Bart

Seeing as how I practice my pat-down technique on my wife during PSEs (our annual re-certification tests) and never quite finish....I can't answer your question

FriendlySkies

You groping your wife is much different than you groping some innocent pax.

Lara21

They'd be screaming at the top of their lungs that their wife/mother/daughter had just been sexually assaulted. Because if a stranger on the street did that TSA enhanced patdown on their wife/mother/daughter they would finally get the point as to why those patdowns are offensive and wrong to be forced on the passengers. Especially when there are other less offensive ways to search the passengers to keep the bomb off the plane.

OldGoat

There you go, throwing our a charge without any basis. "Silly"? Why, pray tell?

The SOP may or may not disallow groping, but the way the SOP is implemented -- single TSO on single passenger -- definitely allows for it to happen, and happen with impunity.

And I have a background that rivals yours. I just don't trumpet it to make my points sound stronger than they are.

I also note that rather than address the meat of my point, you chose to praise yourself, raise cost objections, and generally disregard the one salient point I was making -- that the inability to protect children from gropers should mean children should not be subject to patdowns.

Now, you are free to respond, patting yourself on the back while throwing baseless charges like "silly".

Fire away.

knotyeagle

So what type of criminals does the TSA willfully hire? Convicted felons for robbery in Richmond (RIC)? Is the federal security director that hired him still working there or just promoted to somewhere else?

I have yet to hear an apology from the TSA on that one, perhaps they feel none are warranted since the screener passed his background investigation (which is how the felony conviction for robbery was found).

Is that the kind of brethren screener wearing the same uniform as you do (with less stripes of course) you want going thru your checked luggage or carry-on?

OldGoat

Bart, I note that you did not respond to my post #23. I really want to hear your answer. You said the TSA was like any other corporation. If they are, why don't they limit employee's contact with children, just like any other corporation?

And please keep your response on point, because I'd really like to know what you think, on this one point.

RatherBeOnATrain

No, PhoenixRev, that is not correct.

The TSA said: "We can assure the public that he is no longer working at the airport."

"No Longer Working At the Airport" is an euphemism for "on leave". The TSO charged with distributing child pornography might be on administrative leave without pay, he might be on administrative leave with pay, or he might just be using accrued vacation leave.

If the TSA had terminated the charged TSO, or the charged TSO had resigned, then the TSA would have come out and said so.

barbell

Break this down for me like I'm a 5 year-old.

You state that TSA screeners are "unable to predict" the behaviors of their coworkers, some of whom are clearly ne'erdowells, and yet we are expected to believe that TSA screeners are capable of predicting the behaviors of ne'erdowells from a few seconds of interaction? How, pray tell, does that work?

And for the record, I don't think this particular screener's behavior could have been picked up with a background check. Both you and Bart are correct that given the evidence we have TSA couldn't have possibly known that he was a pedophile, nor do I think they can or should.

What I do have a problem with is that proper procedure is to rub genitals and put hands in pants. If it isn't then that is precisely what has happened to me twice, and my complaints were met with form letters telling me it was for safety. That doesn't make it "not sexual assault".

The fact that these things are being done by people like that is troubling. Once again TSA has proven it is incapable of implementing a well thought out, appropriate, effective, and reasonable screening procedure.

Wimpie

Tell that to the BDO's !

Bart

Did you know that you can request a witness? It can be a traveling companion, an airline representative, the checkpoint supervisor or even the LEO.

Yeah, if you think that the TSA pat-down is groping, then your comment IS indeed silly. You either have no law enforcement background or have never seen a real pat-down like the one I was trained to do in the military.

So please enlighten me how TSA can predict this type of behavior. The common gripe here (refer to the thread on TSA accountability for its spending) is that way too much money is being spent on TSA. Yet you seem to think that TSA can administer these psychological tests without incurring additional costs. But let's just pretend for a moment that with this economy, the government is able to cough up the funds for these tests. What do you think the return would be? Out of the 42,000 officers in the screening workforce, how many do you think would pop up as a possible child porn freak?

