The worst thing we've learned is that all we have to say is "we followed standard procedures" and we get a free pass, regardless of how egregious standard procedures or implementations may be.
It would be nice if the reporters put some energy into either asking or researching what "standard procedures" are, and then put that into the story so that the reader might be educated about the rules and policies that we all live under.
You are presuming that the TSA will ever reveal what "standard procedures" are. They're whatever justifies their current behavior, but you can't know, you dirty hippie, because that's national security.
Next time I have to deal with a large, dumb corporation I'm going to write up some policies of my own in advance. That way when they insist I do something dumb I can say, e.g., "I'm sorry, it's our policy that we never reboot computers without written documentation of the necessity."
I think the TSA clerks here can legitimately be charged with child molestation - follow my logic:
When I have been patted down by TSA they are always careful to ask for my consent before they sexual assault me. Since I am past the age of consent I can give it to them. Here the TSA is relying on the parents to provide the consent to sexually assault their child. I don't think a parent can legally give that consent. If I were a DA I would charge both the TSA agent and the parent with criminal child abuse.
The TSA doesn't ask for your consent, they ask for you to understand what they are going to do. They pull out a little card and say "I am required to inform you that ..."
It's obviously not sexual assault under law, since the searches are explicitly authorized by law. Even if the searches as designed were found to be unconstitutional or contradicting other law, that in no way would subject an individual agent following that law to prosecution under the government that gave the agent the orders.
Especially when airline airplanes are also used for shipping. No need to even show up.
"With over 3,400 flights a day to Southwest destinations coast to coast, Southwest Airlines® Cargo has the flight you need, when you need it."
http://www.swacargo.com/swacargo/home.htm
okay. if the terrorists stuff a 4yr old child full of explosives and blow me up, they win. I give up. not being groped in public is worth being blown up.
What a different and more wonderful world this would be if President Bush's speech-writers had put together a more pithy variant of your attitude for his speech after 9/11! But I think a policy of courage would have been wildly less popular than that of fear proved to be.
I don't think people who weren't afraid liked it. But people who were afraid (or could be made afraid) seemed to be pretty fond of it. Because the policy wasn't one of pure fear; it was one of security through fear.
Political popularity is hard to quantify. But for whatever they are worth, I have three points in support of my claim that President Bush's policy was (and is) "popular", one factual, one which I believe to be true but have no data for, and one anecdotal:
1) President Bush won reelection quite easily,
2) The "War on Terror" had and continues to have bipartisan support, while many other policies introduced since it began (such as the actual wars) have been wildly polarizing, and
3) In my personal discussions, I have found it very difficult to persuade most people that our response to 9/11 was anything but correct and justified.
This presupposes that there is no mechanism for assessing the relative threat of a passenger. Basically every passenger is an equal threat and so everyone needs to be processed identically.
Of course that is a non-sensical assumption but 'profiling' is considered a worse evil and so the TSA terrifies little children in order to avoid the evils of profiling.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but there is no "of course" about it! While I think the moral indignation about profiling is justified, the real fear is that a system that relies heavily on profiling is very weak to attack by learning the profile and planning accordingly.
Isabella had just learned about “stranger danger” at school
What? Does she use a time traveling bus to visit 1990? I thought schools had wised up to the fact that virtually all harm to children (excluding traffic fatalities) is brought people the child knows.
I hate the TSA, but I see the dark humor of fear mongering on both sides of this story: Americans' fear of terrorists and children's instilled fear of strangers. As a traveler, I'm tired of the former, and as an adult male who happens to like children and strikes up conversations with strangers, I'm tired of the latter.
I am that cynical. Seeing pictures of kids holding up signs that say "Thank you for protecting us!" next to their proud, deluded parents at an airport, everything about the TSA makes me sick.
I see plenty of blame to go around here, actually. The TSA shouldn't have required a pat-down, IMO. But we don't know exactly how this happened, and how should the TSA have known that the child would go into hysterics over this? Once the screaming starts, a lot of behaviors can change in pretty irrational ways due to the increased tension of the situation. The fact that the parents involved lost control of the situation with the child running away did not make things any easier.
I'm not saying the agents should have handled it this way (I personally think they should not have), just that it seems like a series of unfortunate breakdowns on the part of several people. There are far bigger problems with the TSA than this, IMO.
The TSA is a big market-research project. The point is to start with everybody and winnow back TSA behavior based on outrage until they reach the line where nobody cares enough anymore. Everybody outside of that line will be subject to abduction and torture by the US and its allies.
