Given the repeated egregious behavior of some TSA employees over TSA's short history I am more willing than not to give every benefit of doubt to people who report unpleasant encounters with TSA. If that is biased then so mote it be.

It would take more confirmation bias to disbelieve key elements of the mother's story than it takes to disbelieve the story of those taking issue with the mother's story -- in substantial part because the methods indicated in the story are well within the range of what the TSA actually does.

I'm not sure if I fully understand your position. I have read the definition of "confirmation bias", I admit that I have issues with TSA, and I will give benefit of the doubt to travelers who report a bad experience with TSA.

I didn't arrive at my position for no reason. Having a TSA employee attempt to steal from my spouse while the FSD of that airport covered up the event was the start on a long road of forming an opinion of TSA. Had that been the only incident I experienced I would have chalked if off to bad apples but that is not my experience. Add in the many verified reports of passenger abuse by TSA that has accumulated over the years and I find myself firmly in the camp of doubting TSA.

I didn't create TSA's reputation. TSA employees did that all by themselves. Right on the front page of Flyertalk we find an article stating that TSA employees are demoralized, feel that they are paid to little and so on. Not a one of them was conscripted to work for TSA, are free to seek employment elsewhere, and each and everyone of them had knowledge of the pay scales for airport screeners before accepting employment with TSA.

I strongly feel that TSA employees would not be happy regardless of pay levels. The TSA problem is more systemic than just a pay check.

Boggie Dog, I think GUWonder is referring to another poster with the "confirmation bias" statement.

Inside scoop from someone that works there:

Son bypasses metal detector because of his condition, and was offered the same specialized screening they're used to. (5-second hand test)

Machine alarms on test, and the mom and all their bags had to get extra screening. (nothing extra is done to the son)

Mom gets pissed off that she has to get pat down, and refuses to cooperate. Yells and screams that this isn't what happens at other airports, etc.

Mom's behavior gets the son upset, and he starts crying. Tells his mom to stop.

TSA calls for backup as tantrum continues, in the form of managers, police, etc.

Mom eventually complies and vows revenge.

I don't supposed that you have heard any interviews with the young boy who had a double hand transplant, have you? He is a 9-year old who is extremely erudite for one so young. Children who have been through years of medical procedures are often extremely wise and mature for their years.

Son alarms, so mom gets punished. That's the TSA way!

Right, because everyone will agree that it's much better to pat down the 9 year old with a disability instead.

They also pat down 9 year old boys. They even do toddler diaper massages.

Let's say this is some plot to use children with pacemakers to carry bombs. If the kid is carrying the bomb, what does patting down the mom accomplish? If she doesn't have a bomb herself, they aren't going to find anything and the kid will get on the plane with the bomb.

Once again the ETD test alarmed when there wasn't a threat. As someone who gets an ETD swab just about every time I fly, I really hate how easily the test alarms on harmless items. I've fortunately have never alarmed on the test but I know it's always a possibility. The TSA needs to develop a better test.

What security benefit is gained by doing any extra screening on any person who did not alarm over the person who did alarm?

TSA's methods completely ignores the possible security threat.

Can you say what capacity you were fulfilling since you volunteered that you were there? Vendor, TSA, LEO, Airline.....?

As someone who frequently sets off 'alarms' when dealing with the <TSA>. I'm not surprised to see the standard smear the complainant response from the <TSA>. <deleted by moderator>. Events like this one occur on almost daily in the system and are always blown off as a one time situation and that the complainant is always wrong and the <TSA> is always correct. Flying frequently and working in a field that often comes in contact with gunpowder and having an implanted device as well as a nice piece of internal stainless steel jewelry. I expect to be given the standing full body massage and occasionally need to re-pack after having my carryon inspected in full public view. As a connoisseur of Kabuki theater the <TSA> and their heavy handed actions are a poor example of the art.

Explosive residue is sticky. If the kid was traveling with or was handling explosives, it would have been everywhere. Testing the bag and traveling companion would have resulted in even more alarms and more scrutiny.

Walking on fertilizer or working in a gunpowder-heavy industry might get you a false alarm for nitrates, and using certain colognes or hand lotions might get you another for nitroglycerin. Should the solution be eliminating all those tests altogether? Just because someone with ashy elbows wants to pre-lube before security instead of after?

Kind of ironic to complain about them "ignoring the threat", (a 9 y/o kid), as that's a direct result of other complaints. Everyone was up in arms about TSA screening grannies and children. Now they have alternatives, and people are still complaining.

It really doesn't matter what TSA does, so long as the rules only apply to everyone else.

The ETD test is proven unreliable due to excessive false alarms. (I term the alarm false when no contraband is found) When a test alarms on common products such as body lotions then the test proves nothing.

So what things might a young boy encounter that would possibly alarm ETD?

Most young boys of that age aren't big users of hand/body lotions or even colognes. He may have walked across grass that had recent fertilizer added but he almost certainly doesn't work in an ammo factory. Perhaps model paints and solvents, like Testors, that's plausible?

Yet the screeners still moved their focus from the person who did alarm to a person who did not alarm. I don't see how that meets the "Risk Based Screening" objective. If the kid was a mule then wouldn't the mother take extra precaution to not contaminate herself?

The final question, what percentage of 9 year old boys, with flights originating in the U.S., are found to be carrying weapons of any sort?

Real "Risk Based Screening" would have an answer for that question!

It's time for the periodic reminder: