This seems really inappropriate. How many times does it require a screener to find something that is not there versus feeling someone up?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tsa ... ca_canada&

Normally I don't comment on anything from the HuffPost nor do I criticize the TSA's but this is way beyond the norm. With the exception of the boy stripping naked, this seemed very inappropriate for the screening of a 13 yr old boy. Especially considering there wasn't many places to hide anything wearing just shorts and a t-shirt. I expect there will be a formal review/investigation of this employee because of this.

Yeesh. I'm glad I didn't watch that in public. I'm not even sure my girlfriend is that thorough.

While I agree it's somewhat difficult to watch... The full story is that a laptop set off the explosives detection machine. If the rule is to do a serious patdown in this type of case, I think we all should be in favor of it with regard to safety. I once had one of those wipes set off the machine and they gave me quite the patdown as well as went through every item in my bags. That's how it should be. We can't go down the slippery slope of making exceptions based on how people look if one of their items sets off the explosive sensor. Is it likely machine error 99.9999999999% of the time? Yes. But it's the 0.0000000001% of the time I'd like avoided.

chicawgo wrote:

While I agree it's somewhat difficult to watch... The full story is that a laptop set off the explosives detection machine. If the rule is to do a serious patdown in this type of case, I think we all should be in favor of it with regard to safety. I once had one of those wipes set off the machine and they gave me quite the patdown as well as went through every item in my bags. That's how it should be. We can't go down the slippery slope of making exceptions based on how people look if one of their items sets off the explosive sensor. Is it likely machine error 99.9999999999% of the time? Yes. But it's the 0.0000000001% of the time I'd like avoided.

I counted eight passes across the boys buttocks. Another eight (possibly more since people walked in front of the camera) across the boy's genitals. If it takes an agent that many times, they'd damn well better find something. It was highly inappropriate.

Didn't it take TSA 45 minutes to check their luggage (3 items) and that caused them to miss their flight as well.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Didn't it take TSA 45 minutes to check their luggage (3 items) and that caused them to miss their flight as well.

Were it me, I'd have accepted the baggage delay. If someone felt up my son like that, I'd need bail money.

chicawgo wrote:

While I agree it's somewhat difficult to watch... The full story is that a laptop set off the explosives detection machine. If the rule is to do a serious patdown in this type of case, I think we all should be in favor of it with regard to safety. I once had one of those wipes set off the machine and they gave me quite the patdown as well as went through every item in my bags. That's how it should be. We can't go down the slippery slope of making exceptions based on how people look if one of their items sets off the explosive sensor. Is it likely machine error 99.9999999999% of the time? Yes. But it's the 0.0000000001% of the time I'd like avoided.

I would happily take the 0% chance of being on a plane involved in a terrorist incident than the 100% chance of being at best inconvenienced and, at worst, violated, by TSA.

TransGlobalGold wrote:

chicawgo wrote:

While I agree it's somewhat difficult to watch... The full story is that a laptop set off the explosives detection machine. If the rule is to do a serious patdown in this type of case, I think we all should be in favor of it with regard to safety. I once had one of those wipes set off the machine and they gave me quite the patdown as well as went through every item in my bags. That's how it should be. We can't go down the slippery slope of making exceptions based on how people look if one of their items sets off the explosive sensor. Is it likely machine error 99.9999999999% of the time? Yes. But it's the 0.0000000001% of the time I'd like avoided.

I counted eight passes across the boys buttocks. Another eight (possibly more since people walked in front of the camera) across the boy's genitals. If it takes an agent that many times, they'd damn well better find something. It was highly inappropriate.

Please tell us what your max number is. Would 7 have been ok? 6?

It's not really the point of what I'm saying. My point is that when that sniffing machine detects explosives, it's a serious issue and the follow-ups become significantly more invasive. In my case, they brought me to a private room and I had to unzip my jeans so they could skim around the entire waist in addition to all the patting on front and rear side.

I would happily take the 0% chance of being on a plane involved in a terrorist incident than the 100% chance of being at best inconvenienced and, at worst, violated, by TSA.[/quote]

Trans,

first of all...language. Second, the point that Chicawgo was getting at is that it is a serious issue when the explosives machine goes off. It's always my fear, and the reason I always ask TSA to change their gloves. That detector says that the specific item may have been contaminated by explosive materials. Of course, it is usually a false positive (machine error, the person was fertilizing their lawn the day before etc...) but it's not worth the risk. That being said, I do think they went overboard but what would you want as an airline passenger if the explosive detector went off on someone who may be on a flight with you?

PresRDC wrote:

I would happily take the 0% chance of being on a plane involved in a terrorist incident than the 100% chance of being at best inconvenienced and, at worst, violated, by TSA.

