TSA calls a halt to child patdowns

By which, of course, I mean pat-downs. Because those six year old while girls are monsters, I tell you.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/06/23/tsa.patdown.change/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Ridicule it all you want, but if you are going to object to six-year-old girls being inspected because they are unlikely targets, you may as well protest the idea of airport security in general. It's not inconceivable that someone would hide a weapon or explosives in their child's clothes.

I agree with kashchei. It's not unheard of for terrorists to use children either as suicide bombers or to get weapons past security.

And if a pat down gets me past security faster than waiting ten minutes for the wriggly little bastard to calm down and sit still in the scanner, then I'm all for it :P

I'd prefer no pat down at all.

I'd prefer no planes to the patdowns.

But then I like a nice train ride.

I think we would be almost as safe if there was entirely no security at the airport.

Both the patdowns and the body-scanners are utterly unnecessary. Even the metal detector shouldn't be the main way to do this sort of thing. It's a combination of deliberate security theater and lack of Hanlon's Razor.

If child groping was indeed child sexual abuse, does that mean that they have no objections to sexually abusing adults?

<Mod Hat ON>

I've change the thread title to something less deliberately inflammatory.

<Mod Hat OFF>

Yeah, you'd think after it's been proven time and time again that these security additions at the airports haven't done a damn thing, they would stop wasting Billions (yes, with a B) of dollars a year on it. It's widely known to anyone who does even cursory research that they're not catching anyone and that the TSA is nothing more than "security theater" to make people feel better.

Take a look. This is what we're paying for. Ineffectual, invasive, expensive and time wasting.

It is, quite simply, absolutely ridiculous.

edited 23rd Jun '11 12:14:31 PM by deathjavu

I'm curious why the airlines haven't started complaining about it. The TSA is making them lose quite a bit of money, as passengers are not as willing to go through all the shenanigans in order to get from one place to another.

People wouldn't fly at all if they think it's not safe. (Sounds as plausible as anything else)

It is all a show, after all, designed to make people feel better about flying.

Even though it's many times safer than driving.

Oh, I know. It's just that we had metal detectors and bag checks pre-9/11, but it's been ten years since then, and security has only gone up. By now, most people are tired of waiting in longer lines to get patted down, since nothing else has happened since then.

@deathjavu: The Jihad thing is so, so wrong, but so hilarious.

As long as the pat-downs weren't crossing the line into invasive, I don't see all that much difference to adults being patted down. You think someone willing to hijack or blow up a plane is going to balk at putting a gun or a knife inside their son or daughter's clothes?

What I think is that someone aiming to hijack a plane (assuming that would still be a first-rate terrorists intended goal these days, and not, say, a second rate copycat who's been "inspired" by earlier hijackings), wouldn't have to bring anything onto the plane through a patdown. Throw something over the fence. Get someone on the inside working there. Use steel epoxy resin to make a knife.

Again, that's assuming they want to target an airplane again, rather than, say...an airport security checkpoint, where there's actually more people gathered in almost as confined a space.

Or some other large, public, under-secured event. Or critical infrastructure facilities. Or nuclear power plants. Apparently all the surprise undercover nuclear security checks they've run on the plants have resulted in a rather frightening degree of success by the infiltrators.

The point is, why would I even assume they're going to try the same thing again? And why would I invest in methods that have, thus far, according to pretty much any report, not stopped one single person?

edited 24th Jun '11 12:44:03 AM by deathjavu

Well, didn't take them long to go back on their word.

http://www.king5.com/video?id=125274814&sec=549122 (discussion on a TSA/civil-rights forum I helped start is here: http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?threads/6-year-old-patted-down-at-sea.390/)

And it's far from the only time they've blatantly abused the public: http://www.tinyurl.com/AbusedByTSA http://www.tinyurl.com/TSAHorrorStories http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?pages/tsa-abuse-master-lists/#BillFisher

TSA is a waste of tax dollars and an affront to the principle of freedom. No amount of safety is worth what they do. I'd rather have 911 9/11s every year than let them continue on the path they're currently taking. Some things are more important than security, more important than saving lives, and TSA either doesn't realize that or doesn't care.

I understand the desire to have peace of mind when traveling, I do. It's normal, it's reasonable, it's completely defensible. However, the problem is that we're operating under a paradigm of false dichotomies. It's not "mitigation of risk to a reasonable level," it's "WE HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE OR PLANES WILL EXPLODE LEFT AND RIGHT!" and the officials who are pushing that perspective are good enough at what they do to get a lot of folks to believe it. People were so hysterically afraid of another 9/11 happening that they were, and sadly still are, willing to tolerate just about anything to avoid it.

