Random screening of my phone
Jun 25, 2019, 3:11 pm
#16
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 30
I don't have an international data plan. It's very plausible I'd just buy a dumb phone on arrival + local SIM rather than carry around my expensive phone on vacation
Jun 25, 2019, 4:26 pm
#17
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: The Indo Jungle
Programs: AA EXP, IHG Spire
Posts: 1,319
Jun 25, 2019, 6:08 pm
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Indeed. I know people who said they are encountering school books for 2nd and 3rd graders that seem premised on the idea of such young kids having a cell phone of their own. Even in countries that aren’t high income countries, thanks to Chinese phones. So giving the answer of “no cellphone” may result in more problems from the security crowd that believe “concealment” is a problem even when it involves nothing that is generally considered materially dangerous to the flight.
Last edited by GUWonder; Jun 25, 2019 at 7:25 pm
Jun 25, 2019, 6:47 pm
#19
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,631
Moderator's Note: Topic Drift
Folks,
Please keep in mind FlyerTalk Rule 5 when posting in the Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate forum:
This thread is about random selections for a closer inspections of cellphones.
While some natural deviation from the topic of the thread is perfectly fine, please make sure to keep your comments at least somewhat relevant to the subject matter of the thread and forum in which you are posting.
This is the Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate forum, the place "to discuss security policies – what they are and what they should be." Whether is is unusual for people not have cellphones nowadays and how common it is for second and third graders to have their own cellphones have nothing to do with travel safety or security; those are possible topics for discussion in the OMNI forums (access to OMNI is limited to members who have been on FlyerTalk for 180 days and who have posted 180 contributive messages).
Future off-topic messages will be summarily deleted. Repeat offenders will be subject to discipline as set forth in FlyerTalk Rule 23.
Thank you for understanding,
TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
Please keep in mind FlyerTalk Rule 5 when posting in the Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate forum:
Stay On Topic
FlyerTalk exists for the discussion of frequent flyer programs and the related travel experience. With the exception of the few areas specifically designated for the discussion of other topics, confine your comments as closely as possible to these topic areas and to the topic of the thread and forum in which you are posting.
FlyerTalk exists for the discussion of frequent flyer programs and the related travel experience. With the exception of the few areas specifically designated for the discussion of other topics, confine your comments as closely as possible to these topic areas and to the topic of the thread and forum in which you are posting.
While some natural deviation from the topic of the thread is perfectly fine, please make sure to keep your comments at least somewhat relevant to the subject matter of the thread and forum in which you are posting.
This is the Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate forum, the place "to discuss security policies – what they are and what they should be." Whether is is unusual for people not have cellphones nowadays and how common it is for second and third graders to have their own cellphones have nothing to do with travel safety or security; those are possible topics for discussion in the OMNI forums (access to OMNI is limited to members who have been on FlyerTalk for 180 days and who have posted 180 contributive messages).
Future off-topic messages will be summarily deleted. Repeat offenders will be subject to discipline as set forth in FlyerTalk Rule 23.
Thank you for understanding,
TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
Jul 21, 2019, 2:33 pm
#20
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: DFW
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold, Admirals Club, Global Entry
Posts: 1,141
Ok, fine. Random selection for supplemental screening of a phone it is.
My child was randomly selected for this earlier this week -- from the Precheck line.
After the TSA screener tells me what she's doing, I look at her and say, "There is no cell phone."
She looks puzzled for a moment, recovers, and then says brightly, "Well, then we have to check a parent's bag." That's right, bag not phone.
"Which one of us?" I ask.
"Either," she answers. For a moment I'm completely taken aback. What kind of "security procedure" is that? If we were up to no good, I'd just tell her to check whichever one of us wasn't the "mule," i.e., the one not carrying the bad stuff. (Based on all the movies I've watched, I think standard practice is to have one's girl friend or wife be the mule.)
Anyway, by profession I'm someone who has to think very fast and very accurately even (or especially) in pressure-packed situations. So I knew exactly what to do next. I immediately point at my wife and say, "Go bother her, then." Well, that's not exactly what I said, but pretty close. I turned my back on her and walked away.
Unlike me, my wife was able to take all this with a straight face and was through in no time.
Still, there's karma. I was stopped before leaving security by another agent who told me that there was an actual problem with my bag, which then had to be hand searched. The problem? A book! Yeah, sure, I know. You think I'm kidding. I'm not. To be fair, though, the book was 1852 pages long. Maybe there's a page limit? Or an informal ban against French literature?
