TSA changes pat-down for children
Jun 23, 2011 | 1:58 pm
#76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,684
Mike
Jun 23, 2011 | 2:16 pm
#77
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,145
Exactly. So why are they bothering with this screening method that misses completely the possibility you suggest (whether child OR adult)?
Jun 23, 2011 | 2:19 pm
#78
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 331
First, your numbers are ludicrous. Second, it's about sending a message. The people we're worried about respect strength. They do not respect weakness. This is a show of weakness, whatever its motives may be, and however otherwise positive its effects on our children are.
And it's the perception of weakness that is important here. And right now, the U.S. has enough problems in that area, thanks to its current "leadership". To stop an opponent, you have to see and think as they do and try to anticipate what their responses are to your actions. I don't have any confidence that those in charge of our airline security have thinking skills that advanced.
Preparation is preferable to paranoia, though either is preferable to willful ignorance.
And it's the perception of weakness that is important here. And right now, the U.S. has enough problems in that area, thanks to its current "leadership". To stop an opponent, you have to see and think as they do and try to anticipate what their responses are to your actions. I don't have any confidence that those in charge of our airline security have thinking skills that advanced.
Preparation is preferable to paranoia, though either is preferable to willful ignorance.
Refusing to abuse children is not a sign of weakness. Changing how everything is done, up to and including allowing the abuse of children at the hand of the TSA, under the guise of security, is showing fear. This kind of fear is illogical and a sign of weakness.
Finally deciding not to change your way of life in the face of a "perceived" boogyman is a sign of strength. By living a normal life, you are showing strength. By cowering at every turn because there is a minute possibility that something might happen, you are showing your weaknesses. And yes, when you do that, they have won.
Let's get real here.
Jun 23, 2011 | 4:34 pm
#79
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
Both weapons and explosives can be carried inside bodies, not only on their surface. That is why whole body scans and pat downs are the incorrect methodology for airport security, while WTMD and ETD are both appropriate and noninvasive.
Jun 23, 2011 | 8:10 pm
#80
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: OKC
Posts: 15
The message we've sent is that we're scared and willing to give up our freedom to feel "safe". Certainly that cannot be seen as strength.
First, your numbers are ludicrous. Second, it's about sending a message. The people we're worried about respect strength. They do not respect weakness. This is a show of weakness, whatever its motives may be, and however otherwise positive its effects on our children are.
And it's the perception of weakness that is important here. And right now, the U.S. has enough problems in that area, thanks to its current "leadership". To stop an opponent, you have to see and think as they do and try to anticipate what their responses are to your actions. I don't have any confidence that those in charge of our airline security have thinking skills that advanced.
Preparation is preferable to paranoia, though either is preferable to willful ignorance.
And it's the perception of weakness that is important here. And right now, the U.S. has enough problems in that area, thanks to its current "leadership". To stop an opponent, you have to see and think as they do and try to anticipate what their responses are to your actions. I don't have any confidence that those in charge of our airline security have thinking skills that advanced.
Preparation is preferable to paranoia, though either is preferable to willful ignorance.
Jun 23, 2011 | 8:38 pm
#81
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
We do, unfortunately, seem to be setting up some rather odd tiers of screening.
Now, we're talking about exempting "children" from invasive screening (though it'll be interesting to see how Pistole et. al. define "child"). And, there's long-term discussion of exempting others from invasive screening in exchange for providing detailed background information.
Seems, to this uninformed observer...
Jun 23, 2011 | 9:25 pm
#83
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA; Philadelphia, PA
Programs: FA
Posts: 6,485
Pistole says something is changing:
""We have changed the policy to say that there'll be repeated efforts made to resolve that without a pat-down." [Source]
""We have changed the policy to say that there'll be repeated efforts made to resolve that without a pat-down." [Source]
LAX
Jun 23, 2011 | 10:30 pm
#84
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 173
The only change is that children won't be randomly selected for pat downs and they will have more than one opportunity to go through AIT/WTMD before they get a pat down.
Before they could be randomly selected and if they triggered an alarm on the AIT/WTMD they were immediately patted down.
That is the only change, for those of you expecting some type of major sweeping reform you forgot you were dealing with Pistole.
This man is a master at trying to seem like he is making some major concession to the traveling public when he isn't.
Before they could be randomly selected and if they triggered an alarm on the AIT/WTMD they were immediately patted down.
That is the only change, for those of you expecting some type of major sweeping reform you forgot you were dealing with Pistole.
This man is a master at trying to seem like he is making some major concession to the traveling public when he isn't.
Jun 24, 2011 | 3:37 am
#86
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
[QUOTE=billycorgan;16616486]Before they could be randomly selected and if they triggered an alarm on the AIT/WTMD they were immediately patted down.
[QUOTE]
No one was "immediately patted down" if they alarmed the WTMD. As many on this site have described themselves, sometimes it took multiple attempts to pass through the WTMD without a pat down.
But your close.
[QUOTE]
No one was "immediately patted down" if they alarmed the WTMD. As many on this site have described themselves, sometimes it took multiple attempts to pass through the WTMD without a pat down.
But your close.
Jun 24, 2011 | 6:03 am
#87
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Care to state what the new policy will be, without hinting at when we're "close" to discovering the new procedure? (I hate having to play "twenty questions" ...)
Jun 24, 2011 | 12:43 pm
#88
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 173
Its a game of semantics
The new policy probably changes the fact that children under 12 can not be "randomly" selected for a pat down.
It will also allow children to attempt to clear a screening process via (AIT or WTMD) multiple times.
Basically they are stating it will be harder for a child to receive a pat down, yet this can still happen and the pat down procedure will be the same as before.
The new policy probably changes the fact that children under 12 can not be "randomly" selected for a pat down.
It will also allow children to attempt to clear a screening process via (AIT or WTMD) multiple times.
Basically they are stating it will be harder for a child to receive a pat down, yet this can still happen and the pat down procedure will be the same as before.
Jun 24, 2011 | 1:08 pm
#89
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,343
Its a game of semantics
The new policy probably changes the fact that children under 12 can not be "randomly" selected for a pat down.
It will also allow children to attempt to clear a screening process via (AIT or WTMD) multiple times.
Basically they are stating it will be harder for a child to receive a pat down, yet this can still happen and the pat down procedure will be the same as before.
The new policy probably changes the fact that children under 12 can not be "randomly" selected for a pat down.
It will also allow children to attempt to clear a screening process via (AIT or WTMD) multiple times.
Basically they are stating it will be harder for a child to receive a pat down, yet this can still happen and the pat down procedure will be the same as before.
Jun 26, 2011 | 10:17 pm
#90
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Wherever liberty is threatened
Programs: TSA Disparager Silver
Posts: 314
So if a child (or guardian on behalf of the child) says "WTMD yes AIT no" then will there be a patdown?
Given that you are now saying it is all WTMD.
What is the part of your vague mysterious enigmatic post that relates to AIT?