I don't think there's any statistical reference for the percentage of the population that engages in child pornography. I read somewhere that only 55-60% of the population uses a home computer. And I read that 10% of adult males admit to having an addiction to internet pornography in general. Out of that, you have to assume that aside from fetishes such as BDSM or good ol' fashioned online versions of Playboy and Penthouse, the percentage of those who view child pornography is probably less than 1%. I challenge you to give me a serious argument that it would exceed 1%. For the purpose of this discussion, let's just say that the percentage is something like 0.5 % (and I'm being generous). That would mean that out of the 42,000 TSA screener workforce, 210 officers would display the potential characteristics associated with child porn viewers; don't know how many of them would distribute child porn or actually molest/abuse children. I think 210 is probably on the high side, but let's go with that. How many of them do you think actually have enough incriminating evidence to either be dismissed for conduct or to actually be convicted on child porn charges? Please consider the use of anonymous screen names and attempting to mask their online activity.

Once an IP address is identified, the game's over. However, the trick is to leave a trail that authorities can track. Not much of a technical challenge but certainly a legal challenge given all the legal issues involved in obtaining search warrants, gathering evidence, etc.

I don't think there's much cost effectiveness administering a psychological test for something that cannot be proven in court. But if you truly believe that it's worth the cost, then please run for office or write your local Congressperson to have it included in the FY12 budget for immediate implementation.

RatherBeOnATrain

Check out these two lines from the article:

and

I find it very interesting that:

1. He is accused of uploading images.
2. Homeland Security - not the FBI - arrested him.

I find those sentences interesting because my impression is that most "child porn" arrests are done by the FBI and involve people accused of downloading.

Consider what would happen if a TSO were caught uploading nude-o-scope images to the internet:

1. The charging documents would say uploading. [check!]
2. To keep the dirty laundry hidden, the arrest be done by DHS LEOs, not LEOs from the FBI or another agency. [check!]
3. So that the evidence would not need to be shown in open court, where the media and activists could see it, the accused would be charged with child porn. [check!]

Consequently, I conclude that he is the first TSO to be charged with a crime as a result of uploading nude-o-scope images to the internet.

Here's the article again:
Philly.com: Airport passenger screener charged in distributing child pornography

Bart

I think that somewhere in the FlyerTalk archives are my views about BDO voodoo. I do believe that officers can be trained to detect behavioral characteristics associated with deception; however, I'm not a fan of the TSA brand of behavioral detection. I'm prejudiced by my military training and freely admit it.

average_passenger

Well, they at least posted the guy's picture. Maybe some parents will recognize him and freak out when they realize that this guy patted down their kids?!!!

Bart

The current pat-down is basically the same as the old pat-down. The only difference is that it is done with a sliding motion rather than a pat-down motion, and that officers give a more detailed explanation of the process. The only other major difference is that officers don't routinely pat down the bottom of the feet. In fact, there are certain motions that were permitted during the old pat-down that are expressly prohibited in the newer version.

OldGoat

Yes, I know that. Enlighted me as to the actual percentage that are done in private. If someone was to violate an SOP, it would more likely be with a passenger that does not request a private screening, yes?

Additionally, why should we trust any TSA employee given the constant drumbeat of arrests, and you admitting that TSA has no way of telling who will do something wrong, and who won't? (The rationale should be based in risk, of course, and risk is likelihood and magnitude. Given the magnitude of harm when a child is groped, even if the likelihood is small the risk is high.)

As I said, the SOP may or may not disallow groping. I don't know, because I can't see it. However, the implementation of the pat down definitely allows for it. Since you did not address that point, I assume you agree.

That's a straw man argument, Bart. My point was that because TSA cannot distinguish between those TSOs who will engage in improper behavior with children and those who won't, TSA do what corporations do and limit employee involvement with children.

Given the importance of protecting children, and you point about the TSA not being able to tell which employees will engage in improper behavior with children, what could possibly justify putting the children at risk with a "pat down"?

Please try to stay on point. Straw men get old quickly.