My child was randomly selected for this earlier this week -- from the Precheck line.
After the TSA screener tells me what she's doing, I look at her and say, "There is no cell phone."
She looks puzzled for a moment, recovers, and then says brightly, "Well, then we have to check a parent's bag." That's right, bag not phone.
"Which one of us?" I ask.
"Either," she answers. For a moment I'm completely taken aback. What kind of "security procedure" is that? If we were up to no good, I'd just tell her to check whichever one of us wasn't the "mule," i.e., the one not carrying the bad stuff. (Based on all the movies I've watched, I think standard practice is to have one's girl friend or wife be the mule.)
Anyway, by profession I'm someone who has to think very fast and very accurately even (or especially) in pressure-packed situations. So I knew exactly what to do next. I immediately point at my wife and say, "Go bother her, then." Well, that's not exactly what I said, but pretty close. I turned my back on her and walked away.
Unlike me, my wife was able to take all this with a straight face and was through in no time.
Still, there's karma. I was stopped before leaving security by another agent who told me that there was an actual problem with my bag, which then had to be hand searched. The problem? A book! Yeah, sure, I know. You think I'm kidding. I'm not. To be fair, though, the book was 1852 pages long. Maybe there's a page limit? Or an informal ban against French literature?
Jul 21, 2019, 3:10 pm
#21
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,631
You may want to take a look at the following threads:
Jul 21, 2019, 4:19 pm
#22
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: MSP
Programs: DL Gold, DL MM 8/22/16!
Posts: 2,563
I don't have a cell phone. Can afford one. Can see, read, hear, poke screen and tote one. Chose not to have one. Manage quite nicely without.
Jul 21, 2019, 11:02 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
Ok, fine. Random selection for supplemental screening of a phone it is.
My child was randomly selected for this earlier this week -- from the Precheck line.
After the TSA screener tells me what she's doing, I look at her and say, "There is no cell phone."
She looks puzzled for a moment, recovers, and then says brightly, "Well, then we have to check a parent's bag." That's right, bag not phone.
"Which one of us?" I ask.
"Either," she answers. For a moment I'm completely taken aback. What kind of "security procedure" is that? If we were up to no good, I'd just tell her to check whichever one of us wasn't the "mule," i.e., the one not carrying the bad stuff. (Based on all the movies I've watched, I think standard practice is to have one's girl friend or wife be the mule.)
My child was randomly selected for this earlier this week -- from the Precheck line.
After the TSA screener tells me what she's doing, I look at her and say, "There is no cell phone."
She looks puzzled for a moment, recovers, and then says brightly, "Well, then we have to check a parent's bag." That's right, bag not phone.
"Which one of us?" I ask.
"Either," she answers. For a moment I'm completely taken aback. What kind of "security procedure" is that? If we were up to no good, I'd just tell her to check whichever one of us wasn't the "mule," i.e., the one not carrying the bad stuff. (Based on all the movies I've watched, I think standard practice is to have one's girl friend or wife be the mule.)
Still, there's karma. I was stopped before leaving security by another agent who told me that there was an actual problem with my bag, which then had to be hand searched. The problem? A book! Yeah, sure, I know. You think I'm kidding. I'm not. To be fair, though, the book was 1852 pages long. Maybe there's a page limit? Or an informal ban against French literature?
Jul 22, 2019, 4:17 am
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Thick reading material doesn’t generally show up on the x-ray scans as looking potentially the same as food material or explosives. But thick reading material of sorts can make spots obscure or even opaque. There are some paper coatings that result in some compacted stacks of paper material being rather effective blockers to conceal items within or below the compacted stack when put inside a bag.
Jul 22, 2019, 7:52 am
#25
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Ok, fine. Random selection for supplemental screening of a phone it is.
My child was randomly selected for this earlier this week -- from the Precheck line.
After the TSA screener tells me what she's doing, I look at her and say, "There is no cell phone."
She looks puzzled for a moment, recovers, and then says brightly, "Well, then we have to check a parent's bag." That's right, bag not phone.
"Which one of us?" I ask.
"Either," she answers. For a moment I'm completely taken aback. What kind of "security procedure" is that? If we were up to no good, I'd just tell her to check whichever one of us wasn't the "mule," i.e., the one not carrying the bad stuff. (Based on all the movies I've watched, I think standard practice is to have one's girl friend or wife be the mule.)
Anyway, by profession I'm someone who has to think very fast and very accurately even (or especially) in pressure-packed situations. So I knew exactly what to do next. I immediately point at my wife and say, "Go bother her, then." Well, that's not exactly what I said, but pretty close. I turned my back on her and walked away.
