text:
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Four Year Old Child Not Accused of Concealing Firearm
196 comments:
- Anonymous said...
The child's mother has a very different view of what happened. So who is lying?
Should that issue turn out to be misunderstanding, aren't there any parents in the TSA? Giving forceful orders to, separating a 4 year old from her parents and family members, and threatening something (Depending on who's story you believe) is guaranteed to cause a 4 year old to cry and be scared. This could have been handled with some soft words and kindness and improved TSA's image.
Perhaps making the video available to corroborate your story is in order.
- April 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM
- Anonymous said...
So you are saying that someone might have *gasp* exaggerated something!!!
- April 24, 2012 at 7:40 PM
- Anonymous said...
Why the need for the patdown? Why not just let the kid go through the WMD again?
- April 24, 2012 at 7:44 PM
- Anonymous said...
1) You'll have to remind me of which movie featured a scene where a grandmother was able to transfer a device capable of bringing down a commercial airliner while hugging a four year-old child. I don't seem to recall having seen that one.
2) If the concern was that the grandmother had slipped something to the child, why didn't you just have the child go through the scanner again? What necessitated a pat-down?
3) You continuously confuse the statement "our policy mandates it" with the statement that "it was necessary." Those of us who have more than two working brain cells can see that this was not necessary in any sense.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
- April 24, 2012 at 7:46 PM
- Laura Monteros said...
Bob, you said that the four-year-old was not accused of concealing a firearm, yet he had to undergo a patdown. What sort of weapon did TSA suspect? Because you also said the reason for the patdown was contact and a possible exchange of...something.
I'm not quite sure why we are now suspecting four-year-olds who may be frightened and clingy of passing contraband. That's just going overboard.
- April 24, 2012 at 7:49 PM
- Anonymous said...
So it is proper procedure to attempt to forcibly separate a young child from her mother? It is proper procedure to berate a child until she cries? It's proper procedure to chase down passengers and demand their boarding passes after they've been cleared? The mother's account sounds very different from your spin here. I also think your policy that young children can't touch their caregivers at the checkpoint is one of the most sinister parts of your screening process. Your people perform administrative searches; they do not have the right to nullify parental rights during screening. People absolutely should not comply when you demand they stay away from their own children.
- April 24, 2012 at 7:54 PM
- Anonymous said...
Bob, will you be releasing the surveillance tapes that show that all proper procedures were followed?
Readers may wish to read the mother's account of the incident here --
«A TSO began repeating that in the past she had "seen a gun in a teddy bear." The TSO seemed utterly convinced my child was concealing a weapon, as if there was no question about it.»
So, Bob, you are calling the mother a liar then? Again, please release the tapes that show the mother was making this all up.
[Screenshot captured. There will be consequences if this post is not approved for publication.]
- April 24, 2012 at 8:06 PM
- Anonymous said...
The TSA obviously thought the grandmother possibly passed along something sinister to the young child.
Whether they used the word 'gun' is irrelevant.
- April 24, 2012 at 8:10 PM
- Anonymous said...
This would have been a perfect time to employ TSA's vaunted BDO's.
Why doesn't the TSA use BDO's to clear passengers in situations like this?
- April 24, 2012 at 8:12 PM
- Anonymous said...
Did the screeners yell at a small child to stop crying? Is that part of their training and procedures?
- April 24, 2012 at 8:19 PM
- Anonymous said...
"proper procedures were followed"
Of course, that's you guys saying they were "proper".
- April 24, 2012 at 8:23 PM
- PsiCop said...
After reading about this and other, similar, incidents, I've noticed two things:
First, the TSA and the persons involved seem to tell two different stories. In the account of it I read, the family specifically says they were NOT told why the child's pat-down was needed. Thus, we (that is, outside observers) have the TSA saying one thing, and the folks involved saying something completely opposite.
What are we to think? Either TSA personnel or the family involved are lying. It can't be any other way. The question of how to resolve that, comes down to credibility. In a moment I will get to how I resolve that, myself, but for now, on to the next observation ...
Second, it's clear to me that the TSA lives in its own little universe, wherein its own methods make (apparent) sense to those within it, but not to anyone outside of it. The TSA's means of explaining its own insular thinking amounts to (in words made famous by the fictional Sledge Hammer), "Trust us, we know what we're doing" ... or worse, "That's just how we do things, because otherwise the terrorists will massacre millions of people!" Sorry, but for me, that's not enough. TSA personnel work for the American people and are accountable to them; it's not the other way around. It's TSA's job to explain its methods and reasoning to people ... without having to resort to "trust us" or "suck it up, that's just how it is."
As for how I resolve the lying part ... on the one hand I have a family that was involuntarily involved in an incident, and they have no particular incentive to lie about it. What happened to them is in the past and they gain nothing (aside maybe from a little attention) by misrepresenting it. On the other, I have TSA personnel who have every incentive to lie about what happened, so they can assure their superiors they followed "procedure" (whatever that might be, I have no idea). They have a future interest in what they say about the incident because they'd like to keep their jobs.
The TSA can either continue to live in its own insular little world and expect the rest of the universe to adapt to it, or, it can accept that ... perhaps, just perhaps! ... its methods and actions are a bit arcane and that people are not going to just take its word for things merely because it says them. If it chooses the latter, then it's going to have to crack open its tight little shell and allow some outside light to seep in to its precious secretive operations.
It's as simple as that.
What it boils down to is, I find the family's story far more credible than I find TSA's reassurances that nothing was done wrong and that the family was kept informed at all times. My own experience is that TSA personnel absolutely NEVER explain anything to anyone at any time because they do not believe they are required to explain anything to anyone, ever, for any reason; it never occurs to them to be necessary, because they all live in their own little world and see no reason to allow anything ever to penetrate it.
- April 24, 2012 at 8:26 PM
- SSSS for Some Reason said...
OK, so the kid touched/was touched by someone else undergoing 'enhanced screening.'
Your explanation of the reasoning was moderately acceptable to the masses. Not to me, but it is well known that I am very critical of your organization.
You lost me and many, many, more readers when you concluded your presentation with "...We've reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper current screening procedures."
You continue to miss the point that *you* can't write the rules and then *review* what some would consider a situation using your own rules. This is exactly why so many people do not like your organization. You write rules which you hold us accountable to, but you can't tell us those rules because it would spoil the surprise. There are actually laws and precedents and a bunch of other legal sounding mumbo-jumbo out there preventing you from doing exactly what you are doing.
- April 24, 2012 at 8:28 PM
- Anonymous said...
um how exactly do you know they didn't accuse her of having a gun?? I don't think you have audio of the entire circumstance. btw I notice you have made no mention of the article by your former boss that states that liquids, knives and other items should be made legal immediately. Kind of a big story, but you have failed to speak on it.
- April 24, 2012 at 8:28 PM
- Anonymous said...
I did read the mother's account of what happened and I believe what upset her was the demeanor of the TSA agents towards the child and their refusal to let her touch or comfort her child. If the TSA agents actually demanded that the 4 year old child stop crying, and stand still, then they should have expected her to panic and run. There are 2 sides to every story, but it is insulting when you respond to an incident by cherry picking the point(s) to dispute.
- April 24, 2012 at 8:46 PM
- The E said...
Look, guys, you're really bad at this whole marketing thing.
Who am I going to believe? The woman who was personally there and was forcibly separated from her child? Or the agency with a history of doing horrible things to people in violation of their civil rights?
Guess what? I believe the woman was probably exaggerating a bit. But I also believe that your "proper procedures" are pretty terrible.
Folks, the big crime was forcibly separating a four year old child from her mother while she screamed and cried and you surrounded her with MORE strange and imposing agents. Not some nonsense about the child had a handgun -- and they thought the child might have SOMETHING, or else there was nothing to search.
You completely fail to address any of the very real and very serious accusations that were actually made.
The original account does not say that the TSOs said the child had a gun. They did a lot of implication and threw their weight around and did nothing to calm a very terrified young child. Again, if your procedures say that a screaming four year old can't be comforted by her mother, then your policies are inhumane and terrible.
You'll notice that I keep using words with the root word of "terror." Yeah, that's intentional. The TSA has done a much better job of spreading terror than anything else in the modern world.
I seriously cannot comprehend how you continue to exist.
- April 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM
- Anonymous said...
The TSOs are just doing their jobs. Separating and causing anxiety through fear of the unknown is a method of effective personnel control. Most parents are cowed when their children's well-being is threatened and become docile. We see this in security forces the world over.
Professional crowd control.
- April 24, 2012 at 9:03 PM
- Anonymous said...
The article describing the incident says the four-year old girl was detained by TSA security agents. Your post does not deny this.
The article describing the incident says the TSA agents shouted at the four-year old girl. Your post does not deny this.
The article describing the incident says TSA told the girl's mother that the airport would have to be shut down and every flight cancelled if the four-year-old girl did not co-operate. Your post does not deny this.
The article describing the incident says TSA agents called for backup because, they told the four-year old girl's mother, "the suspect is not cooperating." Your post does not deny this.
The article describing the incident says TSA officers said the family would have to leave the airport if the TSA was unable to frisk the four-year-old girl. Your post does not deny this.
The article describing the incident says TSA issued a statement declaring that "TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper current screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child". This is what most knowledgeable people would immediately recognize as "The Nuremberg Defense".
- April 24, 2012 at 9:08 PM
- Anonymous said...
Conspicuously absent in your explanation, Bob, is how your officers treated the child, screaming at her and refusing to allow her mother to comfort her. Is that part of your standard procedure? Because if it is, there's absolutely no way I will ever fly with my preschool aged daughter.
- April 24, 2012 at 9:09 PM
- Anonymous said...
"It was explained to the family why the pat-down was needed and at no time did our Officers suggest the child was carrying a firearm."
This directly contradicts statements by the girl's parents, as reported by MSNBC News, '"It was implied, several times, that my mother, in their brief two-second embrace, had passed a handgun to my daughter," Brademeyer said.' (http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/24/11371144-tsa-pats-down-4-year-old-after-she-hugs-grandmother?lite)
- April 24, 2012 at 9:12 PM
- Anonymous said...
There's always the chance that a prohibited item could be traded off during contact. I'm sure you've watched the scene play out in more than one movie where two people collide or shake hands and an item is traded off? Same thing…
No, Bob. I've never seen a movie where a granny hands off a gun to a 4-year old in an airport when the 4-year old impulsively goes and hugs her.
What kind of movies do you watch?!?
- April 24, 2012 at 9:13 PM
- Anonymous said...
This shows TSA's typical lack of basic logic and compassion. The child cleared the metal detector. The child touched the grandmother and may have (by means of some awesome sleight-of-hand trick) acquired a prohibited item.
