Bart

Do you know the percentage of children who have to undergo a pat-down? Statistically speaking, it is very rare that children have to be patted down. However, I don't mean to spoil your scare tactics.

Bart

Pot. Kettle. Black.

barbell

Uh, that doesn't make the procedure any more acceptable. What is it that you guys just can't wrap your heads around about this?

Just because "it's procedure" doesn't make it OK.

Just because "they describe what they're going to do" doesn't make it OK.

When a screener takes his hand and slides it instead of patting it up my leg until he comes into contact with my testicles and pushes them around, he has crossed a line. Saying that he's going to "meet resistance" doesn't make it OK.

PhoenixRev

Then why not take the opportunity away from any potential child molester?

Things seemed to be operating well with just the WTMD and the occasional swab test well before the mass introduction of the WBI.

Unless, of course, you have evidence that planes were falling out of the skies over American due to kids with explosive suicide vests.

For as long as I have been posting on FT, I have always seen the TSOs who frequent here pitch a fit when someone posts a story like this and makes a broad-brushed claim about all TSOs. They claim it isn't fair to view everyone as a potential this or that.

Yet, as you noted, when it comes to the traveling public, we are all viewed as potential terrorists and the TSOs here never raise a fuss about that broad brushing.

So, a very simple question:

If TSOs are free to view all travelers as potential terrorists, why can we not view all TSOs as potential child molesters?

What's good for the goose....

average_passenger

It's not a scare tactic. How many adult men would want to be patted down by a suspected pedophile? I'm pretty sure most college guys would freak out!! I know the ones that I'm friends with would!! I may be wrong but I thought pedophiles were not even supposed to be in a area near children (park, playground, or school yard) or have a job that involves children being around.

gsoltso

According to SOP, not at all. I have answered that question the same way since the changes, and prior to that. The standard pat down is not groping or molesting as many here allege. The problem arises when something not in the SOP occurs, and that is what seems to be the case in many of the stated experiences here.

[QUOTE=DeafBlonde;16268689]Already explained in a different thread that I do not have that point of view, and based on what I read it is a subtle but substantial difference. I do not speak for all employees of the organization, even though I wish I could! I see each passenger as the reason we are here, and folks to be cleared. I am not suspicious of everyone entering the checkpoint - if I saw each passenger as a potential terrorist, I would. I screen each passenger as equally and as well as I possibly can while doing so as efficiently as I can - if I suspected that each passenger was a terrorist, I would be more focused on proving that thought than focusing on being efficient and professional. It is a subtle difference, but I feel it is quite a substantial difference.

barbell

To be fair, TSA couldn't have possibly known this guy was a pedophile, so no one could've prevented him from performing in that job function for that reason.

The real issue here is that people like that are given free-reign access to all of our bodies unquestioned. The whole body imaging and sliding pat downs just need to stop.

barbell

How about I perform on you the rub down I received at ATL? Or the one I watched at MSP? Or the one I received at LAX? They couldn't have all been SOP because they were all consistently inconsistent. Would that be OK?

While I appreciate it, giving people the "choice" of undergoing radiation exposure in a machine that has not been tested on human subjects for long-term tissue health effects by an individual who isn't trained extensively on safety of such devices that are now known to not be reliable in their output, or a genital rub with hands in the pants isn't simply "clearing".

Tom M.

Can we use the same argument against most of what TSA does?

Statistically speaking it is very rare that any terrorist, let alone a child terrorist, will target an airplane.

I don't mean to spoil the TSA's scare tactics what they are doing is imperative and necessary.

Bart

I am all for actions that will weed out potential abusers of any kind. I'm just pointing out that adding psychological testing to the hiring process adds a cost increase that you, the taxpayer, have to be willing to pay. I truly don't see the cost benefit, especially given that the nature of the crime is extraordinarily difficult to detect, regardless of profession.

One thing I forgot to add during one of the previous posts, I always make it a point to wait for the parents before screening a child (I've only patted down one underage child under the new procedures; I'm talking more about the old hand-wand screening). In most cases, the parent(s) basically got angry with me because I waited until they were present before I began. They expected me to begin without them being present as witnesses. And when I was a lead TSO, I've often had to explain to parents that we don't want to screen a child without a parent or guardian or other adult companion present. Only on rare occasions have I been thanked for this consideration. More often than not, they expect us to get it over and done with.

I strongly recommend being present whenever kids have to be screened if for no other reason than to explain that they did nothing wrong. (I make it a point to explain that upfront, too.)

gsoltso

That argument is not very persuasive. Just because no airplanes have fallen out of the sky means we don't have to screen for x, y, z - just not working. It is the same as saying because no person of Finnish descent has never commited the crime of treason we we can stop investigating claims that folks of Finnish descent are commiting the crimes. Or that because no red Porsche Cayennes have been ticketed for not having their inspection current for 5 years, so when a police officer pulls one over they shouldn't bother looking at the inspection stickers. Or because I haven't had a PBand J sandwich in a year, it means I don't like them and will never have one again, or saying that because noone has been killed with a Mosin Nagant in 5 years, they are not ever going to be used to kill someone in the future.

As for the viewing passengers as possible terrorists, already explained that one.

This guy had a clear record until these charges were leveled, how would the agency know that he was a pedophile? Does this mean that anyone that you personally think "could" possibly be a pedophile, without any kind of screening for it, should be cast out of their job? What other criteria would you have posted as an automatic removal listing that is not there as of now? Hair color? Homosexuality? Ethnicity? There was no indicator prior to these charges and I am wondering exactly how you determined that this was supposed to be precognitively determined?

You can make a case for the psychological screening, and I will give you that, but you (and me, and the other members of our society) as a tax payer would have to be willing to foot even more money into the budget to add and accomplish that. Then there would be the up front cost of performing it on the existing workforce and moving forward from there, and that would cost an arm and a leg - even more tax dollars out of our pockets. I am not making a case against the psych screenings, I would gladly submit to them and go back to work, but most often when things of this nature are suggested, then the budget includes the extra billion(s) to accomplish what was asked for, the masses get upset and ask where the idea and approval came from.

barbell

How about we do this? How about we respect the Constitution?

How about we treat everyone as though they are innocent until proven guilty, and conduct reasonable searches?

Reasonable != radiation
Reasonable != strip search
Reasonable != hands in pants
Reasonable != genital rubs

As a bonus, there would be a lot less frustration on both sides, and it would cost a lot less money.

gsoltso

I can not intelligently speak on what you are stating here because I was not there, but if the pat downs were outside of the SOP, then there should be ramifications (I have already gone on record as not being a fan of not telling passengers what the patdowns consist of). I have never seen a pat down with hands inside anything but the waistband of the pants, and that is currently procedure.


Separately - have you filed complaints on the patdowns that were out of line? Seriously, please file complaints about them. I hear many times that the responses are not always the best, but the organization can't make corrections on things that are wrong without knowing they are wrong in the first place.

barbell

In part, this was the response I received from TSA HQ:

Yes or no - A rubbing of the genitals is dignified, respectful and courteous?

Yes or no - A supervisor flat out refusing to record my complaint at the time of said genital rubbing, and ignoring it with a non-response is professional?

Why in the world would I complain when the response I get closes with a reminder that there are threats and doesn't in any material way apologize for a genital rubbing?

Bart

I thought I did when I said that parents/guardians/adult companions should always be present when a child is screened. Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you suggesting that children ought to be exempted from ANY type of screening simply because they are underage? Have to disagree with you there. I do agree that TSOs ought to be able to employ less intrusive techniques when screening children. However, what comes with that territory is that if a child cannot be cleared, then that child cannot continue past the checkpoint.