Unlike me, my wife was able to take all this with a straight face and was through in no time.
Still, there's karma. I was stopped before leaving security by another agent who told me that there was an actual problem with my bag, which then had to be hand searched. The problem? A book! Yeah, sure, I know. You think I'm kidding. I'm not. To be fair, though, the book was 1852 pages long. Maybe there's a page limit? Or an informal ban against French literature?
My child was randomly selected for this earlier this week -- from the Precheck line.
After the TSA screener tells me what she's doing, I look at her and say, "There is no cell phone."
She looks puzzled for a moment, recovers, and then says brightly, "Well, then we have to check a parent's bag." That's right, bag not phone.
"Which one of us?" I ask.
"Either," she answers. For a moment I'm completely taken aback. What kind of "security procedure" is that? If we were up to no good, I'd just tell her to check whichever one of us wasn't the "mule," i.e., the one not carrying the bad stuff. (Based on all the movies I've watched, I think standard practice is to have one's girl friend or wife be the mule.)
Anyway, by profession I'm someone who has to think very fast and very accurately even (or especially) in pressure-packed situations. So I knew exactly what to do next. I immediately point at my wife and say, "Go bother her, then." Well, that's not exactly what I said, but pretty close. I turned my back on her and walked away.
Unlike me, my wife was able to take all this with a straight face and was through in no time.
Still, there's karma. I was stopped before leaving security by another agent who told me that there was an actual problem with my bag, which then had to be hand searched. The problem? A book! Yeah, sure, I know. You think I'm kidding. I'm not. To be fair, though, the book was 1852 pages long. Maybe there's a page limit? Or an informal ban against French literature?
Jul 22, 2019, 8:13 am
#26
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
When a young relative of mine was flagged for a phone screening, the relative blurted our that there was a cell phone in possession even as there was not since it was walkie talkies in checked luggage. The parents picked which one of the two of them would be the fall guy for the extra check. The exact same kind of scenario as for when baby food/milk/formula was declared: pick who is going to get the extra search for it, in those cases a grope as the extra search beyond anything done to the baby food/milk/formula. I wonder what the TSA would say if some unconnected stranger offered to be the volunteer substitute for the extra searches for someone with whom they didn’t have any prior affiliation before arriving at the airport. Maybe it’s time for some more experiments this summer.
Jul 22, 2019, 11:32 am
#27
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: DFW
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold, Admirals Club, Global Entry
Posts: 1,141
All kidding aside, I'm still truly shocked at how the TSA lets lets the "suspects" choose which one of them gets to avoid the search. That can't possibly enhance security under any conceivable set of circumstances whatsoever. And, yes, the above comments on the book are all consistent with what the agent told me: it was a thick mass that didn't show up well on the machine and so had to be visually checked to confirm that it really was a book -- in a clear plastic bag, which the screener never even opened.
Jul 22, 2019, 7:55 pm
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
All kidding aside, I'm still truly shocked at how the TSA lets lets the "suspects" choose which one of them gets to avoid the search. That can't possibly enhance security under any conceivable set of circumstances whatsoever. And, yes, the above comments on the book are all consistent with what the agent told me: it was a thick mass that didn't show up well on the machine and so had to be visually checked to confirm that it really was a book -- in a clear plastic bag, which the screener never even opened.
Jul 23, 2019, 9:53 am
#29
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,676
All kidding aside, I'm still truly shocked at how the TSA lets lets the "suspects" choose which one of them gets to avoid the search. That can't possibly enhance security under any conceivable set of circumstances whatsoever. And, yes, the above comments on the book are all consistent with what the agent told me: it was a thick mass that didn't show up well on the machine and so had to be visually checked to confirm that it really was a book -- in a clear plastic bag, which the screener never even opened.
It isn't meant to enhance security. It is a performance for the pax and an effort to keep screeners' minds on their jobs.
The problem is that the screeners don't really think there's a threat, so they don't take it seriously. They get bored and focus on catching all water bottles because that's easier than staying alert an looking for 'something' that might actually be a threat.
Jul 24, 2019, 12:27 am
#30
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,592
It isn't meant to enhance security. It is a performance for the pax and an effort to keep screeners' minds on their jobs.
The problem is that the screeners don't really think there's a threat, so they don't take it seriously. They get bored and focus on catching all water bottles because that's easier than staying alert an looking for 'something' that might actually be a threat.