believe her son said what she says are verbatim quotes. Following that, I'm assuming she might've lied about the rest, too.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 27096269)

So there is no evidence that she was not truthful.

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 27096197)

Why would the mother of a child with a pacemaker want the child to use a metal detector? Something doesnt add up, as usually it's pacemaker users who are told not to use metal detectors.

The mother of the child in the story seems to have embellished the story in such a way that I would be surprised if she does herself any favors in making her story to come across as credible as a story could be without such embellishments. It almost reads like something a kid would right in third or fourth grade when asked to tell a story of what they may have experienced.

Originally Posted by theddo (Post 27096245)

They are marked as quotes, they shouldn't be the essence of what the child said they should be verbatim what the child said. No child will utter those phrases and she used them to round up the anti-TSA crowd, the same way you did by writing "TSA denies screening for young boy with pacemaker" even though nobody suggests he was denied screening or kept of the airplane.

Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 27096420)

Some people are not as educated in the use of quotes as you seem to be.

Originally Posted by Silver Fox (Post 27094434)

Link is not much good if you are not on faceache. :)

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 27096334)

I'm still in disbelief that the FT profanity filters allowed a posting of a word whose root is the four letter vulgarity for feces, an allowance that takes place when attaching that word to "storm".

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 27096197)

Why would the mother of a child with a pacemaker want the child to use a metal detector? Something doesnt add up, as usually it's pacemaker users who are told not to use metal detectors.

The mother of the child in the story seems to have embellished the story in such a way that I would be surprised if she does herself any favors in making her story to come across as credible as a story could be without such embellishments. It almost reads like something a kid would right in third or fourth grade when asked to tell a story of what they may have experienced.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 27097995)

I don't think that's what she wanted. Based on my reading she was expecting the boy to be screened using ETD as TSA had done in the past based on her account.

And why did it take 18 TSA and other people to handle a young boy? I think we have all seen video or read about TSA employees surrounding people to intimidate the traveler, and I think we have all seen cases where TSA makes screening as difficult as possible when TSA practices are questioned.


Getting all worked up over quote marks and the exact words used is a waste of time. Unless someone recorded the conversation it's all speculation. I think what many could agree to is that based on all information available to TSA at that moment this boy presented such a low level of risk as to not even register on the threat scale.

I'm not saying to not screen but ganging up and making things difficult, actually increased chances of a real threat getting through that checkpoint. TSA should recognize this but seems incapable of doing so.

Lastly, TSA has such a dismal PR rep that senseless things like this undermine all efforts to improve TSA's reputation with the public, business, and legislators. TSA is broken!

Originally Posted by theddo (Post 27098192)

I don't think the TSA showed up to deal with the son, or to search him. Someone in the party probably wasn't cooperating and was yelling a bit much and demanding to speak to someone else because she new how to do their jobs better than they did.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 27098367)

We know this how?

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 27097995)

I don't think that's what she wanted. Based on my reading she was expecting the boy to be screened using ETD as TSA had done in the past based on her account.

And why did it take 18 TSA and other people to handle a young boy? I think we have all seen video or read about TSA employees surrounding people to intimidate the traveler, and I think we have all seen cases where TSA makes screening as difficult as possible when TSA practices are questioned.


Getting all worked up over quote marks and the exact words used is a waste of time. Unless someone recorded the conversation it's all speculation. I think what many could agree to is that based on all information available to TSA at that moment this boy presented such a low level of risk as to not even register on the threat scale.

I'm not saying to not screen but ganging up and making things difficult, actually increased chances of a real threat getting through that checkpoint. TSA should recognize this but seems incapable of doing so.

Lastly, TSA has such a dismal PR rep that senseless things like this undermine all efforts to improve TSA's reputation with the public, business, and legislators. TSA is broken!

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 27096334)

There isn't. But the way the story was told does give cause for some disbelief.

To me it seems like the kind of story a kid in my third or fourth grade class could write when recounting an experience. It would not be verbatim accurate, but the intention would be there to communicate the real story as accurately as the kid could.

I'm still in disbelief that the FT profanity filters allowed a posting of a word whose root is the four letter vulgarity for feces, an allowance that takes place when attaching that word to "storm".

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel (Post 27099149)

Trying to stop this is basically impossible. In IT circles it's known as the S....horpe problem. You either filter profanity that is in words, but you should be embar***ed to do that. Other than that you have to list every likely permutation and you'll never get them all.