November 18, 2010

"Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed.'"

Here come the lawsuits, riding on a wave of public emotion and credulity.

76 comments:

Fen said...

I shouldn't fly this year, at least not with my wife.

I could give a rats ass how they treat me, I'm a former Marine.

But they touch my wife the wrong way and I'll be in prison for the rest of my life.

Scott M said...

I think the great question is "what happens when they start swallowing or otherwise internalizing balloons filled with explosives?". What then, Big Sis?

Pogo said...

"Lawyers for the US Government confirm that the woman went through secondary screening but deny airport staff acted inappropriately."

That's what's most disturbing, to me.

They think everything they do is 'appropriate.' They see nothing wrong with a system that is simultaneously degrading and ineffective.

LarsPorsena said...

If they are really serious they are going to have to do cavity searches.

I hope you're not allergic to latex AA.

deborah said...

Aw, Fen's a sweetie.

I think it may have been in the comments here that one solution is to let the market deal with it. The consumer can choose which airline to use based on safety inspections. As the original commenter said, choosing the one with less stringent inspection will make flying an adventure.

Marshal said...

Services like security are best managed decentrally, by groups responsible for both security and service. By insulating these employees from resonsibility for anything but security, and further protecting them from failure and even disposing of common decency you've created a completely unworkable system.

There comes a point where your agency culture just can't be changed. Shut this down, fire everyone, and hand security back to the airports.

deborah said...

There are non-latex gloves available.

shoutingthomas said...

Once again, I'll state the obvious:

The airport security thing has turned into an hysteria.

You are more likely to die driving to the airport than as the result of a hijacking.

Go back to the old scanners.

Accept the fact that a free life entails risk. Tell the politicians to stop the cover your ass game and to talk sense about the reality of the risk.

TRO said...

If they did this the way it's reported they should go to jail and pay a boatload of cash. But we might want to wait until it's like, proved or something. Anyone can sue anyone over anything and we all know it.

On the other hand, lots of people claiming these things are happening, or worse than they actually are, and threatening to sue or file criminal charges against TSA employees, may just make TSA wake-up and stop this shit.

And that's a good thing.

tim maguire said...

I doubt there are any statistics to back this up, but the moment I heard about the naked scanners, I knew there would be a surge of beautiful young women "randomly" selected.

Virtually all electronic security is primarily a tool for geeks to check out women's breasts.

Fen said...

Aw, Fen's a sweetie.

Yes, I think we should profile.

Strip searching grandma is ridiculous.

TMink said...

Big sis says we should not object because these are standard law enforcement pat downs. But the people doing them are not law enforcement and air travelers do not show probable cause meerly by being air travelers.

This is Kabuki Security Theatre run by the Keystone Kop-a-feels.

Using a random sample of passengers, i.e. not profiling to reduce the N, renders the scans and pat downs useless. It does nothing to increase our safety.

Finally, this is the price of having people in charge who are more PC than intelligent. No Arabs are harmed of frisked in the making of these videos, and that is more important to the Obama bozos than keeping us safe.

The good news is that this may start a HUGE wave of the people telling the intrusive government to stfu. Getting them out of the lightbulb and toliet business will be next.

This could be the start of happy days.

Trey

Lem said...

Most airlines only allow one carry on ;)


crickets.

Move along, nothing to see here.

TRO said...

"Yes, I think we should profile."

Bbbbaaaddddddd, Fen. Bbbbaaaaddddd . . .

I agree.

MadisonMan said...

Pogo, what do you think they're going to say? Our employees were crude and deserve prison? Classic CYA statement.

JAY said...

And here we go...


Congressman John Mica helped create the Transportation Security Administration, now he is asking airports, including Minneapolis-St. Paul International, to consider using private screeners in place of TSA.



I think this woman should sue...

TRO said...

"No Arabs are harmed of frisked in the making of these videos . . ."

I'm guessing it's much harder to get a peak at boobies under a burka so we won't be hearing any Muslim women complaining about this.

Fen said...

I'm guessing it's much harder to get a peak at boobies under a burka so we won't be hearing any Muslim women complaining about this.