You're saying the only way to put your minds at ease is to pat down the girl??? NO! How about sending the girl through the metal detector one more time (or even two more times -- one to leave the area, and the other to re-enter). If there's no beep on the metal detector, then she's fine, just like she was 2 minutes earlier. If it beeps, then resolve the alarm in ways that are consistent with your new rules for resolving alarms for children 12 and younger.
The following paragraph is what your website says. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN:
Passengers 12 and under are now allowed to leave their shoes on during screening, are permitted multiple passes through the metal detector and advanced imaging technology and may be subject to a greater use of explosives trace detection technology to clear any alarms.
We want answers: why weren't multiple passes through the metal detector employed? Why wasn't explosive trace detection employed? Why did the agents (NOT officers) immediately commence the pat-down?
America wants an apology, and we want it now.
- April 24, 2012 at 9:16 PM
- Anonymous said...
If your best defense of the story is "we didn't accuse the child of concealing a firearm," then you have a serious problem. Once again we see a complete lack of common sense or decency from the TSA.
- April 24, 2012 at 9:25 PM
- Anonymous said...
TSA has long had a security procedure where if somebody has contact with a person who is undergoing additional screening, they must also undergo additional screening.
Okay... makes sense.
We did recently roll out new procedures that reduce the need for pat-downs of children. These new screening procedures include permitting multiple passes through the metal detector and advanced imaging technology to clear any alarms...
But here's where you fail.
"The TSO refused to let my daughter pass through the scanners once more, to see if she too would set off the alarm."
So, why was the child denied a second pass through the scanners???
And, of course, there is this:
"...a TSO began yelling at my child..."
"...the TSOs involved still made no attempt to explain..."
"When they spoke to her, it was devoid of any sort of compassion, kindness or respect."
"The TSO loomed over my daughter, with an angry grimace on her face, and ordered her to stop crying"
"A third TSO arrived to the scene, and showed no more respect than the first two had given. All three were barking orders at my daughter, telling her to stand still and cease crying."
"When we arrived at our gate, I noticed that the TSOs had followed us through the airport. I was told something was wrong with my boarding pass and I would have to show it to them again. "
- if even 1/4 of this is true (and quite plainly I don't doubt any of it), these TSA employees should be fired. As with any job that interfaces with the public, certain behaviors are expected, even necessary. At a minimum, courtesy. These TSA screeners failed at that.
We are not only your 'customers', WE THE TAXPAYERS ARE YOUR EMPLOYERS, and as such deserve better than this!!!
Oh, and in reply to your claim that ":at no time did our Officers suggest the child was carrying a firearm": Are you claiming the mother is lying when she says:
"The TSO refused to let my daughter pass through the scanners once more, to see if she too would set off the alarm. It was implied, several times, that my Mother, in their brief two-second embrace, had passed a handgun to my daughter."
"A TSO began repeating that in the past she had "seen a gun in a teddy bear." The TSO seemed utterly convinced my child was concealing a weapon, as if there was no question about it."
Are you stating that those statements are lies?
- April 24, 2012 at 9:28 PM
- Anonymous said...
For some reason I don't buy your story.
Why is that?
Perhaps because you've lied to us in the past. We don't trust you Bob. And until you address our concerns we never will.
- April 24, 2012 at 9:29 PM
- Anonymous said...
No way, no how, should that be considered proper protocol. Maybe they followed procedures, but that is the problem. It isn't the TSA Officer at fault for doing their jobs, but how they are trained to do it is at fault.
- April 24, 2012 at 10:04 PM
- Russell said...
With all due respect, this article from the Consumerist (http://consumerist.com/2012/04/4-year-old-gets-tsa-pat-down-following-hug-from-grandma.html) sure doesn't sound as neat and tidy as this TSA post suggests. This article details the intense and completely absurd actions of the agents involved.
- April 24, 2012 at 10:17 PM
- Geo said...
Another among a long list of abuses at the hands of the TSA. Bob, how about responding the the accusations of threats and harsh language directed at this four year old? Does the behavior of the TSO's involved also meet the "high standards of respect and professionalism" in your agency?
- April 24, 2012 at 10:22 PM
- Anonymous said...
Blogger Bob said:
"...at no time did our Officers suggest the child was carrying a firearm. "
Just to be clear then, you are clearly stating that the mother is lying about the comments and insinuations of the screeners. It is indicated that one of screeners indicated that a gun had been found in a teddy bear before - along with other implications per the mother. Implications of possible scenarios of why they needed to conduct additional screening... Or, as I requested clarification are you explicitly stating that the mother is lying?
Blogger Bob said:
"We've reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper current screening procedures."
Again, to be clear, it's considered proper procedure: To yell at a 4 year olds? To yell at them to stop crying? To label the 4 year old as non-compliant when they don't stop crying when commanded? Refusing to allow the parent of a 4 year old to try to explain the situation to the child so that the child could be calmed down?
As well, since there is a conflict of whether the child could be picked up, which is proper procedure? A) that the child can't be picked up, B) that the child can be picked up, C) that the child can only be picked up after the manager (FSD?) says it's ok?
The story doesn't even imply the mother was rescreened, only the child - was that proper procedure then? After all, she touched the child who still needed further screening.
Guess it's also proper procedure to harass passengers who successfully clear screening by following them to the gate and demanding more information from them.
And why again did TSA need to see her boarding pass and ID again? And potentially a third time? Did they really think they changed from the time they entered the screening process? [Although I've yet to understand what difference it makes who the person is any way. Your screening for WEI - not revenue protection for airlines.]
To summarize and ask again... since all of the comments / questions above are based on the mother's first hand account -- Are you explicitly stating that she is not telling the truth?
[At this point, yes, I am a bit jaded. And since there is no exculpatory video to clear the TSA, I have to lend credence to the mother's account more so than Bob's 'official' TSA version at this point.]
- April 24, 2012 at 10:27 PM
- RB said...
This is how Correct TSA Policy deals with a frightened Four Year Old Child.
"First, a TSO began yelling at my child.
I was prevented from coming any closer, explaining the situation to her, or consoling her in any way.
My daughter, who was dressed in tight leggings, a short sleeve shirt and mary jane shoes, had no pockets, no jacket and nothing in her hands.
That is when a TSO told me they would shut down the entire airport; cancel all flights, if my daughter was not restrained. It was then they declared my daughter a "high-security-threat".
The TSO refused to let my daughter pass through the scanners once more, to see if she too would set off the alarm.
My child, who was obviously terrified, had no idea what was going on, and the TSOs involved still made no attempt to explain it to her.
It was implied, several times, that my Mother, in their brief two-second embrace, had passed a handgun to my daughter.
The TSO loomed over my daughter, with an angry grimace on her face, and ordered her to stop crying.
When my scared child could not do so, two TSOs called for backup saying "The suspect is not cooperating." The suspect, of course, being a frightened child.
They treated my daughter no better than if she had been a terrorist...
A third TSO arrived to the scene, and showed no more respect than the first two had given. All three were barking orders at my daughter, telling her to stand still and cease crying. When she did not stop crying on command, they demanded we leave the airport.
we arrived at our gate, I noticed that the TSOs had followed us through the airport. I was told something was wrong with my boarding pass and I would have to show it to them again. Upon seeing the TSO, my daughter was thrown into hysterics. Eventually, we were able to board our flight."
If any of these acts by TSA employees reflect Correct TSA Policy then I say TSA Policy is wrong, the TSA Employees involved are incompetent, and TSA Leadership does not exist.
While the chance that a Four Year Old child is a terrorist is not zero it is so close to zero that the child abuse heap on this Four Year Old girl by TSA Screeners should result in those TSA employees involved being locked up and charged. These TSA employees do not deserve to be employed by the government of the United States; they are unfit to serve the public.
So Blogger Bob, do you still want to maintain that Proper TSA Policy was followed?
Apparently Proper TSA Policy allows for Child Abuse.
Screen shot captured and message posted on other media to document full compliance with illegal TSA Posting Guidelines.
submitted @ 21:40 CST, 4/24/2012
- April 24, 2012 at 10:41 PM
- Gerry Hinton said...
Is your neck sore from continually ducking issues?
I suppose this "didn't happen" as usual An officer repeatedly said she had 'seen a gun in a teddy bear' in the past, in an apparent attempt to justify the situation. ?
I really don't know why you bother, nobody with a functioning brain believes you any more.
- April 24, 2012 at 10:59 PM
- Anonymous said...
Thank you, Bob, for confirming beyond any doubt that shouting at passengers until they cry is part of TSA procedure.
- April 25, 2012 at 12:30 AM
- Anonymous said...
Unbelievable -- TSA expects parents *not* to hold the hands of their preschoolers while passing thru airports.
Do you guys really never read the sides of milk cartons?
- April 25, 2012 at 12:55 AM
- Jared said...
So this means that you guys are basing your security screening measures off of what you've seen in action movies? That makes me feel really good.
- April 25, 2012 at 1:03 AM
- Anonymous said...
You terrorized a 4-year old. Congratulations. Give yourselves a big, ol' SSSS pat on the back.
- April 25, 2012 at 1:09 AM
- Anonymous said...
You people disgust me.
- April 25, 2012 at 2:23 AM
- Anonymous said...
Nope, you guys are evil. Gary Johnson is right when he says, "The TSA should take a risk-based approach to airport security. Only high-risk individuals should be subjected to invasive pat-downs and full-body scans.
The TSA should not have a monopoly on airport security. Airports and airlines should be encouraged to seek the most effective methods for screening travelers, including private sector screeners. Screeners outside of government can be held fully accountable for their successes and failures."
- April 25, 2012 at 2:32 AM
- Anonymous said...
Please read the mother's account of this encounter:
Who cares if they thought the little girl had a weapon? Should they have told her to come alone and spread her legs? Should they have told her mother not to help her? Should they have ordered her to stop crying in order to proceed?
This blog post misses the point. It isn't following procedure that is the problem (though not everyone agrees with the procedure, myself included) it is the disregard for the health and well being of families, children, and the elderly. This is not the first story I have read where the TSA has crossed the line where children are concerned. It needs to stop.
- April 25, 2012 at 3:00 AM
- Anonymous said...
You should be ashamed of yourself.
- April 25, 2012 at 4:02 AM
- Anonymous said...
Proper screening like you did with Jonathan Corbett? Uh huh yeah sure. TSA is a joke. Trust your instincts people, because the TSA will not ultimately protect you when they can't even stop a guy from carrying a metal container all the way through security and to his destination. Instead the TSA will frighten and dare I say terrorize a child. Go ahead screen my comment, at least you read it.
