TSA involves minor in tests
 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/airlinerep...ves/235924.asp

A TSA test put a minor at risk for a traumatic experience.

Even if it was not a minor, why should any of us be used by name in their games?

Hmmm. In fairness to TSA. As I reread the article it seems like perhaps the Jet Blue agent picked the method to breech security.

From a read of the article, it looks like the JetBlue clerk used the minor's name, not the TSA.

(I'm all for giving the TSA credit for their own idiocy - no need to pile on with someone else's, too.)

Done by one of the highly trusted, never suspected, flies through security, no NOS, no frisk, flash the ID and go shoes and all employee of a business at the airport.

Who would have thunk it?

Posted on Newsstand about four days ago.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/newss...-tsa-test.html

This is just what KILLS me about this entire debacle. All this disgusting invasiveness to find something hidden under your boobs or behind your testicles, and yet here is the security CHASM staring you right in the face--the human element with unrestricted access to aircraft, cargo hold, and what have you.

THAT is why the TSA shuffle is called security theater. A total joke.

And now that they know it, they obviously suspected it, what will they do about it? Random stings? Does not exactly check everyone now does it? Who knows, any employee at the airport could be the one and if we do not check them all, then we may miss the one that really is a bad guy. The everyone's a terrorist universe just got a lot larger.

If TSA is going to xray every shoe out of millions based on one idiot in i don't know how many millions of people who flew then how can they carve out such a wide chasm by exempting employees from 100% screening?

Policy on Minors & NoS?
 

Are minors allowed to go through NoS? I thought that I read that they were sent through WTMD. Is that just optional and what about children traveling alone?

I watched a 12 or 13 year old boy, who seemed to be alone, pass through the NoS at BWI last week. Shouldn't he have been directed to the other lane?

TSA is more interested in looking a naked children or feeling up children than they are about preserving childrens modesty and privacy.

Minors have the same right to opt-out of the AIT that adults have.

A lot of minors prefer the AIT to the WTMD because then they don't get felt up by some (possibly perverted) TSO.

If WTMD is in use why would the minor get felt up by a TSA perv?

The problem is with both the frisking and the WBI. Neither should be used on a minor unless some very clear indications are presented and then only with approval of higher authority.

Can we stick to the subject of this thread without it devolving into another "TSA agents are child molestors, perverts [insert sexual deviancy here]" bashing thread?

With that said, I agree that there needs to be much more stringent and tighter security of the unsecured parts of the airport. I do think that everyone should be screened included airport employees, baggage handlers, tarmac employees, etc. I even think that pilots, flight attendants and other airline employees should be screened. Who knows if a terrorist decides to dress up as a pilot or flight attendant and gets on board a plane.

The baggage handling area needs to have constant surveillance. I was reading a blog a few months ago about a scenario where someone sneaks a dirty bomb into an airport and onto a plane using the unsecured areas of an airport, mainly the cargo and the baggage areas. Although I think that the possibility of a nuclear threat is low, other threats may get through.

Can we ask the same of you? Seems like you come into many of the TS/S threads to say that we are all crazy, and conspiracy theorists...

The topic is about how an airline employee was "bought off" by an undercover agent performing a security test. It was the airline employee who used the minor passenger's name to process it through.
As I understand it this thread is about the flaw in security that deals with things beyond the checkpoint. With which I do agree there has to be more stringent security dealing with those areas.
However this thread has derailed into another "TSA are perverts!" thread which has nothing to do with the topic at hand and does not add any value to the real discussion which is screening airport security so that incidents such as airline employees and other airport employees being bribed to bring an unknown, suspicious and possibly dangerous package on board a plane. Or being bought off to bring an unscreened bag into the cargo area.

And exactly the same thing can happen with TSA screeners.

The TSA has constantly stated that it won't permit a registered traveler program (what CLEAR should have been, or what Global Entry is) because even with background checks they can't trust the traveler.

Guess what: TSA does the same background checks on themselves.

It would not take too much for someone affiliated with a terrorist group to pass the TSA background check & end up in a position of power. Heck, there's nothing that would stop a TSA screener from bringing a gun on premises & unloading on the folks queued up in line waiting for screening. Or an IED. But that hasn't happened (save for the guy in Denver that brought a gun to work) - and it's highly unlikely to happen with registered travelers. Heck, the TSA has even hired convicted felons - folks that would not be able to pass a registered traveler background check.

Instead, we have a slew of TSA types that have stolen from passengers and use the strip-search machines for their perverse pleasure (see: Ronald Negrin). Not all, but enough.

We really don't need more security of the "sterile area". We need to use risk management techniques & smarter security techniques. The TSA currently operates in the same fashion as Harry Kettle would if he used a hammer to drive in a screw. Using the right tool and technique would be far, far better - a screwdriver judiciously applied to avoid stripping the head.

The strip-search machines may be the right tool for resolving issues with highly suspicious individuals. But using it as a blunt object on every traveler - giving a TSA screener a naked view of every passenger (and as noted in a number of circumstances, nice looking women often get special attention) presents a real temptation for perverts. Likewise the groping.

If we'd move to measured, intelligent, risk-based screening we would cut expenses, reduce hassles, and all be much better off. So, no we don't need more of a bad thing. We need to get smarter.

Out of curiosity, do you know what the TSA background check entails? Can you share any details? For the record, I agree that even someone who passes a background check can still do something to compromise security, but how easy are you saying it is for someone affiliated with a terrorist group (or a convicted felon, for that matter) to pass the background check?

In 2009, a dozen illegal aliens from Central America and Mexico passed the TSA's so-called "background checks" to be granted "trusted agent" access badges to operational areas at Stewart International Airport.

How much easier do you think it should be?

Not saying it should be "easier", wondering about standards. Interesting about the illegal aliens, hadn't heard about that. Not terribly reassuring...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...ork-ny-airport

Still, anyone know what the background check entails (or should entail, were it carried it properly)?

I was being sarcastic.

From all evidence, the TSA doesn't seem to actually have standards. They've issued "trusted agent" passes to illegal aliens, regularly hire thieves, rapists, and child molesters, lie to the public on a regular basis, fail to train their personnel, insist that airports grant access to convicted felons that the TSA has hired... where should we begin to expect "standards" from them?

Here's what TSA told Congress:

http://www.tsa.gov/press/speeches/as...able_0393.shtm

If one is not on any of the "lists", then one is eligible for hire.

There is no reason that a traveler - particularly one that has undergone numerous federal background checks to a much higher level than TSA - can't be considered *at least* as low a risk as a TSA employee.

It sounds like this was a stupid test all the way around.

Sure, they got an unaccompanied "package" checked as baggage by paying a bribe. But said unaccompanied package was screened, presumably with CTX, and cleared. Like all checked bags.

On the other hand, a shipper could walk up to the cargo side of the airport, not even pay a bribe, and get the unaccompanied package on the same aircraft, possibly with no screening whatsoever if they have gone through the "trusted shipper" process.

Until the cargo screening problem is 100% fixed, doing these sorts of tests on the passenger/baggage side is pointless.

Ok, how about this one, an active TSA employee with a felony record.+

http://www2.wsls.com/news/2010/feb/0...ear-ar-371878/

TSA orders Richmond airport to give security clearance to felon
By Peter Bacque Richmond Times-Dispatch
Published: February 04, 2010