The important part is that the TSA gets to find out who nobody cares about, because everybody is going to be forced to endure their intrusions (even for those who ride the bus or train, they'll find a way to touch you) until we tell them who we'd rather they hassle, by way of demanding freedom from their intrusions not upon principle, but upon "because not me."
You'll notice that people who can/want to pay $100 for a little freedom from Bush & Obama's TSA have a way to do that even before 95 year old veterans and 4 year old children. That right there is a plain, stick-figure simple illustration of Bush and Obama's priorities with the TSA.
Attempted child abductions happen all the time (source: constant police reports in my local media). It's insane to suggest we don't teach kids street smarts just because you like talking to strangers.
Can you run those numbers again, adding denominators for "number of adults encountered", and limiting to adults who have touched the child against the child's will, as happened in this case? You might find a hire rate of stranger-assault among those cases.
Oh, cop-speak preserve deep meaning. It clearly communicates the mindset of the speaker, which is an important part of language. When considered in context (not spoken by a cop), it telegraphs the mental illness of the speaker.
My suspicion is that, in the (presumed) absence of actual terrorists, the screeners are tested using 'secret shopper' style undercover people. They might try a wide range of scenarios, from 'oops, I forgot I left that gun in my trouser pocket'[1] through to 'can little Molly sneak an extra-large toothpaste?'
Anyone failing the test gets demoted/retrained/shouted at, until all compassion and common sense is burned out.
[1] From what I recall of the recent ex-TSA director, they fail even the most egregious of suitcase weapon plants, including firearms.
I have a hard time believing that they'd be doing testing in live airports with real (or real-looking) firearms. It's just not nearly controlled enough to be safe. Imagine a wackjob grabbing the improvised knife they always carry in their bag and trying to be a hero.
I'm not sure how they could run realistic tests in any other way than with (simulated) contraband in a public screening queue, ideally with different people and situations each time.
Honestly I find the victim's quotes and attitudes toward this incident very disturbing. For example:
> claiming TSA treated her daughter “no better than if she had been a terrorist.”
> “There was no common sense and there was no compassion,” Croft said. “That was our biggest fault with the whole thing — not that they are following security procedures, because I understand that they have to do that.”
So basically, it's fine to treat terrorists this way, just not me and my family, because we aren't terrorists (but that Muslim family over there might be). Similarly, I don't mind following security procedures, because those are all for the good, I just don't think they should apply to people like us.
How can they fail to see that this is how the system works? This is what it is designed to do. There was no mistake made here. This is what you voted for.
No. The problem is not in how we apply these invasive, wasteful, and humiliating security procedures. The security procedures are the problem. The problem is not in who in particular is labeled a suspected terrorist. It's how we treat people.
I think the company I keep makes me think that everyone must share my perspective that the TSA is a huge waste of money and time -- makes me forget that a lot of Americans actually believe these things are making them safer and working as intended, and that incidents like this are just small accidents when the security apparatus gets turned on the wrong people. It's a sobering realization.
No one voted for the TSA. The American public had no input into the policies put into place. We can elect officials, but many of those officials were already in office when they chose to create the TSA.
This is a situation that has many different points...
A) Yes the grandmother's attitude was biased with those quotes and further highlights why America is in this situation in the first place. Americans and terrorists are both made up of people who believe stupid crap and treat others based on those beliefs. This is not a situation we can fix.
B) Yes the TSA Agents actually acted like they should have.
If I was trying to smuggle something in I would certainly have a kid along to go through security first and then trained such that were my smuggling attempt to fail to attempt some sort of backup plan by running up to me distressed to grab the item from me.
So their reaction was entirely smart to re-screen her.
This is also not a situation that could be fixed.
C) This whole incident further proves that their process is just not going to work like they want it to. On paper its great, but in reality its just not going to fly. When their detection capabilities are reliant upon either shooting X rays or molestation you're going to end up pissing off enough people to get your company voted off the corporate island.
This is a situation that we can fix, get rid of a lot of the security theatre and point B and C goes away.
I flew for the first time last weekend since the TSA implemented the pat-downs.
I went through the backscatter while the TSA scanned my bags, one being a stylus with a substantial aluminum shaft. I was paranoid it would be deemed a weapon. During the screening, I witnessed a pregnant woman go through an examination.
I do not feel safer. In fact, my fear has shifted.
(My opinion is that the whole system is stupid, pointless and performs some theatre at the windows while the doors are wide open. Someone determined will be able to get through, or just attack somewhere else. All you want to do is catch the idiots, which pre-911 screening did just fine. The response to terrorism is to not be terrorized and to live well, not to amplify the little things they actually do.)