- April 25, 2012 at 7:27 AM
- Anonymous said...
You should have read the stories instead of just the headlines. Something is very wrong at the TSA.
- April 25, 2012 at 7:39 AM
- Anonymous said...
If this is proper procedure, then the procedure must be changed.
- April 25, 2012 at 7:46 AM
- S said...
You did NOT actually explain a DARN thing about what happened!
- April 25, 2012 at 8:10 AM
- Anonymous said...
People say the darndest things.
When referring to a hug between a frightened 4-year old child and her grandmother, a TSA blogger had this to say:
". . . If somebody has contact with a person who is undergoing additional screening, they must also undergo additional screening. Why you might ask? You've probably heard the old saying that the hand can be faster than eye? Well . . . that's the reasoning behind this procedure."
- April 25, 2012 at 8:34 AM
- Anonymous said...
Bob, Now you are outright admitting that you base your security measures on what you see played out in the movies? Bruce Schneier is smiling somewhere.
- April 25, 2012 at 8:45 AM
- Anonymous said...
We've reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper current screening procedures.
That the TSA believes the procedure used in this situation is "proper" is an example of what is wrong with the agency.
The TSA made a 4 year old cry, for no security benefit.
There are numerous ways this situation could have been handled better. There are only a few ways it could have been handled worse.
Situations like this is why the TSA is or has lost the respect of the traveling public.
- April 25, 2012 at 8:53 AM
- Anonymous said...
Reasonable considering a parent or other family member could plant a pistol, bomb, grenade, knife, etc. on a little kid's person in an attempt to sneak the weapon through security. Remember that any hole in security is a potential disaster waiting to happen (remember 11th September). Now the biggest problem is that there isn't security on board most planes currently. Since no matter what we do some things slip through I think we need four trained and fully armed guards on each flight passing over US airspace. A $150 per round trip surcharge on all tickets would cover the cost of having the air marshals on board every flight.
- April 25, 2012 at 9:02 AM
- Dan said...
You have an audio recording of the incident to support your claim, right? Just as I am guilty until proven innocent by your agency, your agency is guilty until proven innocent.
- April 25, 2012 at 9:05 AM
- Adrian said...
You send kids through the whole-body imagers for multiple doses of x-rays?!
Yet another thing TSA does that makes us less safe.
- April 25, 2012 at 9:19 AM
- Anonymous said...
He said, she said. WE are choosing to believe the family not the TSA agents denial. Let's not put our head in the sands either and pretend TSA is POLITE or FRIENDLY in all cases, by the way. I had the displeasure of flying last weekend, standing on line at Atlanta, while a rep walked up and down the line YELLING that we need to put our boarding passes away, they aren't needed anymore, and then YELLING that people weren't listening. Then of course, I put my wallet and boarding pass away, and entered your little machine and was yelled at for not taking them out of my pocket and holding them. I'm sure THAT woman would deny yelling, too.
I think the TSA's main problem is that NOBODY wants them anymore. You can do no right because we're fed up past the point of no return. This blog makes us angry, your agents make us angry, your very existence makes us angry.
Screenshot taken.
- April 25, 2012 at 9:29 AM
- Jim Huggins said...
Bob, the mother in this unfortunate incident states:
1) That a female TSO started "yelling at my child"
2) That TSOs threatened to "shut down the entire airport, cancel all flights, if my daughter was not restrained" ...
3) That TSOs "ordered the frightened child to stop crying" (as if any four-year-old can stop crying when ordered to do so) ...
Are you saying that the behavior of the TSOs in this case was appropriate?
- April 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM
- Anonymous said...
What about disabled 7 year olds, Bob? http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/04/25/042512-news-tsa-complaint-1-3/
- April 25, 2012 at 9:36 AM
- Samael said...
My take on your horrible actions in this case.
- April 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM
- Anonymous said...
Despite what you say, the pat down was not necessary.
The TSA should understand the premise that most passengers do not pose a risk to security.
Have the child go through the WMD or AIT again. Have a BDO interview the child and the grand parent.
"Security" did not require you to pat down an 4 year old child.
- April 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM
- Anonymous said...
- April 25, 2012 at 9:57 AM
- Anonymous said...
Then your current procedures are disgusting. You're a disgrace to your country.
- April 25, 2012 at 9:59 AM
- Anonymous said...
Oh, gee, the people who grope children have determined that the groping of this child was in accord with their current child-groping procedures. You people are sick.
- April 25, 2012 at 10:04 AM
- Anonymous said...
No doubt the haters will inundate this blog with questions about breast pumps, cupcakes and insulin devices.
- April 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM
- Wintermute said...
An ON-TOPIC comments (please don't censor me yet again!):
Simply by patting him down, you were, indeed, suggesting he's carrying something, whether knowingly or not. To suggest otherwise would be intellectually dishonest, as unless he's suspected of having something on him, he does not need a pat down. Period.
You outright say that he's suspected of concealing something by bring up the well-worn movie plot. You might not be accusing him of KNOWINGLY concealing something, but you are accusing him, none-the-less.
- April 25, 2012 at 10:22 AM
- mikeef said...
Wow, nice red herring. I don't care what the headlines say. This incident has nothing to do with headlines about a gun. We know the TSO didn't believe there was a gun.
But separating a 4-year old from her parents and refusing to let them touch her? A TSO yelling at a kid because she ran and hugged her grandmother and calling her a "high-security threat?" Ordering her to stop crying and calling her a "suspect?" And pulling your security scenarios from movies?
Congratulations, your officers made a 4-year old cry, and you're here defending it. You guys have done some disgusting things in the past, but this one is moving right to the top of the charts.
- April 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM
- Anonymous said...
The problem with the TSA is that they have no common sense. This incident involved a grandmother and a 4 year old. There was no "gun transfer" involved. I think the TSA has been watching too many movies. There are far easier ways for them to get prohibited items on board an aircraft.
Is there any denial that the TSA screeners yelled at the 4 year old. I'm not seeing any denial. Is it SOP to yell at children in this case. The person posting the comments made it sound like there was a lot of yelling at the child.
Any comment on the child with the insulin pump who was forced to endure an invasive private screening just for wearing an insulin pump? As a pump wearer, I am tired of feeling like a criminal just because I wear a pump.
- April 25, 2012 at 10:47 AM
- Anonymous said...
TSA has a right and responsibility to protect the government. If people violate rules that are deemed necessary to protect that government then TSA should be allowed to implement any and all remedies to maintain the rules.
It does not matter the age of the violator, whether some people think the rule wrong. The TSA was created to protect the government.
Let them do their job.
- April 25, 2012 at 11:22 AM
- Anonymous said...
Another fine day for TSA. What more needs to be said....
- April 25, 2012 at 11:31 AM
- RB said...
Blogger Bob has been spouting anything and everything TSA tells him to say that Bob no longer has any opinions of his own, nor any morales or ethics.
This TSA response demonstrates clearly the bankrupt leadership of TSA.
And now in the news:
Family misses flight after TSA screeners target disabled 7-year-old
By Noreen O'Donnell Wednesday, April 25, 2012
- April 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM
- Jerome Solanum said...
I don't get it. Am I just missing something? It sounds like you're implying that an adult who was undergoing additional screening made contact with the child. But you didn't come right out and say that, so I'm not sure.
Blogger Bob - can you please clarify here? I'm not sure I'm putting all the pieces together, and I don't know why you aren't being more transparent about it.
- April 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM
- Jerome Solanum said...
I don't get it. Am I just missing something? It sounds like you're implying that an adult who was undergoing additional screening made contact with the child. But you didn't come right out and say that, so I'm not sure.
Blogger Bob - can you please clarify here? I'm not sure I'm putting all the pieces together, and I don't know why you aren't being more transparent about it.
- April 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM
- Anonymous said...
To all the people making such a mountain out of a molehill...one side tells one story and the other side tells another story...you can't believe 99% of either one!
- April 25, 2012 at 11:49 AM
- Anonymous said...
So what you are saying is that the TSA did not accuse the little girl of a gun, but accused her that hugging her grandmother as was potentially a crazy ploy just like you see in movies to trade off a prohibited item? And this makes sense to you?
Bob Says:
There's always the chance that a prohibited item could be traded off during contact. I'm sure you've watched the scene play out in more than one movie where two people collide or shake hands and an item is traded off? Same thing…
- April 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM
- Anonymous said...
TSA did nothing wrong.
The employees of TSA were doing what Congress, the Executive and the Justice systems have approved. The wants and wishes of a four-year-old are trumped.
Thank you, TSA, for keeping us safe.
- April 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM
- Anonymous said...
The TSA should be ashamed of itself for its mindless rules, the behavior of its "officers" and the endless attempts to spin these shameful acts.
- April 25, 2012 at 12:11 PM
- Anonymous said...
It's frightening how easily these folks can be distracted from their duties and taken completely off task after seeing one too many spy movies.
- April 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM
- Anonymous said...
A smile and a kind word costs nothing and makes all the difference in the world !
- April 25, 2012 at 12:26 PM
- Anonymous said...
Only when congress is flooded with emails and calls will the TSA be be completely overhauled. Every week we read of another incident where people are treated like raw meat under the guise os "proper procedure". Call or write your congressman or senator.
- April 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM
- Anonymous said...
The mother states in her account,
"Finally, a manager intervened. He determined that my child could, in fact, be cleared through security while crying. I was permitted to hold her while the TSO checked her body. When they found nothing hidden on my daughter, they were forced to let us go, but not until after they had examined my ID and boarding passes for a lengthy amount of time."
Interesting that the screeners thought they could not screen a crying child. Even more interesting that the manager allowed the mother to hold the child during the screening. Kind of blows holes in the weapons passing premise.
- April 25, 2012 at 12:32 PM
- Anonymous said...
As I know the mother AND The child that this happened too, i wish to point something out. SHE WAS WEAR TIGHTS. nor did she have a jacket on. since she was sobbing it was obvious she had not put it in her mouth. where exactly was she hiding it? also, I'm sorry but as the mother of a three year old i want to know in what Screwed up universe does ordering a child to "stop crying" work?
To all the commentators here! THIS FAMILY IS NOT LYING. I have seen and talked to this child. she is traumatized.
- April 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM
- tramky said...
We demand up-close video of these TSA 'transactions' with passengers at checkpoints, with clear AUDIO.
When our children are involved, TSA is already stepping over the line by separating child from parent. And I don't care about your laws or procedures. THOSE are wrong, probably unconstitutional, and threaten our domestic tranquility--remember THAT?! Domestic tranquility!
- April 25, 2012 at 1:01 PM
- Sandra said...