How many terrorists have been prosecuted that were found by TSA? Zero?

Anyone that age that requires pat down should be escorted to private , out of public sight area with parent and supervisor present

PresRDC wrote:

I would happily take the 0% chance of being on a plane involved in a terrorist incident than the 100% chance of being at best inconvenienced and, at worst, violated, by TSA.

You are in favor of a zero percent chance? So do you always fly in a single seater? If not, the risk is non-zero.

But this isn't about absolutes. It's about balancing the need to make people feel safe against the systematic destruction of civil liberties. From your statement above, I understand you are willing to give up all of your liberties for an assurance of safety. Others place more value on their liberties.

enilria wrote:

PresRDC wrote:

I would happily take the 0% chance of being on a plane involved in a terrorist incident than the 100% chance of being at best inconvenienced and, at worst, violated, by TSA.

How many terrorists have been prosecuted that were found by TSA? Zero?

Meanwhile, how many guns, knives, boxcutters, etc. have made it through completely undetected? Having flown about nearly a million miles in the last ten years, I can say without hesitation that you have to be a special kind of weirdo/degenerate/loser to work for the TSA.

In a perfect world, we would profile these people instead of wasting time and money molesting lily white adolescent boys traveling with their mums on holiday.

But no, in our stupidly obsessive PC American culture, profiling is bad, and instead we allow these high school dropouts to freely feel up our children in the name of security.

Private room with parent and supervisor was the way to go here. Eight times is excessive for someone who's just wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

If the laptop set off the scanner, check the laptop eight times, not the little boy.

Parents will want to consider getting global entry or precheck. Not worth the hassle in some jurisdictions.

OK folks I apologize, I could have used a different word than I did in comment #11. This just really infuriates me because I have three grandsons around that age, and the action of the TSA agent was unacceptable, and no one can convince me otherwise.

777PHX wrote:

In a perfect world, we would profile these people instead of wasting time and money molesting lily white adolescent boys traveling with their mums on holiday.

But no, in our stupidly obsessive PC American culture, profiling is bad, and instead we allow these high school dropouts to freely feel up our children in the name of security.

Comments like this are why we can't have nice things.

ua900 wrote:

Private room with parent and supervisor was the way to go here. Eight times is excessive for someone who's just wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

If the laptop set off the scanner, check the laptop eight times, not the little boy.

Parents will want to consider getting global entry or precheck. Not worth the hassle in some jurisdictions.

Yeah where's the logic ? Why didn't the lap top get the heavy treatment ?

I can't see the problem with it from the video. The TSA agent seem to be explaining to the kid what is going on and the kid doesn't seem to care.

The mother would be better off worrying about the state of her own coronary arteries than something so trivial.

GBNWB wrote:

I can't see the problem with it from the video. The TSA agent seem to be explaining to the kid what is going on and the kid doesn't seem to care.

The mother would be better off worrying about the state of her own coronary arteries than something so trivial.

The article states the kid has sensory processing disorder. He likely didn't understand what was happening to him. The mother asked for a different method, and was denied. That's why we have video of a child getting more than a normal pat down. As others have said, they should have been looking at the laptop, not repeatedly touching the kid.

TransGlobalGold wrote:

OK folks I apologize, I could have used a different word than I did in comment #11. This just really infuriates me because I have three grandsons around that age, and the action of the TSA agent was unacceptable, and no one can convince me otherwise.

While you're certainly entitled to your feelings, being of grandfather age and using the words 'kid' and 'cock' in the same sentence is disturbing. Do you speak that way in front of your own teen grandsons? My guess is no, so you shouldn't do it here either.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

TransGlobalGold wrote:

OK folks I apologize, I could have used a different word than I did in comment #11. This just really infuriates me because I have three grandsons around that age, and the action of the TSA agent was unacceptable, and no one can convince me otherwise.

While you're certainly entitled to your feelings, being of grandfather age and using the words 'kid' and 'cock' in the same sentence is disturbing. Do you speak that way in front of your own teen grandsons? My guess is no, so you shouldn't do it here either.

No, I don't. It angers me because one has already been molested. I was angry and I vented, and I apologized. It doesn't deflect for the fact the kid was touched inappropriately.

JannEejit wrote:

ua900 wrote:

Private room with parent and supervisor was the way to go here. Eight times is excessive for someone who's just wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

If the laptop set off the scanner, check the laptop eight times, not the little boy.

Parents will want to consider getting global entry or precheck. Not worth the hassle in some jurisdictions.

Yeah where's the logic ? Why didn't the lap top get the heavy treatment ?

