Boggie Dog

Deemed by whom? Did they ask the people who are the ones having their genitals groped by TSA screeners? If no genital contact is suppose to happen I would tend to agree with the quoted statement but "point of fact" that's exact opposite of what is happening.

What travelers seem unable to find out is just how invasive TSA pat downs are suppose to be. That's just one indicator of the dishonesty that is found through out TSA.

So tell us, has TSA abandoned the genital contact is only incidental or have the rules changed? How can a person consent to anything that isn't fully disclosed?

petaluma1

A self-proclaimed "child prodigy" is on a tear today.

WillCAD

Agreed, which is why I don't use the term patdown here, I refer to the process as a full-body rubdown with repeated genital contact. Because that's what it is - they don't pat anything, they RUB your entire body.

Boggie Dog

Apparently TSA is doing a better job of tracking passengers and which checkpoint they used rather than addressing their complaints.

Maybe TSA's priorities are misdirected.

chollie

I look at it this way.

I submit a complaint to TSA: "Screener Smith-Jones at BWI cupped my breasts and squeezed them".

TSA: "We need your name, DOB, SSN, home address, employer, phone numbers, flight info, DL info, etc. or we can't look into your claim".

Me: "Um, no thanks".

Meanwhile, someone should have been compiling data and noticed that there have been four twitter complaints about checkpoint physical handling of breasts at BWI. Maybe it's worth having a look at what's going on at BWI, instead of worrying about discrediting or blacklisting the pax who made the complaint.

In my organization, we don''t duck complaints, we actively and aggressively seek feedback as an opportunity to improve.

TWA884

Folks,

Please keep in mind FlyerTalk Rule 12.2 when posting:
Post(s) have been deleted.

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

Boggie Dog

TSA use to claim "all proper procedures were followed" and passengers were always wrong, misinformed, or just mistaken about what had happened and so forth. I realize that TSA no longer uses those words, nor even publicly acknowledge travelers complaints, but does anyone truly believe that TSA had an awakening change of policy and no longer believes "proper procedures were followed"?

ysolde

And what is this obsession TSA has with with long hair (or is it just my hair)? Either tell women and men with long hair they should wear a pony tail because, in case of patdown, the hair gets in the way of the TSO's ability to check under the collar, to grope boobs, etc. Or stop making such an issue of long hair. It's yet another little annoyance in a sea of annoyances at TSA.

petaluma1

You are correct. A search shows that @ASKTSA hasn't used the "procedures were followed" nonsense since sometime in 2017. Now it seems to be "we're sorry. Please send us all your personal information" and we'll ignore it.

Loren Pechtel

And so what if you did have a garrote? Many of us carry something similar:

Loren Pechtel

Yup. I've never been patted down anywhere else but everything I've seen outside the country has felt to me to be purely about security (although sometimes a bit stupidly), never abusive.

petaluma1

They even allow this garrote:



I managed to put a nice sized hole in a finger just last week with the needle end of a garrote. Not only could I choke someone, but I could also stick a nice sharp needle into a carotid.

gsoltso

Currently by DHS. There have been no court decisions indicating that the pat-down process is sexual assault. Quite the opposite, most of the court decisions up to this point have indicated that the pat-down is a part of a regulatory scheme, and therefore legal (paraphrasing of course). I have seen no published information that changed the organizations position on the pat-down.

With all due respect returned, I haven't shifted the goal posts at all. Dangerous items is the category that has been used since the beginning of this conversation, and it encompasses a broad spectrum of items. Dangerous does not just mean "big enough to take a plane down for certain", dangerous means that it is/can be dangerous to others on the plane, as well as to the plane itself. Just one question for you that will directly illustrate the point - how big is a detonator?

I do not recall saying something like that, because it is kind of silly - anyone with shoelaces has a garrote ready to go, add 2 AA batteries (or better yet, two wooden pegs), and it becomes a more efficient garrote (thanks for beating me to that one Loren!). The neckline is checked, and if there were a garrote there, it would be a situation where we would talk to the individual, but mostly the necklines are checked for dangerous items (like WEI).

I am not certain what you are talking about with the TSO going back a second time with the "palms" of his hands. Please provide a link, and I will be better informed.

That is "supposed to be a child prodigy" to you.

Not really, with a name, date and flight info, I can tell you the terminal and gate that you went out of, from there it is simply back tracking from the gate to the checkpoint looking for information along the way.

Long hair provides a vessel for concealment, because of that, hair that alarms is patted down. I personally have found a tactical spike in hair, and there are other things that we find from time to time.

WillCAD

While the legality of an administrative search has been established, I do not recall hearing of a single court decision that specifically addressed the legality of the full-body rubdown with repeated front-of-hand genital contact that TSA currently uses, nor of the full-body rubdown with repeated 'incidental' back-of-hand genital contact that was used previously.

It is my personal opinion, however, that should these specific procedures ever actually be adjudicated that they will be found to be more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose.

The legal basis for TSA's searches carries inherent limits which, to any reasonable person, should restrict the methodology, duration, and circumstances of the search. Sure, the courts have rules that TSA may search my bags - but are they allowed to disassemble my bags or destroy my belongings? No, obviously not. Sure, the courts have ruled that TSA may search my person - but are they allowed to conduct searches of such an invasive nature that they cause physical injury, psychological trauma akin to a rape, or intrude into my body cavities? Reasonable people would say, no, obviously not, but TSA says, "Well, sure - search is legal, therefore we can search any where, any time, in any way, as many times as we want, with no limits at all! It's all legal!"

Boggie Dog

From the limited knowledge I have TSA claims a "TSA Full-Body Rubdown"© does not require genital contact. If that is the evidence the courts are considering then I can see how they might decide that the procedure is not a violation of the law. Problem is, anyone who is paying attention knows that the "TSA Full-Body Rubdown"©
seems to require a full on groping of the travelers genitals. There are just way, way to many reports of genital groping to not realize that TSA is either being dishonest (a typical TSA trait) or that TSA has a severe training issue.

Take a look at DFW terminal A. Multiple checkpoints and any of them can be used to access all gates, even gates at other terminals if a person hops on Skylink which runs on the secure side of the terminal to all other terminals. For TSA to be able to determine with certainty which checkpoint a person used would require a tracking system. Perhaps we have learned a new data point about TSA screening!