I think he is just suggesting that she got selected because she is good looking and the officers wanted some eye candy to look and talk at for a few hours

Yes, TSAdude, she is attractive. And she doesn't look remotely Middle Eastern (I do.)

I think she probably just seemed like she'd be cooperative--the least likely to cause a problem, or to have a difficult background check. No need to use an interpreter.

They had to pick somebody, so they might as well pick an easy target.

At various airports on the East Coast, I used to see the TSA go after attractive women at the airport security checkpoints, such as "wanding" bare midriffs and legs even when the WTMD didn't go off. And on planes, it's often the FAMs making the moves.

Bunch of perverts

Mmm hmm, now I know why I tend to get hit with secondary suspiciously often. :td:

Not at all unusual. Given the timeframe, they likely got their numbers from the same place at the same time. My sister and I are one digit apart for the same reason -- my parents filed for our numbers when we were kids (before the IRS required it).

Back when they were traveling quite a bit, my DIL used to get pulled for secondary on almost every trip out of EWR. She is tall and willowy, very pretty, but very quiet and not about to put up a fuss about anything. My son, OTOH, as much as I love him, often looks like a bum, can be quite vocal and was never pulled out for secondary.

And, sad to say, we'll see who misses a flight in the process.

Bottom line, there is a time and place to "pick your battles" and en route to your airplane is not the time nor the place.

Actually I did miss my SWA flight AUS to FLL last October. SWA very graciously booked me on another AUS to HOU to FLL. So how was I wrong in where/when I "picked my battles". Lead screener Domenic Grieto saying that he would not release me until I told him my home phone number was a good enough time/place for the battle for me.

At what point would it be for you? Screeners do not learn their lesson when we succumb to their tyranny because it would be "inconvenient" for us.

I'm real curious where the line is for you to feel "safe" and not free.

Actually Social Security stopped issuing consecutive numbers to family memebrs in the 60's so it is rarer than you would think.

That mentality is exactly why TSA gets away with so much. If en route to one's flight is never the time/place to battle, then TSA can get away with unjustified confiscation/theft of non-threatening items, overly intrusive searches, assault/battery, verbal abuse, and other arbitrary, capricious, and malicious actions. Because en route to one's flight is pretty much the only time we face TSA.

TSA knows this is a key source of their power and has embedded it within TSA's culture informally, if not formally. Hence "D Y W T F T" and a myriad of other veiled and not-so-veiled threats.

If TSA had to compensate the airlines and/or the passengers for rebooking flights missed due to TSA action (with reasonable restraints such as pax had to be in line for the checkpoint 45 minutes prior to departure or at the WTMD 35 minutes prior to departure), preferably with the compensation 60% from TSA's operating budget, 25% from the offending TSO's salary, and 15% from the TSO's supervisor, then you can bet this sort of abuse would screech to a halt.

I have little doubt that the OP's story is true, and that the traveler somehow triggered suspicion in the BDO's mind (maybe blinked the wrong way, twitched, sneezed, whatever :rolleyes:, or maybe her ID had scratched lamination or an address-change sticker :rolleyes: ) and that the TSA employees (probably off the cuff and not out of any SOP) decided to use the ID verification procedure as a means to resolve their suspicion, and possible as a means of observing her reaction. The OP's story is completely believable given the mentality of TSA, our knowledge of the ID verification procedure, and TSA's consistent refusal to advise passengers on TSA's procedures and passengers' rights and obligations when at a TSA checkpoint.

As an aside, I suspect that using the traveler's father's partial SSN or even the traveler's SSN for identity verification is an illegal use of SSNs and possibly subject to some sort of criminal prosecution. IIRC there are pretty serious restrictions on use of SSN's, and the travelers' father certainly never consented to the the use of his SSN for this process.

In your opinion, perhaps. Unless I'm going to a loved one's funeral, I can't think of any trip that is more important than standing up to the fascist practices of the TSA.

BINGO! We have a winner! ^