TSA has "standard" procedures but each airport employs them very differently. There was talk a while ago about moving to a standard pat-down technique regardless of gender or reason for it but my understanding was that nobody could agree on it. Also there seems to be confusion over what the proper policies are for each type of situation due to the number of briefs, revisions, etc. that are put out.

The laptop here certainly should have gotten more attention that than child in question.

The TSA needs to go.

You are supposed to have your choice of a private screening room or doing it out in public. Some feel being "inappropriately touched" by a person in power should only happen in private, others feel that doing it in a small room or in a lobby doesn't make them feel any better and shedding some light on the process is better in public.

Is this more invasive than others get? TSA reported recently that they would only use their most invasive (apparently they had 5 levels before) pat down procedure since they got caught letting weapons thru.

I have never seen anything like that in my life. I suspect filming this was in itself illegal but a well done from me for doing so. The agent really, really does appear to be feeling a kid up, it's pretty shameless IMHO. I had an older guy intentionally brush my cock at Prestwick a while back. We both know what he was up to but I got no comeback if I want to fly. It's really unpleasant to watch that vid.

Yeah, this looks neither good nor right. I actually had a similar issue leaving Hawaii in January. The sensor said my butt alarmed (go ahead, make 'yer fat jokes! ) so the TSA guy started patting me down. Okay, I think, no worries. Then, his hands went to my private areas. I actually jumped at that "touch" and almost asked if he liked gladiator movies (movie fans will get the reference). Seriously, I considered it but thought that that might cause more issues so I didn't. However, it seemed very unprofessional and far beyond what I've experienced before. In fact, it was pretty doggone close to what the boy experienced, albeit far, far shorter in duration. The difference was that I'm an adult and can probably handle things better than a child.

I tend to think that TSA, while it has an admittedly tough job, often creates more problems for itself than it needs to. Things that can be handled with a deft touch are often handled with a sledgehammer. There is also a problem with the sensors and scanners alarming with false positives. These things will happen, of course, but since the child and parent didn't wind up in the clink, it's certainly a case of the TSA's high tech machinery not working properly. There wasn't any explosive residue on the boy, and the laptop didn't explode, so... When the TSA's machinery doesn't work right, resulting in this serious of a personal violation, then there should some form of recompense. I'm just not smart enough to figure out what it should be.

Did start to wonder how many times the TSA guy needed to check.

Didnt look that bad to me, it was just very thorough thats all.

And then the flight attendant slapped someone in the face on the flight and both pilots were drunk. Please lets stop the sensationalizing!

My first thought was perhaps the adolescent was mouthing off, as they can, and TSA had to follow up on the response. But if the young man had some cognitive issue, perhaps there were questions he didn't understand, leading to more questions or vague answers.

And/Or, TSA overreached. I wasn't there.

As to the pat downs in general, they do have to sometimes ensure that is just -you- in there. On one of my recent trips, I was wearing new undies and could see on the scanner projection of my body that that region was completely blurred out in negative white by them. Odd.... some intensity issue with the fabric? Anyway, I got the pat down and, with apologies, he did have to pat down my front, but it was professional and not at all excessive. Evidently it didn't feel like anything other than what it should feel like, so I passed through.

I think the issue is procedures.

Shouldnt the thorough searches be done somewhere private with appropriate checks & balances like a supervisor being present? And especially when the "suspect" is a minor, there should be a parent accompanying as well.

chicawgo wrote:

While I agree it's somewhat difficult to watch... The full story is that a laptop set off the explosives detection machine. If the rule is to do a serious patdown in this type of case, I think we all should be in favor of it with regard to safety. I once had one of those wipes set off the machine and they gave me quite the patdown as well as went through every item in my bags. That's how it should be. We can't go down the slippery slope of making exceptions based on how people look if one of their items sets off the explosive sensor. Is it likely machine error 99.9999999999% of the time? Yes. But it's the 0.0000000001% of the time I'd like avoided.

No, you've got it the wrong way round. This is the slippery slope. I don't want to live in a world where it's OK to violate a kid to mitigate an infinitesemally small risk.

As someone who grew up in london in the 90s I'm tired of all this over reaction to everything. For instance, what happened in london last week was sad, but worse happened in the 90s and everyone kept calm and it wasn't treated as the end of days. Bit all this helps keep the security circus spinning...

If only the boy wore leggings... Than there would have been no need for a patdown.