Ah thats the beautiful part - DHS is considering allowing anyone in a hijab to bypass the screening.

Madness.

JAY said...

Getting them out of the lightbulb and toliet business will be next.


It will never happen.

Ray LaHood wants to be in cell-phone disablement business:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said using a cell phone while driving is so dangerous that devices may soon be installed in cars to forcibly stop drivers — and potentially anyone else in the vehicle — from using them.

“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that,” said LaHood on MSNBC. LaHood said the cellphone scramblers were one way, and also stressed the importance of “personal responsibility.”



Got that?

They are going to forcibly stop you.

That's all they know how to do, command & control.

Pogo said...

"Pogo, what do you think they're going to say?"


"We take these allegations very seriously and are investigating her concerns."

No need to deny off the bat. How could they possibly have come to that conclusion so quickly? No way they did any sort of investigation already. It's obvious reflexive bullshit and only makes you look bad later when you're proven wrong. Terrible PR people at the TSA.

traditionalguy said...

There they go again...denying the truth as if that is all that they need to do. Where are we going to sue for redress when catching our plane is the goal and suing costs thousands of dollars. But these same politicallty correct creeps are the ones favoring putting on show trials of innocent Marines in a war zone just to improve PR with the locals. Why not treat the TSA like Earmark Murtha treated those heroic combat Marines.

Michael said...

I got in the wrong line and ended up being put in the scanner earlier this week. I was then told by a surly TSA person that I had to have the front of my right thigh and my "right buttock" patted down. The TSA guy felt the wad of money in my right pocket in front of my right thigh and asked me what that was. I pulled the money out and asked him if he wanted to inspect it. It was at this point that the uniform took hold, the guy stood up and inches from my face told me to "calm down." That's right people, calm down because we not only want to make sure you don't have anything dangerous concealed on you we also want to make sure you have the right attitude. I stared at this guy who kept saying "calm down". I did not blink. This he took as aggression on my part and then said that if I didn't "calm down" he was going to call a supervisor. I wish now that he had, but instead he proceeded to pat down my right buttock.

Giving high school graduates a uniform and the right to boss is a very very bad idea.

Pogo said...

Heckuva job, Barry!




I wonder if he misses W himself.

Lem said...

Oh please whatever you do this morning - please look at the picture Drudge has dredged up with a TSA agent making a pat-down look like hes delivering a baby from a man standing up.

Its hilarious.

master cylinder said...

Y'all sound downright un-American. We gotta do his or the terrorists have won, remember?

Fen said...

It was at this point that the uniform took hold, the guy stood up and inches from my face told me to "calm down." That's right people, calm down because we not only want to make sure you don't have anything dangerous concealed on you we also want to make sure you have the right attitude. I stared at this guy who kept saying "calm down". I did not blink. This he took as aggression on my part and then said that if I didn't "calm down" he was going to call a supervisor

Reminds me of my own security detail training: we were taught to cover our ass by telling the perp "calm down, I don't want to hurt you" as we bent his wrist back 90 degrees and took him down to the floor.

The words were not meant for the perp, but for any bystanders who might think we used too much force.

Pogo said...

Iowahawk has the TSA theme song: Comply With Me.

Fen said...

Libtard: Y'all sound downright un-American. We gotta do his or the terrorists have won, remember

Static Defenses are so lame. We could turn into a Police State and they will still get a WMD through.

Offense is best, but you Libtards don't have the stomach for it. So enjoy your little pat down bitch, because next year you'll be getting anal probes.

MadisonMan said...

We take these allegations very seriously and are investigating her concerns

Note that the quote is from Lawyers for the US -- not from managers who might have had that thought. (I sure hope they had that thought, but who knows).