TSA's "enhanced patdown" regime for those who refuse body scans started last November. It's now July and only in the last month or so, since the story about the 95-year-old with the adult diaper, has public opinion really started to turn against TSA. I'm glad it is, but realistically speaking, this should've happened a LONG-ASS TIME AGO. What's the point of national security if you sacrifice the founding principles of the nation you're trying to secure in order to get it? All you end up with is "We'll destroy our OWN way of life so the terrorists won't be able to."

I'll get off my soapbox now, but TSA just really, really grates on my nerves.

Frankly, I'd rather be secure in the knowledge that there is no way in hell a bomber is going to get through. And even with draconian measures you still get fuck-ups.

I agree that if someone is willing to blow up a plane, they'll be willing to get hold of a six year old to help them do it. Pat-downs aren't pleasant, but would you prefer the alternative?

edited 15th Jul '11 6:39:55 AM by GameChainsaw

"What's the point of national security if you sacrifice the founding principles of the nation you're trying to secure in order to get it?" - celtic

More like sacrificing a few of them. Having a few arguably privacy-violating things would be justified by the cause of saving lives, especially when they're the lives of people who already have many other rights. Yeah, you claim that it's ineffective anyway, but really, I don't know who to believe on subjects like this.

Either way, of course, the point that terrorists often use children for their goals needs to be emphasized. Too often, people forget the nature of the enemy we're up against here.

"It's worse over there" - the oldest line of tyrants.

Anything taken to extremes becomes a problem. We can talk platitudes all day. I don't see how having to be subjected to a search to avoid bombs getting onto planes classes as a gross breach of freedom.

edited 15th Jul '11 6:54:16 AM by GameChainsaw

I think saying that more 9/11s is a reasonable price to pay is rather overboard. I will never understand how some people can think that their dignity is worth sacrificing other people's lives for.

edited 15th Jul '11 6:55:00 AM by LoniJay

http://www.slate.com/id/2275448/

Evidence seems to indicate that TSA is only effective at catching disorganized loonies who don't stop to formulate a plan before going through airport security. As such, I don't think that the TSA's existence can be easily justified, not only because of the violation of privacy/freedom involved, but more importantly, because of the atmosphere of fear and distrust that it engenders.

Keep in mind that removing TSA entirely would not mean the removal of all airport security measures.

edited 15th Jul '11 7:01:15 AM by Karkadinn

I can't understand what the fuss is about - how comes that a body search qualifies as breaking of privacy? From what I've heard, the kid refused to go through the scanner. I would find that very suspicious, to be honest. If that's true, than it's the fault of the girl and her parents. Show respect to the security procedure or, at least, the other people waiting.

"I agree that if someone is willing to blow up a plane, they'll be willing to get hold of a six year old to help them do it. Pat-downs aren't pleasant, but would you prefer the alternative? "

Actually, yes I would.

Hear me out for a sec...

Harm done by a hostile entity is unfortunate and sad. It is cause to grieve, to mourn, to shed tears and try to right wrongs.

Harm done by one's own government, under colour of protecting the people it's abusing, is insidious and sickening. It is far worse than damage wrought by an invader or attacker, because it is characterized by betrayal. Put simply, TSA, DHS, the US Fed Gov, wherever you elect to focus, has betrayed the trust of the people by instructing its official actors to treat the traveling public the way they are. Issues of effectiveness aside for a moment, even if these measures keep the people safe, it's essentially a safe life in a cage that is being achieved, rather than lives of freedom with the inherent risk mitigated to reasonable levels.

Do I advocate doing away with airport security entirely? No, of course not. 10 Sep. 2001-styled landside security, plus locked & reinforced cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to fight hijackers to the death, is the right balance of security. Walk-through metal detectors, supplemented by handheld metal-detector wands and light, cursory, targeted patdowns only in those instances where wands fail, and limited only to the regions whereat the wands alarm, is able to provide reasonable security for minimal investment with known, tried-and-true technology. It does not violate 4th-amendment protections against warrantless searches, it does not constitute sexual assault, and it does not have untested, unknown health effects.

Am I saying that I flat-out want more 9/11-type incidents to happen? No, of course not. But given the "there is no option C" choice between sporadic terrorist attacks that succeed or pervasive security screening that violates the rights of the people and is perpetrated by the very government tasked with preserving those rights, I'd take the attacks. At least we can respond to those without "We have seen the enemy, and he is us." Would I rather have neither one - no attacks and no screening? You bet your ass. Seems that the world doesn't work that way, though, and I'm of like mind with some people 235 years ago who decided that their freedom was more important than their lives.

edited 15th Jul '11 7:52:49 AM by celticwhisper

A harmless, gentle patdown is not harming anybody!