We should be very careful about "common sense" and screeners making their own minds up about things. It is far better that they follow a consistent set of rules. This for example is why the liquids rule is a good one from a screening point of view. There is no discretion left to the screeners and they don't have to entertain arguments about which liquids are harmless and which aren't, types of liquids, size of containers etc. Think carefully - do you really want each screener enforcing their own views? How trivial do you think they would be to outsmart by someone determined?
The American political system especially as espoused in the media where trivial things are inflated to make stories, there is relentless hounding of politicians who are rational, it is cheaper to have controversial talking heads instead of research and reporting, someone always has to be to blame, and issues are presented as black or white soundbites means that no politician can reasonably try to rein in the system or have detailed discussions on risks, spending, tradeoffs etc.
This is what happens when you give minimum wage idiots that would normally be working at McDonalds fake badges and power. I know for a fact there are a few good, knowledgeable, professional TSA people at every airport, but the majority of them around the country are not. The majority of them are completely incompetent, completely unqualified, and glad they get to tell someone what do for 8 hours.
Just out of curiosity, can someone explain to me why TSA articles tend to make their way to the front page of HN. I know there are some pretty random topics that HN'ers are interested in, but usually there is at least some small link to tech/startups/hacking. Not sure what the connection is here.
On the one hand, the TSA agents could have been more sensitive. On the other hand, the parents could probably have prevented the whole thing by not letting the girl run off to hug grandma.
My dad was career miltary and so was my ex. I spent much of my life around environments where security was taken seriously. You just don't let kids goof off in such environments. Somewhat similarly, I also grew up with shotguns hung on the wall above my parents' bed. They were not loaded but there were two shells laying in the groove on the barrel so they could be loaded quickly if necessary. The rest of the ammo was locked up in dad's closet and kids did not go in dad's closet. Guns were not something children played with and there were no accidents because the adults in the house just did not allow it to happen.
60 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] threadWhen I have been patted down by TSA they are always careful to ask for my consent before they sexual assault me. Since I am past the age of consent I can give it to them. Here the TSA is relying on the parents to provide the consent to sexually assault their child. I don't think a parent can legally give that consent. If I were a DA I would charge both the TSA agent and the parent with criminal child abuse.
It's obviously not sexual assault under law, since the searches are explicitly authorized by law. Even if the searches as designed were found to be unconstitutional or contradicting other law, that in no way would subject an individual agent following that law to prosecution under the government that gave the agent the orders.
"With over 3,400 flights a day to Southwest destinations coast to coast, Southwest Airlines® Cargo has the flight you need, when you need it." http://www.swacargo.com/swacargo/home.htm
http://www.delta.com/business_programs_services/delta_cargo/...
1) President Bush won reelection quite easily, 2) The "War on Terror" had and continues to have bipartisan support, while many other policies introduced since it began (such as the actual wars) have been wildly polarizing, and 3) In my personal discussions, I have found it very difficult to persuade most people that our response to 9/11 was anything but correct and justified.
Of course that is a non-sensical assumption but 'profiling' is considered a worse evil and so the TSA terrifies little children in order to avoid the evils of profiling.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but there is no "of course" about it! While I think the moral indignation about profiling is justified, the real fear is that a system that relies heavily on profiling is very weak to attack by learning the profile and planning accordingly.
What? Does she use a time traveling bus to visit 1990? I thought schools had wised up to the fact that virtually all harm to children (excluding traffic fatalities) is brought people the child knows.
I hate the TSA, but I see the dark humor of fear mongering on both sides of this story: Americans' fear of terrorists and children's instilled fear of strangers. As a traveler, I'm tired of the former, and as an adult male who happens to like children and strikes up conversations with strangers, I'm tired of the latter.
Edit: And then, this: http://boingboing.net/2012/04/25/tsa-security-screeners-in-l...
I see plenty of blame to go around here, actually. The TSA shouldn't have required a pat-down, IMO. But we don't know exactly how this happened, and how should the TSA have known that the child would go into hysterics over this? Once the screaming starts, a lot of behaviors can change in pretty irrational ways due to the increased tension of the situation. The fact that the parents involved lost control of the situation with the child running away did not make things any easier.
I'm not saying the agents should have handled it this way (I personally think they should not have), just that it seems like a series of unfortunate breakdowns on the part of several people. There are far bigger problems with the TSA than this, IMO.
