That's because of the common element between bras and the government:

Boobs.

More specifically, government programs, like bras, are ostensibly there both to support those endowed less fortunately and to constrain those with an over-abundance of assets.

Usually there is a lot concealed and, as the situation under discussion reveals, the unintended consequences sometimes include government interference that results in diminishing rather than enhancing human dignity. ;)

I think this thread has been milked for all its got.;)

I udderly agree.

They didn't.

The article doesn't say the bag search took 40 minutes. It says that "The whole undertaking took 40 minutes." 40 minutes for everything, starting with her first trip through security and ending when she was finally cleared.

As for why they looked at her carry on bag, She came through a second time. most likely she came through a different x-ray operator. I don't think it's any secret to frequent flyers that some x-ray operators call more bag checks than others. I've seen regular passengers choose their lane based on who's on the x-ray. When I go to the supermarket, for similar reasons, I avoid certain cashiers no matter how short the line is at their lane. There's nothing sinister about it, someone new was on the x-ray, they had a different opinion about the contents of the woman's bag than the person that was on the first time she came through.

The woman set off a metal detecor alarm. How silly would we be if every time we got an alarm on someone we said "what's that?" and when they said "nothing" we just said "ok" and let them go?

While your scenario is completely possible, it is just as possible that the TSOs recognized the woman from the bra encounter and decided to initiate a retaliatory secondary screening. Denying that these types of retaliations occur is foolish as there is way too much evidence of them.

Best to make a clean breast of it.

I've never seen retaliatory screening and the only evidence I have of its existence is both biased and anecdotal. On the other hand I can't count the number of people who have told me "but this is my second time through and my bag cleared the first time." I don't deny the existence of retaliatory screening but I think the other possibility is far more likely.

Anyway; The woman set off an alarm, refused to allow the TSO to resolve the alarm and insisted on leaving the secure area instead. When she returned she no longer set off the same alarm. Since the first alarm was never resolved we don't know what actually caused it or what she actually removed to prevent it the second time. We know what she claims caused it and what she claims to have removed but we can't take for granted that she's truthful. Under the circumstances it's perfectly reasonable to give her property extra scrutiny in case she transferred a prohibited item from one location to another in an attempt to get it through the second time.

I set off the d@#$ things all the time when I go through wearing my underwires, too. Although, I got the best compliment at GEG when I went through there back in the first part of July...

Female TSA during my patdown: "It must be a pretty good bra if it's setting off the detectors."

Me: "It better be! I paid enough for it at Nordstrom!"

Hopefully the pax who missed her flight because of this was able to lift off and separate herself from the TSA.

You bet your sweet butt I do. I won't say which airports (and RSW isn't one of the ones in question), but there's a couple of airports I tend to go through frequently. With the long cattle-call lines, you get a good amount of time to survey the lanes and determine which lanes are being manned by Nurse Diesel/Little Napoleon or someone far more reasonable. Another good tactic is to act totally asleep and bleary-eyed. Even the most thick-headed TSO tends to be somewhat respectful to the nearly-asleep pax.

Continuing the childish nature of the thread... The War Against Terrorism has long outlived its usefulness.

Biased and anecdotal? Please let us know when the TSA releases a scientific survey of how many TSO's order retaliatory secondaries. Until then, I guess we'll have to rely on mere accounts from passengers.

I really hope that when you say, "we can't take for granted that she's truthful," you're talking about the perspective of a TSA screener during this process, and not the truthfulness of story that this poor woman told to the SF Gate.

I thought your mind readers could tell if a person was being truthful or not!

Another failed program and waste of taxpayer monies.

TSA is done and should be taken off the stove.

Agreed. I, personally, was okay with it until the went through her bags after she took off the bra. If the alarm sets off it has to be addressed, but once that's done then let the lady go for goodness sake.

I find this statement troubling. While extra scrutiny might be warranted, depending on the specifics of the situation, this sounds dangerously close to justifying what is known on this forum as "retaliatory screening." Sure, a passenger who demands to leave the checkpoint before completing screening might do so in an attempt to hide a prohibited item and try again. I have seen far more passengers demand to leave the checkpoint because they want to get rid of a potential prohibited item.