Tell us, Bob, do your checkpoint videos have audio also so that you can hear what the screeners were saying?
If you don't have audio recording at the checkpoint, then you don't have a clue as to whether this was handle properly.
Now, tell us about the child in the wheelchair who was abused on Monday. Others have already posted links but I'll add in this one:
screen shot taken
- April 25, 2012 at 1:04 PM
- Anonymous said...
Now you've abused a 7 year old with cerebral palsy. You treat the Americans with Disabilities Act as if it is optional. It is not. The father asked for a reasonable accomodation - saying hello and introducing yourself to a disabled child before invading his private space - and your agent lost it.
Happy, Bob?
[screen shot]
- April 25, 2012 at 1:05 PM
- Anonymous said...
Correction to my post: it was a 7 year old GIRL with cerebral palsy, not a boy.
- April 25, 2012 at 1:06 PM
- John said...
NO ONE in their right minds believes TSA about anything any longer.
The terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest imagination. They can now sit back and watch the American government terrorizing 4 year old little girls, 7 year old disabled children, 90 year old disabled veterans and the rest of the American people. They have won.
- April 25, 2012 at 1:06 PM
- Anonymous said...
No pat-down was necessary. Common sense was necessary. At most a walk through the metal detector and/or explosive swab. Much more logical, less invasive and importantly, more effective.
- April 25, 2012 at 1:18 PM
- Anonymous said...
Bob, I don't know how you can face doing this job every day.
I have a hard time thinking of I job I would want to do less than trying to justify yet another case of TSA abuse of the public.
There is a limit to what I will do for money.
- April 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM
- Sommer Gentry said...
Bob, the TSA website says "Security officers will approach children gently and treat them with respect." Here's a little heads up for you: screaming at a toddler is not gentle, and calling a tiny girl "the suspect" is not respectful. It's painfully obvious that even by the TSA's pathetically low standards of how it likes to mistreat children, the screeners in this case did NOT follow policy.
Isabella is not the first and she will not be the last of TSA's victims to suffer PTSD symptoms. I'm also still having nightmares about what the TSA did to me. We want your agency gone, Bob. Dismantled. Over.
- April 25, 2012 at 2:01 PM
- Eula said...
"This is a moderated blog, and TSA retains the discretion to determine which comments it will post and which it will not. That means all comments will be reviewed before posting. In addition, we expect that participants will treat each other, as well as our agency and our employees, with respect."
Well, that's quite a dichotomy. You demand that your agency and its employees to be treated with respect while defending them for disrespecting American citizens, including the most innocent and helpless of all, children.
Not once, in all the times I've read your clarifications and explanations, have you ever said that you reviewed the incident and determined that your officers were in error and would face the consequences. Your pat answer, which seems to be as valuable as a computer form letter, always reads, "We've reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper current screening procedures."
Not only is there blatant dishonesty in your organization, but there is absolutely no accountability to anyone for actions that should be addressed as criminal, and would be under any other circumstance.
As usual, the mere mention of the TSA makes me completely disgusted, and this pathetic endorsement of inhumane behavior by your employees is the reason why.
- April 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM
- RB said...
Not one comment supporting TSA.
Just what will it take for TSA to understand that current TSA Proper Polices are unacceptable to the Citizens of America?
TSA has sunk so low that TSA and its employees now believes that Child Abuse is acceptable TSA Policy.
- April 25, 2012 at 2:26 PM
- Anonymous said...
Why is the TSA so fascinated and preoccupied with touching children and the elderly?
- April 25, 2012 at 2:31 PM
- Anonymous said...
problem is TSA people along with other government employees don't think. they just act like robots, only time they try to think is when they abuse the system and their positions to rip off tax payers...
- April 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM
- Anonymous said...
I think the big picture here is not that a 4 year old got patted down, but that the TSA simply sucks money from tax payers and accomplishes little.
As Benjamin Franklin put it, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- April 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM
- Anonymous said...
The TSA is a national disgrace. The TSA has forever shamed America with its sordid practices.
- April 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM
- WillCAD said...
Bob - is it not TSA's official policy that "anomalies" or "alarms" with minor children or elderly travelers may be resolved through multiple passes through the scanners? Is it not official TSA policy that a full-body pat-down is required ONLY if the anomalies cannot be resolved by multiple passes through the scanners, coupled with explosive detection swabs? I believe you have said as much previously; please confirm.
If this is the policy, then how do you explain the fact that your TSOs flatly refused a specific request by the child's mother to pass the terrified 4-year old child through the metal detector instead of administering a full-body pat-down?
Your TSOs' behavior, yelling at a 4-year old child, is inexcusable; in point of fact, it is inexcusable for a TSO to yell at any traveler, regardless of age, but to yell at a 4-year old girl who is already plainly frightened borders on criminal child abuse.
Lastly, your TSO's threat to shut down the entire airport and cancel all flights because a terrified 4-year old child ran away from strange adults who wanted to touch her inappropriately is not only despicable, but is indicative of the bully mentality that pervades your entire agency.
Bob, if you wish to defend your TSOs' behavior, simply release the surveillance video of this incident from the checkpoint. It will either confirm or debunk your side of the story.
If the video is not forthcoming, it will be obvious that you are being less than truthful, about a great many things, not the least of which is this particular incident.
- April 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM
- Matt Payne said...
Either you are a liar or the child's family are liars. Based on the TSA's pathetic track record it's an easy answer.
You lie. No surprise there. Why do you guys even try to defend yourselves? What a farce this blog is! The TSA is a worthless waste of taxpayer money at best. I wonder if you and the rest of your bureaucratic handlers even have a shred of decency to feel any shame for the criminal indignities you perpetrate on the American people daily.
- April 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM
- Anonymous said...
I've known that the TSA is a disgusting government waste (but I repeat myself). Now I know you are liars too.
- April 25, 2012 at 3:36 PM
- Anonymous said...
This blog is a waste of Tax money. Please shut it down. If the only purpose this site serves is to give someone a cushy pat job of defending the TSA to the internet and blogging about slow news days then all the effort put into this should be suspended and our tax dollars should stop being wasted on such frivolities.
- April 25, 2012 at 4:02 PM
- Billy said...
Jesus, TSA's PR department needs some reeducation, I think! This age old "No guys, really, it wasn't like that!" and "If you don't like it, don't fly" isn't helping your reputation.
At a minimum, the officer's handled the situation without any compassion or empathy, which not only alienates people from you but exacerbates the "TSA is bad" statements and in the eyes of the people affirms it. Not only is this damaging to your reputation, but also to the security that you sacrifice those traits for. Not only does the TSA have terrorists for enemies, but the American people as well. Instead of being friendly, compliant, and understanding people are just WAITING to jump on the "TSA messed up again!" bandwagon and seek out ways to provoke and challenge them (such as trying to sneak things through in spite or make a scene when searched.)
TSA needs some customer service skills if the current people are to stick around. Sure, your job is safe today, but at some point public pressure is going to lead to the TSA having to start choosing scapegoats, such as failed PR (hint hint) and those who are setting these ridiculous policies.
If at the point the child touched the grandmother they were both going to have to through extra screening, the proper way to handle it would not be to separate them, but to let the grandmother hold and explain to the child what was about to happen and allow her to sit with him until the officer was prepared for the search. Then, the officer should have searched the grandmother while letting the child see what was going to happen, and then proceeded to do the child. This would have created a situation in which the child is less scared without relinquishing any security.
As far as proper PR and handling of the situation, rather than stating that 1 out of 10 assertions isn't true, you should have started an investigation and made the involved officers go through retraining (as an alternative to firing, which while the public and I feel would be just, I don't feel the TSA would do.) If you also made a note that the retraining would continue for new agents, you would at least take some pressure off of the agency! Whether you like it or not, customer service is neccesary.
- April 25, 2012 at 4:16 PM
- Danger Boy said...
Absolutely disgusting. Bob, you've really outdone yourself this time. You've focused on one portion of the story, and not the one that ticks anybody off. It's the treatment of the 4 year old. Something that should not have happened.
I promise that if any agent attempted to separate me from my crying child, it would be met with more than casual resistance. How is it that every police officer I've ever met has managed to be polite while commanding compliance, and yet your "agents" choose rudeness again and again and again?
It's way past time for your agency to come to an end, to be legislated out of existence and replaced with a security system that works instead of bullying, demeaning, and trampling the Constitutional rights of those whom you purport to protect.
- April 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM
- Anonymous said...
No coverage of criminal activity by the TSA? Read for yourself... http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/tsa-screeners-arrested-drug-trafficking-scheme-feds/story?id=16213313
- April 25, 2012 at 4:46 PM
- Anonymous said...
now the tsa is acting like a disney villian?
- April 25, 2012 at 5:03 PM
- Anonymous said...
I think we need to start suing the TSA agents. There's not a jury anywhere that would side with the TSA. Sue them everytime they do this crap, and pretty soon, no one will want to work for them.
- April 25, 2012 at 5:05 PM
- Anonymous said...
We as a nation have much to fear when an agent of the government responds to all of these horrible stories with, "We've reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper current screening procedures."
We all know of way too many instances in history where the participants said things like, "We've reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper current screening procedures." It doesn't make it okay, it doesn't excuse it, and it certainly doesn't make what is already illegal legal.
And nice job cherry picking what parts of the story you would address. I take it that your silence on many other issues means it is acceptable for your agency actors to stalk down the family, to berate a crying four year old, and essentially be thugs? Good job, Bob, for clarifying what is in the the TSA's SOP and the fact that your agency and all of its actors do indeed live by the chosen motto to "Dominate. Intimidate. Control."
Screen shot taken.
- April 25, 2012 at 5:07 PM
- Anonymous said...
If you don't like the rules, don't fly. Get over yourselves.
- April 25, 2012 at 5:09 PM
- Anonymous said...
Obviously the woman and child did something out of the ordinary to be targeted. They are not innocent in this. If you don't like the rules, don't fly. Stop complaining. No one makes you take an airplane.
- April 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM
- Anonymous said...
Remind me again.
How many actual terrorists has TSA caught?
- April 25, 2012 at 5:35 PM
- Anonymous said...
So bob your unprofessional, and rude employees strike again thedaily.com has another incident of TSA employees who are way out of line.
So let me get this straight abusing a disabled child, yelling louder when she gets upset and cries is acceptable. Along with revictimizing the child after they were cleared... No it's not it's sadistic power trip for no reason. That person(s) involved, their supervisors all the way to the FSD to be terminated and handed over to local LE for criminal percedings.
Screen capture, and letters to OIG and congress sent.
- April 25, 2012 at 6:28 PM
- Anonymous said...