Ok, I would normally stay out of these kind of topics but I cannot resist this one. As someone who was trained to be a law enforcement officer here in the state of Florida (though I opted not to persue the career) I can tell you that there are very specific and tactful ways that this should have been conducted. I'm sure we can all agree that it was the explosive sensor that went off, and that DOES warrant some level of additional, probably very thorough screening, yes? That being said I'm also fairly certain we can all agree that 8 go 'rounds of "patting down" was over the top. I would not have a problem with my child being screened BUT.. And this is a big but.. It absolutely should have been done in a private screening room.. If not for any other reason than this was a minor. I can also agree that during said screening, both parents and a supervisor should have been present. When I learned how to conduct bodily searches in the police academy, we were taught that as males, (my whole class was male) when searching/patting down a female, we should use the BACK of our hand near sensitive areas (e.g. groin). That technique should have definately been applied here as well.. I personally don't understand why that particular officer felt the need to check this poor child 8 times either. Or search their luggage 3 times. After one search each, I would have asked the child to step back through the detectors and done the same with the luggage.. If nothing came up, they would have been sent on their way. just my two pennies worth.

jco613 wrote:

Second, the point that Chicawgo was getting at is that it is a serious issue when the explosives machine goes off. It's always my fear, and the reason I always ask TSA to change their gloves. That detector says that the specific item may have been contaminated by explosive materials. Of course, it is usually a false positive

In 2014, we assessed screening peak flows and related staffing requirements for a client. False positive was the number one workload creator. Gloves should be replaced frequently, at least every 30 minutes.

Wingtips56 wrote:

I wasn't there.

I'm quite sure nobody posting on this thread was there. So take the comments for what they're worth. Still, I always find the internet tough guys to be good for a laugh.

Private room, with a supervisor present as well as the child's parent was the way to go here. C'mon, it's a child we are talking about. The TSA is bound to be in trouble over this.
Again, another sign that America is just paranoid about homeland security.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but mine is that this mother (and the media) is attempting to sensationalize on an incident that followed TSA guidelines to the book. Was it uncomfortable? Perhaps, but this is a different world now. You've got sick people trying to sneak bombs, knives, and firearms onto planes to do harm. Used to be that men would be more suspect, but terrorists now use women and children to carry out their dirty work. That's life. If you don't like or accept that reality, take the train or drive. Remember folks, TSA has to get it right EVERY TIME, while a terrorist only has to get it right ONE time. So instead of bashing TSA, NSA, etc., recognize that their job is extremely difficult. I'm obviously not saying that everything they do is right and that they never abuse their authority, but I do not believe this video falls under that category.

People suggest that special accommodations should be given to this family, but what are those accommodations? Is there another pat down that would have been less intrusive? This patdown took less than TWO minutes!!! The only reason they were at the checkpoint for 45 minutes is because the mother complained and tried to dramatize the situation. If we start carving out exceptions for individuals, then at the end of the day, those security checkpoints don't mean anything.

I had ACL surgery couple weeks ago and travel every week for work. I couldn't pass through the scanning machine b/c my knee brace would always set off the alarms and I would always be subjected to a personal pat down. I comply so we can all move on with our lives. Similarly, my 90-year old grandmother had to get out of her chair to get patted down, again, annoying? Yes, but that's the fact of life.

b777a340fan wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but mine is that this mother (and the media) is attempting to sensationalize on an incident that followed TSA guidelines to the book. Was it uncomfortable? Perhaps, but this is a different world now. You've got sick people trying to sneak bombs, knives, and firearms onto planes to do harm. Used to be that men would be more suspect, but terrorists now use women and children to carry out their dirty work. That's life. If you don't like or accept that reality, take the train or drive. Remember folks, TSA has to get it right EVERY TIME, while a terrorist only has to get it right ONE time. So instead of bashing TSA, NSA, etc., recognize that their job is extremely difficult. I'm obviously not saying that everything they do is right and that they never abuse their authority, but I do not believe this video falls under that category.

People suggest that special accommodations should be given to this family, but what are those accommodations? Is there another pat down that would have been less intrusive? This patdown took less than TWO minutes!!! The only reason they were at the checkpoint for 45 minutes is because the mother complained and tried to dramatize the situation. If we start carving out exceptions for individuals, then at the end of the day, those security checkpoints don't mean anything.

I had ACL surgery couple weeks ago and travel every week for work. I couldn't pass through the scanning machine b/c my knee brace would always set off the alarms and I would always be subjected to a personal pat down. I comply so we can all move on with our lives. Similarly, my 90-year old grandmother had to get out of her chair to get patted down, again, annoying? Yes, but that's the fact of life.

Well, the TSA kinda did do their job. But, hasn't every bomb threat against an American airline has been stopped by the NSA, CIA, FBI and such, like the plots after Philippine Airlines 434 against several American Airlines.