The "R" Word
 

Passing through checkpoint in the B terminal at MCO this morning. I'm the only person coming through the line. All is well until I start doing my usual security routine: Laptop goes in the bin, bag gets zipped and laid flat, shoes come off, double-check for BP...

I got as far as putting my bag on my belt and the TSO from behind the metal detector shoults "SHOES HAVE TO GO ON THE BELT!" as I was bending over to untie them. I stopped half-bent, looked at him and said, "Yes, sir. I'm aware." He stares back.

I pass through the detector and he physically stops me--arm across my chest actually making contact. "Step back here and raise your arms." I complied, but asked "What is this about?"

"Just raise your arms. It's a patdown" (As he's tapping along my short-sleeves as though I can conceal a prohibited item there).

"Is it now standard procedure to pat down passengers?"

He motions for me to leave (note, he didn't pat my torso or legs). "No...It's random." I asked, "Don't you mean 'retalitory?'" He just grinned.

Such an abuse of the "R" word. I'd write a letter if it wouldn't be a complete waste of my time.

I disagree. Every time TSA acts inappropropriately - or illegally, as the case may be - a complaint of some form should be registered.

Stazi, Gestapo, Secret Police. All names that would apply well to the TSA.

It's time for change!

So I did some thinking. The TSA has no legitimate authority other than searching for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, right? So they're not abusing any power (although it masquerades as authority). So how is this any different than a gate agent or flight attendant who is in a pissy mood after a bad day?

There's bad apples all over ORD--I can see a dozen from where I'm sitting. What makes one screener so important?

What about the physical contact? How is it different than a FA putting his/her hand on your should to keep you from walking down the aisle when another FA is trying to make it back up the aisle?

What about executing a half-a$$ed "random patdown"? That ticks me off. At least he could have pulled me aside and did a thorough check... or used the wand. It might have been interesting if he found the chapstick, USB drive, pencil, and passport in my pockets.

How about just plain being a jerk? No different than a crabby gate agent who won't reprint your BP on cardstock.

The FA and gate agent work for a private entity. If they choose to be jerks, you have a remedy - take your business elsewhere. The TSA is a government entity, and conceptually at least, the TSO who harassed you is supposed to be a public servant, not an arrogant authority figure without limits. The government is supposed to be "by the people, for the people." Just because your TSO this morning has a bad attitude and a tin badge, he doesn't get to abuse and exceed his authority.

Huge difference, IMHO.

We call it a "Bulk Item Pat-Down", its designed to be quick, non-intrusive, and to look for bulky items that the WTMD will not detect. I ask folks to remove items from their pockets all the time, and sometimes there is no need. And I usually select the individuals for the random pat-downs far in advance of their reaching the WTMD, using a criteria known only to me and it changes each and every time I am rotated to the search area. Red shoes, bald, blond, flip-flops, I never really know until I am there. Occasionally the WTMD TSO will send someone to me, and occasionally they will even tell me why.

So the assumption that your pat-down was not random is exactly that, an assumption. If you hang around here long enough you will note that assumptions are the standard method of choosing something to complain about. And it does not seem to matter if the assumption is valid or not, as a matter of fact I can’t see any rhyme or reason to most of the whining here, other than it is designed to be destructive to the TSA.

Then why did the TSO only do a partial pat down, just the shirt? Bulky items would be in the pants. The TSO running the metal detector should have sent the passenger to be frisked by the people who do secondaries. Sounds retaliatory to me when you can't follow procedure.

Soo....
Travel safety boils down to TSORon deciding in some random order...

I'll grope every blond female today. Perhaps today I'll grope bald "brown" people. Perhaps I'll give in to my red shoe fetish today, you ma'am are a selectee.

It's not theatre, it's abusive BS.:mad:

Of course, TSA could counteract a great deal of this if it was more forthcoming about the procedures it chooses to use. TSA's silence on many of its procedures breeds suspicion. (Granted, it breeds more suspicion from those who are already suspicious of TSA.)

Ron, when you approach a checkpoint with a secret-yet-arbitrary criteria for selecting passengers for secondary screening, there's no way for the general public to know that your criteria is fair. What's to keep a dishonest TSA from simply picking every person with dark skin? That's an arbitrary criterion, right?

Ok, that's a pretty dumb example. But some of the other examples you give might have subtle biases. Are you going to pick every bald man? It's my impression that the percentage of bald men of African descent is much higher than the percentage of bald men in the general population. Your seemingly innocent criteria of selecting bald men may have the unintended result of targeting men of African descent more than men of Anglo descent.

Assumptions? Sure, there are plenty of them. But if TSA wants to change the way that passengers think about TSA, it needs to be more open. (And, yeah, I know, you and I are just cogs in the great machine.)

We call it abuse.

There is a certain subset of people who were always picked last at sports, never were part of a club as a child or teenager, never got to be part of the "cool" group in school, and/or their parents didn't buy them enough toys.

There is another subset that is angry at successful people, angry at those deemed "luckier" in life, and there are some that just want to get back at "the man".

There is the final subset of person, who wants to be "hero", wear a uniform, be a cop or military officer, and just couldn't make it or didn't want to actually try. There is a reason parents tell their kids to do their homework and study hard-but some folks took the lazier option and now they want to try and seem like they are part of the team, and making a difference and that their "authority" matters. There is a reason the TSA gave TSOs real “badges”. This adds to the façade.


These are the main (not all of mind you, but main) types of people that seek TSA employment. I have had a first hand look at a couple of TSA training classes recently and this confirmed my suspicions.

You should not be surprised by the actions of said individuals in these situations. Call it a power trip or whatever you like, but it is basic sociology and psychology. Not that surprising.

Now before someone like TSOron responds (though he normally does not respond to actual direct questions as he will come up with some excuse to divert the discussion away from something he cannot answer or does not like the answer of, and his PMs that go straight into yelling and profanity like hissy fits prove this to be true) that everything is conjecture (that means speculation Ron) there are actual studies on peoples’ actions in these situations. And I have, in fact, seen and met 100s of the TSA members in these groups first hand. Now one can choose to “poo-poo” such a discussion as too selective or too broad, but in reality, as some TSO’s own posts show, these subsets are correct.

Ciao,
FH

+100000000000

Next time you're in San Juan, I'm buying you a drink. Eff that, the whole bottle.

Well, the "random bulk pat-down" is a complete load of crap. Just like the gate gropes, if this is actually policy, then the TSA is acknowledging that their standard security procedures are not adequate.

Fits one particular subset perfectly.

At a minimum, use the Got Feedback on the TSA blog to let them know that a TSO is demanding that all shoes go on the belt when that is not the SOP.