And in others news, how long before a TSO is bribed to look the other way about drugs when it turns out to be a bomb?
- April 25, 2012 at 6:34 PM
- Anonymous said...
Congrats bob, for your censorship and oppression of the first amendment to my earlier comments you just had a hand delivered letter to multiple people in congress and the OIG. Have fun explaining that to them and the media outlets that were notified.
- April 25, 2012 at 6:48 PM
- WendyLou said...
Having had TSO's twice yell at my daughter to the point of tears then have the yelling continue, I believe the mother.
First time was at Monterey when I was pulled for an enhanced. My daughter came through the screening, ran to me, and was SCREAMED at by the agent. She stood there sobbing with me unable to physically comfort her. When I challenged the TSO over their behavior, I got the ever so lovely line "Do you want to fly today?"
Second time was in SLC when we were boarding a plane and an agent came by preforming security theater, checking the liquids we had bought past the screening line. What a joke. My daughter did not want to comply by letting a stranger touch her new drink and was spoken to harshly.
Shall I continue with my poor experiences with TSO's behaving rudely?
- April 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM
- Anonymous said...
Blogger Bob: This is the mother talking about TSA ---this is "proper current screening procedures"?? Sounds more like impoper, may change at any moment screaming procedure to me......
I was forced to set my child down, they brought her into a side room to administer a pat-down, I followed. My sweet four-year-old child was shaking and crying uncontrollably, she did not want to stand still and let strangers touch her… A TSO began repeating that in the past she had "seen a gun in a teddy bear." The TSO seemed utterly convinced my child was concealing a weapon, as if there was no question about it. Worse still, she was treating my daughter like she understood how dangerous this was, as if my daughter was not only a tool in a terrorist plot, but actually in on it. The TSO loomed over my daughter, with an angry grimace on her face, and ordered her to stop crying. When my scared child could not do so, two TSOs called for backup saying "The suspect is not cooperating." The suspect, of course, being a frightened child. They treated my daughter no better than if she had been a terrorist…
- April 25, 2012 at 6:53 PM
- Anonymous said...
Hey TSA, I think you're missing the point here.
OK, so your policies say that you have to follow certain procedures when unusual events occur. And you'll never be able to get everyone to agree on what those procedures should be. That's not why people are so angry about this, though.
The point you're missing here is that TSA screeners, whether by training or organizational culture, are frequently and aggressively unpleasant to the traveling public.
I'm an experienced traveler. I cannot count the number of times I've been barked at by a TSA employee. Sometimes you want me to change lines, put my shoes in a bin, put them directly on the belt instead, take my iPad out of my bag or leave it in. The one near-constant I can count on is loud, aggressive, shouted orders from your staff whenever we interact.
This doesn't need to be the case. Security is not improved by treating ordinary passengers roughly by default. Whether you want to admit it or not, the reason these stories are so believable and compelling is because they represent only a minor escalation over behavior that so many of us have experienced personally.
- April 25, 2012 at 7:07 PM
- Anonymous said...
Given the years of incidents where innocent children and others have been used as mules for explosives or worse, there seems ample ground for taking a conservative approach to ensuring nothing has been "passed." That does not require any screener to explain what they are looking for, but neither does it let them off the hook from treating a child and his family with sensitivity. This is as much about the "how" as it is the "what" is done in screening.
- April 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM
- Anonymous said...
You made a child cry, threatened to shut down a major airport over tears YOU caused, had agents harass a family for no reason (nothing was discovered) and this is proper procedure?
I have to ask...when you write these things, do you realize how crazy they sound? And how this is only adding fuel to the fire of the anti-TSA crowd?
- April 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM
- IraqVet said...
I love these comments Blogger Bob...despite your moderator finding my observations not fit to print, I find these folks share the outrage and these are only those you decide to post.
By the way, the WH announced just yesterday the endless war on terrorism was over, so when are your girls going to back off Americans?
- April 25, 2012 at 8:51 PM
- Anonymous said...
What's all the fuss? TSA is known for their work with anyone thought to be weak or helpless. http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/04/25/042512-news-tsa-complaint-1-3/
The handicapped, elderly, feeble, very young seem to have no place in the government's view of people. They are just targets.
- April 25, 2012 at 9:15 PM
- Darkwater said...
I just came to this site to see the spin on the story about how the TSA aggressively screened a 7 year old girl with Cerebral Palsy. I guess I'll come back tomorrow to see why the agents were right for what they did?
- April 25, 2012 at 10:30 PM
- Sunshine All Day Long said...
They can't show a video to the public, because it will only further serve to enrage the public.
The TSA will not post my negative comments. They will censor my negative comments because they don't have the guts.
- April 25, 2012 at 10:32 PM
- Sunshine All Day Long said...
The TSA separated me from my two nine year old girls in February. I've repeatedly contacted them about it and filed complaints over and over again. They are ignoring me.
- April 25, 2012 at 10:36 PM
- Anonymous said...
The lack of common sense in this encounter is disturbing. Yes, I understand you have a procedure in place, ostensibly to ensure contraband is not somehow smuggled through the checkpoint, but seriously?
The girl was 4 years old and scared. And your agents are out there in the checkpoint yelling at her. If the TSA was a private business, this kind of nonsense would have been regarded exactly for what it is - poor customer service.
Your agents need to grow up and have some common sense.
- April 25, 2012 at 10:48 PM
- jihadoflove said...
Wow Bob, TSA seems to be firing on all cylinders. One day after this pathetic blog post, this happens:(
Don't know how you sleep at night:(
- April 25, 2012 at 11:44 PM
- Anonymous said...
Wow Bob,
One day after this pathetic blog post, this happens - http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/04/25/042512-news-tsa-complaint-1-3/ How do you sleep at night?
- April 25, 2012 at 11:48 PM
- Anonymous said...
TSA is...or rather HAS become the laughing stock of America.
They are nothing more than thugs and everyone knows it...even this blog is a total joke. We (the TSA) never said she had a gun, but we're going to suggest it by saying she might have handed something to a 4 year old. Laughable. Too many incidents of theft, drugs and harassment have left you people the most hated group in the country. I know...I fly daily and hear it all the time.
- April 26, 2012 at 1:07 AM
- Anonymous said...
The TSA has decided that inflicting any amount of pain on the public is justified by their mission. All they have to do to sleep at night is keep repeating the lie that they're preventing terror attacks. But incidents like this are terror attacks. Congratulations guys. You just terrorized another four year-old. You're training an entire new generation to hate government. Can't wait to see what they do when they grow up.
- April 26, 2012 at 1:32 AM
- Anonymous said...
From 4 year old, to 7 year old, to US Congressman...all in two days.
Well done Bob/TSA :(
- April 26, 2012 at 2:34 AM
- Anonymous said...
Has TSA considered spending more time making sure its employees aren't taking bribes to allow items through security unchecked and less time harassing four year olds?
If someone can be bribed to allow drugs through security they can be bribed to allow a bomb through, but you seem far more concerned about this four year old than anything else.
- April 26, 2012 at 4:35 AM
- Anonymous said...
The TSA does not care what you say.
Write you congressman/woman. The U.S.A was founded on a constitution. The TSA thinks they can operate outside the constitution to protect us. They can only inslave us through fear just as the terrorist attempted to do.
- April 26, 2012 at 8:11 AM
- Anonymous said...
Now the TSA has terrorized another child, this time with cerebral palsy and caused her family to miss their flight. All this is in the name of "safety". When will congress act to abolish this organization? They are doing more harm than good. I am truly ashamed of this part of our government. I'm sorry if you are a TSA agent but you should have more pride than to work for this organization, one that is truly disgusting.
- April 26, 2012 at 8:50 AM
- Anonymous said...
The TSA is an atrocity to human kind. 4 year olds and their guardians should never, under any circumstance, be separated. I will be complaining to my congress members about this incident... keep up the good work though - maybe eventually with enough of these atrocities your organization will be dissolved.
- April 26, 2012 at 8:54 AM
- Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
"If you don't like the rules, don't fly. Get over yourselves."
If everyone had an attitude like that we would still be British citizens.
Blindly accepting the government does is very dangerous.
- April 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM
- Anonymous said...
This is a case of following protocol but not acting as human beings.
TSA agents handled a scared 4 year old little girl completely wrong. There needs to be a little compassion when it comes to children and them being seperated from their parent. Children are being taught "Stranger Danger" and to go into hystarics to get away from the person or people trying to harm them. TSA needs to keep this in mind when screening of a child is needed. The child must be made to feel secure when going thru this ordeal. This is not fun for anyone and to a child it is worse because they do not have any idea what is going to happen to them.
TSA agents need to have better people skills since they are dealing with the public.... not everyone is out there to do harm!!!
- April 26, 2012 at 9:10 AM
- Wintermute said...
Funny how you're censoring ON-TOPIC comments again. Welcome to Soviet America, comrades.
For those saying "don't like the rules, don't fly," how is that helpful? We HAD a right to travel unhindered within our own borders in this once-great nation, but when the TSA is expanding into the subways, bus stations, and highways, what other means of transportation is there? Are you telling me I should *walk* if I want to go from NYC to LA and avoid being asked for my papers?
Second, no, a parent does NOT expect to be separated from their frightened child while travelling, and the travelling public should NOT allow it.
Third, how can one follow the rules when not all of the rules are known. Apparently not even by the TSA themselves, because they seem to be making things up ad-hoc, then saying "proper procedures were followed" when called out for these abuses.
Fourth, if something was suspected of being handed off, how would allowing the grandmother to calm her frightened grandchild lessen security? Handled properly, the grandmother could have been sexually assaulted, err, undergone secondary screening, AFTER the child was calmed, and the child could have been sent through screening again. Which would, you know, catch anything the grandmother might have handed off.
Fourth, the day of reckoning will come when the TSA and their agents will have to answer for their crimes against the Constitution of the United States. And make no mistake, that's what the TSA's actions are, along with many of their procedures. "Just following orders" has never been a valid defense before, and it shouldn't be now, as these procedures are unlawful to begin with. Do you really wanna be the person who apologized for the unlawful actions of this agency?
Finally, Naked Screening Guy is my hero. If I weren't the only bread-winner in my household, and maybe had just a little more courage, I'd have done that a long time ago. As it is, any time I travel, I loudly complain, and quite often curse, about the abuses we put up with while travelling. It really is a wonder I've made it through security a single time since this ridiculousness began.
- April 26, 2012 at 9:14 AM
- Sunshine All Day Long said...
Everyone knows you are only posting a fraction of the negative comments you are receiving. We can all see that we are being censored. This post may make it rhough, but most of my posts, which never contain any kind of cursing orpersonal threats, are censored.
