Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the rule was because if it was out of the sight of a screener that there was no way to know if something was slipped or not. But if it's in the presence, is it really such a big deal? And why not just rescreen the kid if it's really that big of a deal rather than all involved.

Unless prohibited items are like cooties and can be communicated merely by a touch.

This woman was the first to publicize the incident, right? The video and the report are public records, so what's wrong about posting them in response to the woman's public allegations of TSA wrongdoing?

When I first looked at the link and video, I thought it was the "real" Mythbusters (I can't tell from their website whether Discovery Channel has a trademark or service mark on the name.)

The whole thing seems a little unusual on a TSA webpage.

They certainly do. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...ate=796rlq.2.1

And I wouldn't be surprised if TSA has already heard from Discovery Channel's IP lawyers.

Blatant Trademark infringement, although the TSA will probably pass it off as the US Gov being allowed to use registered trademarks in any way they see fit...they even copy the capitalization the same way as the Discovery Channel uses it.

In case anyone is interested, you can search the US Trademark Office here.

That's an interesting question, and my 10 minute research project revealed that TSA would have strong legal support for the notion that it, as a federal agency, is not bound by the trademark laws. It looks to me that the issue is far from settled, though. I'd bet that TSA would back off the use of Mythbusters if pressed, if for no other reason than that it looks bad for them to misappropriate the mark.

I hope they do!

I haven't a clue what the rule is but common sense would tell me that if someone who has been screened comes in contact with someone who hasn't (as was the case here), then the first person needs to be rescreened again. I don't remember if the guy just picked up the kid or if she handed the kid to him but either way, with everything that was going on, he could have easily given a prohibited item to the woman. Hence the need to be rescreened.

Having said that, I still don't believe that the whole screening process is really worth anything. I'm just pointing out a flaw in her story.

ok, so i watched the video and i'm having a bald moment....this is post security after you've been screened, collected your bags and are walking to the gate, right? if that's the case.....i've noticed two things.

i'll give the time on the tape and the winner gets a tootsie-pop.

2:00:01: first person (female)

2:02:17 (male)

edited to add: it might be a "bald moment alert" as after re-reading this thread, the video shows that this took place after she was escorted out of the secure area via the exit. never mind.....<dope slap to the goalie>

Sorry, but she lost me at "Do you know who I am?" Looks like dueling power trips here. No winner.

Yup (but what do you call a duel with 3 people ?).

A bunch of people with inflated opinions of themselves getting all huffy.
Still, gives us 'civilians' a bit of a giggle.

I've watched the two videos on the TSA website as well as the MSNBC segment today featuring Ms. Emmerson as well as one of Kip's Stooges, and I'm left with several unanswered questions:

1. The TSA has posted two clips showing Ms. Emerson in the EXIT LANE of airport security. Why was she sent through security and out the exit lane? Why didn't they just turn her around? If liquids are so deadly, who would want someone carrying them inside the secure area?

2. Most of the issue here centers on what happened when Ms. Emmerson approached the initial screening. Where is the video of that encounter with the TSA? If the TSA has it, then let's see it. Otherwise, the inference can be drawn that it is showing something unfavorable to them.

In the MSNBC segment, unfortunately, Ms. Emerson was either not very articulate or simply nervous but was not a match for a government official who likely has had media training. What I'd like to know from her was what she actually said to the screeners regarding her status with the Secret Service. Is it possible she said that she used to be with the Secret Service?

As to the allegations that she said, "Do you know who I am?" considering that the source of this charge is the TSA, I take it for what it's worth, i.e., not much.

It's worth noting that Kip's Stooge reiterated to MSNBC that liquids are "a legitimate threat."

I have no comment on the rest of your post but this one is correct.

If you doubt me then you've obviously never seen me on a tequila binge.

By all accounts, she was escorted out, so whatever threat such liquids might be, their momentary presence in the secure area under the watchful eye of security would not be a problem.

Huh? There is actually no real dispute about what happened as she approached initial screening. Her claim of mistreatment starts with what happened at the exit:

The incident started when Monica, who left the Secret Service to raise a family, was stopped while going through airport security because there was water in her son's sippy cup. The sippy cup was seized by TSA. Monica wanted the cup back because the sippy cup was the only way her son would drink -- and it was a long flight between Washington, DC and Reno, Nevada where she was going for a family reunion. If you've ever had a toddler you understand about sippy cups.

So she was willing to spill the water out. Drink the water. Anything -- all that she wanted was to be able to have a cup that her 19-month-old toddler could drink from.

Here's what happened in Monica's words:

"I demanded to speak to a TSA [Transportation Security Administration] supervisor who asked me if the water in the sippy cup was 'nursery water or other bottled water.' I explained that the sippy cup water was filtered tap water. The sippy cup was seized as my son was pointing and crying for his cup. I asked if I could drink the water to get the cup back, and was advised that I would have to leave security and come back through with an empty cup in order to retain the cup. As I was escorted out of security by TSA and a police officer, I unscrewed the cup to drink the water, which accidentally spilled because I was so upset with the situation.

The TSA report doesn't dispute any of this, except to note that the LEO and Ms. Emmerson disagreed about whether the water spill was accidental. http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/dca_incident_061107.pdf

Mods, can you combine the two threads on this subject?

What's wrong is that the TSA is apparently selective in what it releases.

Where is the video of the encounter at the initial airport screening where the "sippy cup" issue was raised?