The important part is that the TSA gets to find out who nobody cares about, because everybody is going to be forced to endure their intrusions (even for those who ride the bus or train, they'll find a way to touch you) until we tell them who we'd rather they hassle, by way of demanding freedom from their intrusions not upon principle, but upon "because not me."
You'll notice that people who can/want to pay $100 for a little freedom from Bush & Obama's TSA have a way to do that even before 95 year old veterans and 4 year old children. That right there is a plain, stick-figure simple illustration of Bush and Obama's priorities with the TSA.
Then there are high profile cases like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Daniel_Morcombe
Yes, family abuse is more common. Yes, I believe in free range kids. No, I don't believe in carebear rainbow land, stranger danger is very real.
I never said anything of the sort.
What suspect? Suspected of what? This kind of pervasive cop-speak strips language of relevant meaning.
Anyone failing the test gets demoted/retrained/shouted at, until all compassion and common sense is burned out.
[1] From what I recall of the recent ex-TSA director, they fail even the most egregious of suitcase weapon plants, including firearms.
Edit: It doesn't appear to get much of a mention in Kip Hawley's Editorial in the WSJ[2], but http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-scre... mentions figures of easily 50+%, from 2010
[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230381540457733...
I'm not sure how they could run realistic tests in any other way than with (simulated) contraband in a public screening queue, ideally with different people and situations each time.
> claiming TSA treated her daughter “no better than if she had been a terrorist.”
> “There was no common sense and there was no compassion,” Croft said. “That was our biggest fault with the whole thing — not that they are following security procedures, because I understand that they have to do that.”
So basically, it's fine to treat terrorists this way, just not me and my family, because we aren't terrorists (but that Muslim family over there might be). Similarly, I don't mind following security procedures, because those are all for the good, I just don't think they should apply to people like us.
How can they fail to see that this is how the system works? This is what it is designed to do. There was no mistake made here. This is what you voted for.
No. The problem is not in how we apply these invasive, wasteful, and humiliating security procedures. The security procedures are the problem. The problem is not in who in particular is labeled a suspected terrorist. It's how we treat people.
I think the company I keep makes me think that everyone must share my perspective that the TSA is a huge waste of money and time -- makes me forget that a lot of Americans actually believe these things are making them safer and working as intended, and that incidents like this are just small accidents when the security apparatus gets turned on the wrong people. It's a sobering realization.
A) Yes the grandmother's attitude was biased with those quotes and further highlights why America is in this situation in the first place. Americans and terrorists are both made up of people who believe stupid crap and treat others based on those beliefs. This is not a situation we can fix.
B) Yes the TSA Agents actually acted like they should have. If I was trying to smuggle something in I would certainly have a kid along to go through security first and then trained such that were my smuggling attempt to fail to attempt some sort of backup plan by running up to me distressed to grab the item from me. So their reaction was entirely smart to re-screen her. This is also not a situation that could be fixed.
C) This whole incident further proves that their process is just not going to work like they want it to. On paper its great, but in reality its just not going to fly. When their detection capabilities are reliant upon either shooting X rays or molestation you're going to end up pissing off enough people to get your company voted off the corporate island. This is a situation that we can fix, get rid of a lot of the security theatre and point B and C goes away.
I went through the backscatter while the TSA scanned my bags, one being a stylus with a substantial aluminum shaft. I was paranoid it would be deemed a weapon. During the screening, I witnessed a pregnant woman go through an examination.
I do not feel safer. In fact, my fear has shifted.
We should be very careful about "common sense" and screeners making their own minds up about things. It is far better that they follow a consistent set of rules. This for example is why the liquids rule is a good one from a screening point of view. There is no discretion left to the screeners and they don't have to entertain arguments about which liquids are harmless and which aren't, types of liquids, size of containers etc. Think carefully - do you really want each screener enforcing their own views? How trivial do you think they would be to outsmart by someone determined?
The American political system especially as espoused in the media where trivial things are inflated to make stories, there is relentless hounding of politicians who are rational, it is cheaper to have controversial talking heads instead of research and reporting, someone always has to be to blame, and issues are presented as black or white soundbites means that no politician can reasonably try to rein in the system or have detailed discussions on risks, spending, tradeoffs etc.
My dad was career miltary and so was my ex. I spent much of my life around environments where security was taken seriously. You just don't let kids goof off in such environments. Somewhat similarly, I also grew up with shotguns hung on the wall above my parents' bed. They were not loaded but there were two shells laying in the groove on the barrel so they could be loaded quickly if necessary. The rest of the ammo was locked up in dad's closet and kids did not go in dad's closet. Guns were not something children played with and there were no accidents because the adults in the house just did not allow it to happen.