- April 26, 2012 at 9:24 AM
- Anonymous said...
TSA Agents are some of the rudest people I've ever come across. No customer service skills. No compassion. I've never ever seen one of them smile at a passenger and wish them a good day.
I've reduced my travel significantly because of these people. If we want to take a vacation, we drive or take the train.
The TSA needs some serious help. They are simply the worst government agency this country has ever produced.
- April 26, 2012 at 9:38 AM
- Anonymous said...
So while the TSA continues its enhanced harassment of the flying public (pets included), we now see the TSA is issuing security passes to individuals whose background checks have not been completed:
Security checks eased for Atlanta airport hires
Nice system the TSA has created where it exempts itself from its own regulations.
- April 26, 2012 at 9:50 AM
- Nonyo Beeswax said...
Phaw, let's take this into mature, reasonable, perspective. HAHAHAHA JUST KIDDING IT'S THE TSA! Oooh, I crack myself up. Grandma passes gun to child who hugged leg for two seconds. Again, blogger Bob proves his ability to spout complete garbage, and assuming it's an actual person, not a PR campaign writing this shtuff, it makes me wonder what kind of sleep he gets? Do you have to drug yourself to sleep, Blogger Bob?
- April 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM
- RB said...
Bob, don't you want to ammend your original post and retract the statement that TSA policies were properly followed or is Child Abuse proper TSA policy?
Why are so many TSA employees totally bankrupt in their people skills?
- April 26, 2012 at 9:54 AM
- Anonymous said...
Is this site a joke? I found this via links from a story about the groping of a little girl by TSA... but I'm speechless that "TSA Bob" is the official spokesman.
Aside from that, "TSA Bob's" explanation of the events is crazier than anything else. Truly time to dismantle this boondoggle.
- April 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM
- Anonymous said...
I can understand that TSA is worried about quick handoffs of prohibited items after screenings. My problem with is that the agents did not automatically let the little girl stay touching her grandmother and be screened while being held. And why they didn't automatically invite parents to come over, all sit together, and be rescreened together. I don't see how that would cause a problem with the search. Anyone who has, or works with, small children, should understand that in unfamiliar situations some of them do a lot better if they can sit on someone's lap, etc. I have been through security where someone had thought very carefully about kids -- a separate line for families at Christmas to go at their own pace, that kind of thing. Tell you officers not to yell at kids. "Sorry, kiddo, we've got to check you again; we can do it right here with -- looks at woman -- grandma?" might very well have worked much, much better. Especially tell officers not to yell at kids to stop crying -- it's pointless and will never work. Tell them to work through crying if it's moderate -- our dentist does --.
Whether anyone accused anyone else of carrying a gun is beside the point. The whole purpose of security is to assume that everyone is carrying a weapon, and we just have to deal with that. But it doesn't have to be mean.
And maybe a couple agents just had a bad day, but the policy should expect bad days and correct for them. For security to work it needs to have the sympathy of the passengers.
I usually think complaints about security are whining by folks privileged to be flying, but in this particular case I think the TSA's policies and/or training and/or habits are counterproductive.
Good luck.
- April 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM
- Jack said...
Well, they definitely didn't suspect the child was carrying drugs through. If that had been the case they would have waved her right on through and collected $1,200 in the bathroom.
- April 26, 2012 at 10:32 AM
- Anonymous said...
It's funny. I know several languages Polish being my native. Last year at IAD, while traveling with my two little boys, TSA agent asked for additional screening. I tries something my friend told me about. I raised my voice and talked AT him in Polish, that I don't want my child to go through the scanner. They all looked at each other, and let me through after going through the baby food bag without any additional screening. I don't think TSA wants to mess with foreigners at all - it's all stupid.
TSA is a security theater, Bush Administration is to blame for putting it in place, and Obama is to blame for not stopping it. It's an employment opportunity for unemployable.
I wonder why there is never anything on this Blog about TSA involvement in child pornography, prostitution rings, drug smuggling, airport theft and other REAL issues. Hey Bob the blogger, you have anything to add on that?
On the other note, I would PAY to see some of those security "Officers" (funny) run ...
- April 26, 2012 at 10:34 AM
- RB said...
Who did the TSA terrorize today? A 4-year-old girl. Why? She hugged her grandma.
- April 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM
- Anonymous said...
Yeah, we can leave a comment as long as we subject and submit ourselves even more to the TSA's inane rules.
The TSA's Comment Policy, in part: ..."we expect that participants will treat each other, as well as our agency and our employees, with respect."
Look, one doesn't just steal respect from passengers' luggage or buy it from a restroom vending machine. Here's a novel idea for you; try EARNING it.
- April 26, 2012 at 11:59 AM
- Anonymous said...
I'm sorry but I simply cannot believe a word anyone working for the TSA believes since it only takes a mere $2,400 dollars to get you to lie and allow drugs through the security check.
What happens if a terrorist organization infiltrates the TSA? Hell, what if a terrorist organization pays a TSA agent $100,000 to allow a backpack nuke through?
Willingly accepting a TSA job makes you an enemy of the American people. You chose to do that job. You will lie in your bed with it when the TSA is finally abolished and no reasonable company will hire you with TSA on your resume.
Good riddance.
- April 26, 2012 at 12:26 PM
- Anonymous said...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
- April 26, 2012 at 12:52 PM
- Anonymous said...
So how were the TSO's maintaining situational awareness and positive control of the passenger when the child was able to hug the grandmother without being observed.
- April 26, 2012 at 12:57 PM
- Anonymous said...
Things lacking here:
Common sense
Understanding that you were dealing with a 4 year old child
Human decency
Adherence to the Constitution
The fact that you and your agency would even THINK of defending any part of this tells me all I need to know abt your psychological state, Bob, as well as that of the villainous agency you represent. Let's see how you'd handle this treatment of your kids.
- April 26, 2012 at 1:01 PM
- blufaerie said...
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
- April 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM
- Anonymous said...
Well, it's pretty obvious. Every time we hear anything, it's that the officers followed policy. It just means that the head is as rotten as the body. The whole thing needs to be thrown out.
- April 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM
- Anonymous said...
Who is lying? Obviously, the family of the gun-totting teddy bear are lying. TSA never lies. If you lie, you are a security threat. If you lie, you can't work at TSA. So no, TSA didn't lie. The little security threat dress in a spring dress and spreading hugs to everyone is the guilty party. Just like all those 19 hug-giving individuals on 9/11...
- April 26, 2012 at 1:21 PM
- Anonymous said...
A grandmother - probably over 65 years old - and a 4 years old - barely capable of handling a zippy cup - CANNOT BE COMPARED TO sleazy fast-hands, Vegas-type card dealers, Bob.
But when TSA hides behind an enormous book of regulations, where TSA agents don't need to use reason and good judgement, then we get groped, harassed and abused.
- April 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM
- Anonymous said...
No, the child was not "accused" of concealing a firearm. It was - and is - heavily implied that the grandmother passed the child some kind of weapon, like spies in some movie. Was it a bazooka, Bob? Was it a switchblade? Please, tell us Bob the reasonable suspicion at play here? Or retreat to the "proper procedures were followed" defense. The proper procedures are dumb. What made this all the more offensive was the manner of implementing those "procedures." That is an aspect you completely avoided addressing.
- April 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM
- Anonymous said...
The real terrorist found at U.S. airports is the TSA. Traumatizing passengers, especially children, is NOT necessary to provide security. In fact, an argument could be made that doing so actually compromises real security. I have personally experienced on many occasions and have witnessed on many others extremely similar same poor treatment of passengers by TSOs that the mother of this 4-year-old describes. The current procedures/policies of the TSA (pat-downs, etc.) are abhorrent (not to mention ineffective) in and of themselves, but in this case, as in a number of others, the more pressing issue is the disrespectful manner in which the procedures were carried out. You would do much better to simply apologize for the trauma you caused than to attempt to argue that there was no problem with the TSOs conduct.
- April 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM
- Anonymous said...
This one doesn't get to go away. Despite the issues over whether a suggestion of carrying a firearm is correct or not, I have also seen many instances TSO's treating decent, law abiding citizens who, last time I checked were innocent until proven guilty, with disdain and a condescending attitude. I have remained silent until now. I will no longer.
- April 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM
- George said...
Here we have just the latest of far too many examples of the TSA responding to an embarrassing incident involving what anyone outside the TSA would consider inexcusable, incompetent, and indefensible behavior by a TSA employee. But from Blogger Bob's response, it seems that the TSA occupies a reality entirely disconnected from the one we know. Inside the TSA, this behavior is considered entirely appropriate and justified.
The response is the standard boilerplate that Blogger Bob can probably dash off in his sleep. It begins with a cutesy and condescending dismissal of the outrage over the incident. It then goes on to defend the officers, and to explain exactly why they did the right thing that was necessary to protect aviation. And it concludes with the usual implication that whatever unpleasantness may have resulted from the officer's highly professional defense of aviation is entirely the passenger's fault. And finally, since the TSA investigated the incident and found that the officers acted properly, the only possible conclusion is that that any claims the passenger may make to the contrary must be lies. (Has the TSA's "investigation" ever found that an officer acted improperly?)
Now that he's solved this problem, I'm eagerly awaiting Bob's response to the latest PR disaster. It's a Katrina-sized scandal, involving baggage screeners charged with taking bribes to look the other way when drug-filled suitcases go through the scanners. Since there is no way even Bob could possibly defend, deny, excuse, or spin that away, he will surely use the boilerplate that says "the TSA does not tolerate any misconduct, and appropriate (unspecified) action will be taken."
Outside the TSA, that of course means: "The TSA will tolerate, defend, and justify anything its employees do. Unless it's egregious enough to blow away the thick curtain of secrecy and expose one of the agency's pervasive systemic failures to the light of day."
- April 26, 2012 at 2:10 PM
- Anonymous said...
And now the TSA harasses, screams at and intimidates a seven-year old mentally and physically handicapped girl with Cerebral Palsy.
The little girl already went through screening and the TSA agent hauled her away from the gate to be searched again?
What is it with the TSA harassing little girls? Do you purposefully hire those with a condition that should require them registering with the local sheriff/police agency or something?
- April 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM
- Anonymous said...
If TSA officers "followed proper current screening procedures" you need to change your moronic, intrusive, illegal procedures. And stop defending this agency. Close it down. Now.
- April 26, 2012 at 3:18 PM
- Anonymous said...
I have to agree with other travelers who are posting about how this blog entry misses the point. Travelers are tired of TSA agents being so rude and unpleasant, and I 100% believe this mother who says that the TSA agents were barking orders and screaming threats.
I've never had a pleasant experience at all with the TSA, and like someone else said, it's easy to NOT take the TSA's side when all you've had is bad experiences with them.
- April 26, 2012 at 3:21 PM
- RB said...
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Four Year Old Child Not Accused of Concealing Firearm
Exactly what then was the child accused of that required TSA Screeners to yell at a Four Year Old and to call a Four Year Old a SUSPECT?
There is still an opportunity to correct your post Bob.
- April 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM
- Anonymous said...
Bob used to respond to comments. The fact that he doesn't any more means he has no answers aside from the press release he was given. Toe the line, Bob.
The rescreening policy is one thing, treating people like cattle is another. Respect and courtesy go a long way to diffuse stressful situations.
Life is not like DieHard.
- April 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM
- Anonymous said...
why is on the tsa blog that the tsa is always guilty until proven innocent? i hope that people with this viewpoint arent allowed to be on any jurites. the basis for the American legal system is innocent until proven guilty. funny how on here its never the case. sad, VERY sad
- April 26, 2012 at 4:05 PM
- mikeef said...
What I find most interesting is that BB didn't say the woman's version of the incident was wrong. Seems to me that he agrees with her version and simply tried to give us a red herring about a gun being passed.
Is that what we do now? Instead of saying or doing the right thing, we just toe the party line?
- April 26, 2012 at 4:16 PM
- Anonymous said...
Bob, you say the following: "I'm sure you've watched the scene play out in more than one movie where two people collide or shake hands and an item is traded off?"
So, are you saying that the TSA now uses Hollywood movies as a reliable source by which to set their security procedures? Seriously?
- April 26, 2012 at 5:04 PM
- Lordstrom said...
TSA are - by definition - the terrorists. That's all that can be said at this point.
- April 26, 2012 at 8:17 PM
- Anonymous said...
This explains a lot. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/tsa-bypasses-background-checks-new-hires/nMhrw/
So any felon can join the TSA for at least the amount of time it takes for a background check.
What an outfit.
- April 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM
- Anonymous said...
This is another example of the TSA in action.
I used to fly monthly for years and years. Ever since the TSA started harassing people, screaming at checkpoints and just being unprofessional in general I have cut down my travel to the bare minimum which is one round trip a year and I try to get out of that one trip as much as possible.
- April 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM
- Anonymous said...
The blame for these repeated lurid incidents at the TSA falls solely on our esteemed elected political leaders. Before you vote for your political incumbent in November, ask them what they have done to change this failed and disgraced agency labeled the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"). If the TSA were a private organization they would have been forced "out of business" long ago; the TSA is just an example of inept government with inept management at every level.
- April 26, 2012 at 9:05 PM
- Anonymous said...
I believe the time has come to ignore this blog. It only serves as a pathetic propaganda piece for the TSA that no one can take seriously. There is no constructive dialogue, only poor attempts at justifying the latest scandal, coupled with self-congratulatory posts at catching "contraband" that never posed any risk whatsoever, since the "smugglers" had no intention of taking down a plane. I don't for a moment believe that there are terrorists lurking at every corner. But that's what the TSA wants you to think. If we want to fight TSA and its nauseating procedures, we can organize on other blogs – there are plenty around – to put an end to this disgusting agency. Let's boycott the TSA blog first. Nothing useful will ever come out of it.
Screenshot taken.
- April 26, 2012 at 9:21 PM
- Anonymous said...
Maybe the TSA should start harrassing birds. They seem to be a genuine threat to safe airline travel.
- April 26, 2012 at 11:26 PM
- Anonymous said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
why is on the tsa blog that the tsa is always guilty until proven innocent? i hope that people with this viewpoint arent allowed to be on any jurites. the basis for the American legal system is innocent until proven guilty. funny how on here its never the case. sad, VERY sad
April 26, 2012 4:05 PM
Why is it at the TSA checkpoint, the people are always guilty until proven innocent? The basis for the American legal system is innocent until proven guilty. Funny how at the checkpoint it is never the case.
- April 27, 2012 at 7:40 AM
- Wintermute said...
"why is on the tsa blog that the tsa is always guilty until proven innocent? i hope that people with this viewpoint arent allowed to be on any jurites. the basis for the American legal system is innocent until proven guilty. funny how on here its never the case. sad, VERY sad"
First, funny how when dealing with TSA security theater, it's never the case, either. A) The child was a suspect or B) The child was not. In case A, screen the child again, but be compassionate about it. In case B, let the child through. Unfortunately, case A is the default regardless of common sense.
Second, the TSA's actions in the past speak to its credibility now. They've been accused of these types of actions enough, and enough of us have experienced them first-hand, that it's easy to believe they are guilty of exactly what they're being accused of.
Finally, the TSA is a government agency. Even without the first two points I've already attempted to make, this, by itself, means they should be held to a higher standard.
Welcome to Soviet America, comrades.
Also, tip to get your comment through the censorship regime. Complain about your previous posts being censored. I've made four comments in this thread thus far. The one not complaining about censorship on this blog got censored, even though it was on-topic.
If the TSA were serious about wanting a dialog with the flying public, it would turn off moderation and, you know, actually RESPOND to our comments. But today's Friday, so I expect another puppy post instead of actual engagement.
Second, there are enough of these stories
- April 27, 2012 at 8:52 AM
- RB said...
TSA makes the claim that TSA is on the Front Lines of the War on Terror. OK good enough!
The White House has recently released a statement saying the War of Terror has been won and the war is ended.
Seems the need for TSA has also come to and end.
- April 27, 2012 at 8:58 AM
- Anonymous said...
If the agent IMPLIES guns by continually making reference to "guns," that does not constitute a direct accusation. I does denote an implication of suspicion repeated and repeated and repeated. People who were subjected to Behaviorist training techniques in childhood often grow up to be adults who cannot think critically. Bait-and-switch arguments are used by manipulative persons to protect their jobs when they work for compartmentalized organizations which are geared toward incrementally implemented social control systems. The founding fathers were, of course, aware of this and that is the purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our county governments will be the place to begin to correct anti-Constitutional behavior thay has increased due to the elimination of civics studies from primary school
- April 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM
- Anonymous said...
What sanctimonious blather. I don't see anyone challenging the actions of TSA or any other government agency that routinely circumvent the rights of citizens.
What of that which passes for leadership in Congress or the Executive? Nothing.
This complaining is more like the braying of sheep as their led through the stockyard.
- April 27, 2012 at 10:00 AM
- RB said...
Bob in the second TSA Child Abuse incident this week it is reported that the father of the 7 year old tried to record the screening with his cell phone and was, "screamed at, cursed at, and threatened as he tried to document what was happening."
I have to wonder just why TSA employees would scream, cursed, or threaten a person for doing something you yourself have posted here is a perfectly acceptable action.
Is this another example of "Correct TSA Policy" being used? If not what corrective actions are being taken against these individual TSA employees who "Scream, curse, and threaten" a person who has done nothing wrong?
Why are TSA Screeners so confused about the policy regarding photos/videos?
Or did you lie once again to the public?
- April 27, 2012 at 10:06 AM
- Anonymous said...
What with three TSA Blog Moderators and one TSA Bog Commenter, all on the publics payroll, seems like a couple of the concerns addressed here would get a response.
Why are taxpayers being forced to fund this operation?
Seems like a GSA Op!
- April 27, 2012 at 10:32 AM
- RB said...
Terrorizing, Smuggling, And Assault: All In A Week's Work At The TSA
- April 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM
- RB said...
Who did the TSA terrorize today? A 4-year-old girl. Why? She hugged her grandma.
By Xeni Jardin at 7:50 pm Wednesday, Apr 25
"Earlier this week on Boing Boing, Cory blogged about a 95-year-old Air Force veteran who was robbed of $300 at a TSA checkpoint. After picking on the elderly, today the TSA is bullying children. A 4-year-old girl who was upset during a TSA screening at the Wichita, KS airport was forced to undergo a manual pat-down after hugging her grandmother. Agents yelled at the child, and called her an uncooperative suspect."
- April 27, 2012 at 1:23 PM
- Anonymous said...
Kudos to Bob for his masterful defense of screeners who properly followed procedures that apparently require them to force a child away from her parents and then scream at her when she cries. That proves beyond any doubt that the TSA's procedures, as implemented by highly competent officers who always follow them properly, provide excellent protection for aviation!
Now I'm waiting to see Bob's response to the arrests of those baggage screeners accused of taking bribes to allow bags filled with drugs to get through the layers of security. This only came to light after one of the bribers became an FBI informant and blew the whistle. Was the TSA unaware that this criminal activity was going on, or did they just ignore it as long as it was behind the veil of secrecy where nobody could see it? I'm sure the TSA's top priority right now is making sure that we never know the answer.
I wonder if John Pistole himself is involved in determining the best way to handle this Category 5 public relations disaster. That's when a strong leader is most needed to ensure that everyone's posterior is securely covered and accountability is completely evaded. Top priority surely will be given to maintaining the TSA's obsessive secrecy that allows all manner of incompetence, waste, abuse, and crime to flourish like mildew in the darkness.
When the leadership team has determined the best defensive action, we can count on Bob to translate that plan into an appropriate evasive smokescreen to assure us that, as always, the TSA will do absolutely nothing to address the longstanding systemic failings that allow these disasters to occur regularly.
- April 27, 2012 at 2:06 PM
- JoJo said...
Anonymous said...
why is on the tsa blog that the tsa is always guilty until proven innocent? i hope that people with this viewpoint arent allowed to be on any jurites. the basis for the American legal system is innocent until proven guilty. funny how on here its never the case. sad, VERY sad
So if someone you knew was convicted 21 times of robbery, the 22nd time they were accused you would be saying, "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! SHAME ON YOU ALL FOR JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS!"? Because that's just ignoring history and being willfully ignorant. I'm hopeful you simply haven't been following the TSA for very long and just don't know about everything they've been caught doing.
- April 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM
- Al said...
Beyond making things difficult for this poor child, the TSA is engaged in theft, smuggling and waste every day, all around the country.
The TSA is one big inappropriate joke.
- April 27, 2012 at 2:42 PM
- RB said...
Waiting for the Friday edition of the TSA Post and Hide.
- April 27, 2012 at 3:54 PM
- Bee said...
This is just ridiculous. I don't know what happened because I wasn't there, BUT as a screener I too have fallen victim to a passenger exaggerating stories. IE. I reminded a passenger to make sure his items were inside of the x-ray before walking away. Simple enough right? The guy then ask me do I always talk to passengers like that, I thought he might've been joking but he was very serious. Sorry for trying to make sure your belongings aren't stolen by another passenger sir when you walk away...or as most of the public thinks..a screener.
Passengers have a tendancy to exaggerate stories (not all but a LOT) and personally I'm glad that we have CCTV for situations as such. Hopefully the footage is released to shut people up.
- April 28, 2012 at 4:47 AM
- SkyWayManAz said...
Bob the one constant I see over and over again is how everyone feels abused by TSA. Is it possible this family is lying? Yes it's possible, but almost no one believes you. Everyone has too many bad experiences and instantly relates. There is no excuse for the relentless abusive behavior from your screeners. As a frequent traveler I can honestly state there are good screeners out there working hard and doing a thankless job. I've even had a few smile and be professional at all times for secondary screening. Unfortunately they have a lot of their co workers to thank for how they are looked at by a skeptical public. Remember the elderly JFK strip searches you maintained didn't happen? I suspect we are going to hear a different version of events if this family's Congressman looks into it.
Honestly Bob if I were in your shoes I'd have posted a blog entry that defended the need to rescreen the child. However I'd have cited what rights travelers have in these situations and what to expect. That is completely missing from your post. You cite the policy to reduce pat downs for children. That tells me nothing about what the exceptions are or adequately explains why this was an exception. Another pass thru the metal detector and a hand swap should have been enough to rescreen the child. Since this wasn't enough for reasons you cannot or will not explain that tells me nothing helpful if I'm traveling with a small child who might get scared. I'm an adult and even I get scared when your screeners yell at me. Nothing in your post in any way shape or form addressed the concerns this family felt they were verbally abused by your screeners. Not even a boiler plate on how every attempt will be made to insure the screening experience is as pleasant as possible. I'd laugh but be honest that's never been a priority.
As I've said in other posts I'm not a hater but your agency is broken and the American public knows it. The public are your customers, the fee on my ticket says so. Everywhere else I spend my money they're happy to see me and appreciate my business. TSA would earn back a lot of respect, even with some of the silly rules, if they did the job with a smile and a kind word. There are a few silly things about how I have to do my job now and I do it with a smile anyway. Ultimately if the customer doesn't want to follow the rules they won't be allowed in. Flight attendants and gate agents don't seem to have a problem most of the time enforcing FAA rules and regulations with a smile. The exceptions are far less numerous then gaffes from your agency. Ultimately if a smile and a kind word aren't enough to get a cell phone turned off for example they won't fly today either. Your screeners can do the job professionally this way but there is no incentive or reward in them doing it and few consequences for just telling us off.
- April 28, 2012 at 11:26 AM
- Anonymous said...
I'm going to try to post this again since I tried a couple of days ago and it still hasn't shown up:
The real terrorist found at U.S. airports is the TSA. Traumatizing passengers, especially children, is NOT necessary to provide security. In fact, an argument could be made that doing so actually compromises real security. I have personally experienced on many occasions and have witnessed on many others extremely similar same poor treatment of passengers by TSOs that the mother of this 4-year-old describes. The current procedures/policies of the TSA (pat-downs, etc.) are abhorrent (not to mention ineffective) in and of themselves, but in this case, as in a number of others, the more pressing issue is the disrespectful manner in which the procedures were carried out. You would do much better to simply apologize for the trauma you caused than to attempt to argue that there was no problem with the TSOs conduct.
- April 28, 2012 at 2:44 PM
- RB said...
Bee said...
This is just ridiculous. I don't know what happened because I wasn't there, BUT as a screener I too have fallen victim to a passenger exaggerating stories. IE. I reminded a passenger to make sure his items were inside of the x-ray before walking away. Simple enough right? The guy then ask me do I always talk to passengers like that, I thought he might've been joking but he was very serious. Sorry for trying to make sure your belongings aren't stolen by another passenger sir when you walk away...or as most of the public thinks..a screener.
Passengers have a tendancy to exaggerate stories (not all but a LOT) and personally I'm glad that we have CCTV for situations as such. Hopefully the footage is released to shut people up.
April 28, 2012 4:47 AM
Perhaps you need to review what you say and how it might be received by a person going through TSA security. You may mean well but seen as being abrupt, loud, or such.
I transited LAS screening and the TSA employee operating the xray for carry-on gear was on a rant about how peopled packed their bags. She may have thought she was being helpful but the way people were receiving the message was anything but good, and I was not the only one to comment about the screeners behavior.
- April 28, 2012 at 5:58 PM
- Anonymous said...
Bee said...
"Sorry for trying to make sure your belongings aren't stolen by another passenger sir when you walk away...or as most of the public thinks..a screener."
Ummm....... It is reasonable for "most of the public" to think that their belongings are stolen by SCREENERS and not passengers. It is a fact that except for very few and rare incidents that happen on the OUT end of the x-ray machine belt (not on the IN end where everyone has to emtpy their pockets), nearly every time the CCTV catches someone in the act of stealing property at a checkpoint, the thief turns out the be the screener. Unless there's a big conspiracy by the news media to not report on the scourge of thefts being carried out passengers?
- April 29, 2012 at 2:00 AM
- Anonymous said...
That's your defense for giving a little AMERICAN girl nightmares and frightening and yelling at an INNOCENT 4 year old? It's like getting accused of stealing three cookies from the cookie jar and responding "That's not true, I only stole two!" Shameful. I hope a TSA agent tries to act up on me, I'll walk out with a lawsuit and my college paid for.
- April 29, 2012 at 6:10 AM
- Anonymous said...
You're seriously justifying this by saying "it happens in the movies?"
- April 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM
- Anonymous said...
jojo said:
So if someone you knew was convicted 21 times of robbery, the 22nd time they were accused you would be saying, "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! SHAME ON YOU ALL FOR JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS!"? Because that's just ignoring history and being willfully ignorant. I'm hopeful you simply haven't been following the TSA for very long and just don't know about everything they've been caught doing.
i see so you are saying that if a person has done it in the past then it must be true. or perhaps because someone has done wrong in the past they are being accused just because of their past. sorry it doesnt work that way. in tsa's case it appears that because they have had problems in the past its automatically true, thats illogical. everyone including tsa is innocent until proven guilty. all employees that have done wrong still go to court and are given a fair trial. same as the people that travel and get arrested by the police because of what they have or have done at the airport. just because its on here doesnt change anything. i hope that you arent on any juries......
- April 29, 2012 at 8:15 PM
- Anonymous said...
So you like movies, Bob? Have you ever seen any of the dozens of movies with this plot element:
The bad guys create a diversion. Everyone drops everything and rushes to take care of the diversion, leaving the bad guys free to take advantage of their newly-created opportunities when no one else is watching.
So now if the bad guys want to ensure less scrutiny at the airport checkpoint, they partner with people creating diversion after diversion using prohibited but not illegal items: someone has a few bottles of water, someone else has a bag of toothpaste and long screwdrivers, another one has shoes with gel inserts, and then a bunch of people opt out of the body scanner and invoke pat-downs. Also add a 4-year-old running to hug her grandmother, a young boy in a wheelchair, and suddenly no one is watching the bad guys get through with their contraband.
According to the mother of the original story, besides the excess screening of the 4-year-old, the boarding documents and IDs were scrutinized, the family was followed to the gate, and the TSA even had time to phone the Denver airport telling them that these scoundrels were coming.
Do you really have infinite resources? No. Then why do you freely pull your people away from their primary job and do all this nonsense? This family was not a threat. Someone else following them through the checkpoint may have been, but by then job number 1 of the TSA was to focus all their attention on this 4-year-old girl.
- May 1, 2012 at 1:15 AM
- Bee said...
Perhaps you need to review what you say and how it might be received by a person going through TSA security. You may mean well but seen as being abrupt, loud, or such.
I transited LAS screening and the TSA employee operating the xray for carry-on gear was on a rant about how peopled packed their bags. She may have thought she was being helpful but the way people were receiving the message was anything but good, and I was not the only one to comment about the screeners behavior.
April 28, 2012 5:58 PM
I agree. Sort of. I thought well maybe it came out rude when I said it. I make a point to treat people the way I would like to be treated.
Im pretty sure I wasn't aggressive or loud when I said it. This guy just didnt like the fact that I reminded him to push his items in. Afterall he did say he thought that was my job anyway. Some passengers are just rude, some officers are just rude. That's just the way it is, I guess.
- May 1, 2012 at 2:01 PM
- Anonymous said...
176 comments and not one response from the TSA. Interesting.
- May 1, 2012 at 3:22 PM
- Anonymous said...
Have you been watching too much TV and too many Hollywood movies??????
- May 1, 2012 at 5:43 PM
- Anonymous said...
So where is the video to prove she was not accused of concealing a firearm? You release videos very quickly when it interests you.
- May 2, 2012 at 3:15 PM
- Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
It is painfully evident and unfortunate that a good number of the posts here were written by single-brain-celled societal flotsam who have nothing better to do than to visit forums inbetween hits off their pipes.
Bob, doesn't this violate the rule against "vulgar or abusive language; personal attacks of any kind"?? Or does it get a pass because it's not anti-TSA?
Listen sheep, you want to trash the TSA? There are plenty of sites that will accept you and your condesending, manufactured attitudes with open arms.
"Sheep"? It is the "sheeple" (like you) that "voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research". And "undermine their own individuality and may willingly give up their rights". We who fight against the TSA (and other things as well) are in no ways sheep.
"trash the TSA"? They have done enough to trash themselves.
"your condesending, manufactured attitudes"- what does this even mean?
If you want credibility, employ some critical thought and original thinking for a change instead of spewing the same old tripe.
It is people like you, who swallow whole whatever the TSA says, that are lacking "critical thought and original thinking".
- May 2, 2012 at 6:30 PM
- Anonymous said...
THIS is why we screen children and their property:
- May 9, 2012 at 9:30 AM
- Wintermute said...
"THIS is why we screen children and their property:
And yet the family of terrorists was still allowed to fly...
(due to widespread censorship on the part of the TSA, screenshot has been taken)
- May 10, 2012 at 11:35 AM
- Anonymous said...
That is complete BS. Story is completely fake and was staged by TSA.
You have to be a complete moron to believe someone smuggling a firearm on to a plane would be "allowed to continue on to their flight".
Hmmm..imagine that..no names and guy is told to go on his merry way.
Uh uh...he would have been detained and likely brought to a local police station for questioning.
- July 20, 2012 at 2:06 AM
- RBM said...
This is so sad. The policies at the TSA are appear to be completely rigid and nobody has any discretion.
My guess is that the TSA salaries are so low that no discretion can be allowed. I wonder how they compare internationally.
- July 21, 2012 at 7:24 PM