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Clearly this is a woman who should not have had her top pulled down, and clearly people doing the job of security can behave unprofessionally. And why they're making her pull her shirt up in public is obviously fawed. (if she is suspicious they should whisk her into their back room where they conduct the more thorough inspections etc.)
BUT, by the same token, people often say they want the right people targeted and profiled. Suppose she was a SUSPECTED terorrist, or all the alarm bells went off that she was a suspicious character and then they pulled her aside and made her take her top off or had a more thorough search done on her. I certainly wouldn't mind that. Now, what if she MISTAKENLY triggered alarm bells, but was in fact innocent. These things can happen, just as people can be falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, falsely executed etc etc etc.
But again, the fact that someone who shouldn't be thoroughly searched was searched doesn't negate the idea that some people should be thoroughly searched.

So, if you're for profiling people smartly, and your profile causes you to take a person out of the line because they're suspicious are you going to refuse to lift her top off? Or conduct a body scan? Would the body scan negate the need to take the top off?

master cylinder said...

Fen, you used to support these kinds of measures, how can you explain your change in position?

Fen said...

cite?

I've always warned against static defenses in this war.

You find a quote from me that demonstrates what you are accusing me of, and I promise I'll respond to it in good faith.

Pogo said...

mc, that never happened. Show me a Fen quote otherwise, but good luck finding one.

never happened.

jr565 said...

Fen wrote:
Reminds me of my own security detail training: we were taught to cover our ass by telling the perp "calm down, I don't want to hurt you" as we bent his wrist back 90 degrees and took him down to the floor.


Perfect example of how something could be done excessively or wrongly by people in positions of authority. If this woman were grabbed by you and had her wrist twisted back and it turns out she was just some random woman, who for whatever reason turns out to have been determined to be a danger from security, wouldn't that be grounds for a law suit.
Would that negate the need to have you twist peoples wrists at certain times to take them down?
You might be able to find another way to take a suspect down that didn't require you to twist their wrist, but dollars to donuts it's going to cause them some degree of discomfort. But what if you're wrong in certain cases? Does that negate the need to have procedures to take down suspects?

Fen said...

are you going to refuse to lift her top off?

Same-sex screener, in private room with same-sex supervisor.

virgil xenophon said...

Unfortunately it is a fact of life--an occupational hazard, if you will--that ALL security personnel--police, TSA, FBI, whatever--eventually come to believe--even the best of them--that ANY questioning of their actions, no matter how polite, is an affront to their authority and a hostile, even hysterical act on the part of those being questioned, searched, etc.

MrBuddwing said...

Yes, I think we should profile. Strip searching grandma is ridiculous.

Every time I hear someone advocate racial/ethnic profiling at airports, I shake my head.

Why not put up signs that read: "ONLY YOUNG MEN OF MIDDLE EASTERN APPEARANCE WILL BE SUBJECTED TO RIGOROUS SCREENING. EVERYONE ELSE GETS A FREE PASS."

Do that, and I think I can promise that the terrorists will take full advantage.

"Strip searching grandma is ridiculous"? How about a pregnant Irishwoman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

Yes, very dumb of that El Al security screener to fixate on a young (white) woman like that.

Word verification: claringe.

Lucien said...

This is an article in an Australian newspaper about something that happened in 2008, right?

So it has nothing to do with any newly adopted security measures except for the timing of publication, right?

Although the new measures seem incredibly stupid, the underlying article has nothing to do with any fresh abuses, but shows how they could occur under the prior security regime.

I'm just sayin' . . .

Tregonsee said...

A few years ago, A beautiful, well endowed lady came out of a screening area at DFW. She bent over to put her shoes back on, and oops! Without missing a beat, as she tucked things back into her bra, she was heard to say "Some days are just better than others."

Fen said...

You might be able to find another way to take a suspect down that didn't require you to twist their wrist, but dollars to donuts it's going to cause them some degree of discomfort. But what if you're wrong in certain cases?

Interesting points.

Mine was just that a "calm down sir" from TSA when its not warranted should prick your ears up. You'll probably get taken down for "resisting" security.

So go through security in pairs, video each other to protect yourself.

master cylinder said...

Okay Fen, at least you are not shouting anymore, that was bugging me. The measures of which I speak are the legal invasion of our privacy started under Bush and continued under Obama.

Fen said...

Every time I hear someone advocate racial/ethnic profiling at airports, I shake my head.

Good, because its not racial/ethnic profilng that someone is advocating.

jr565 said...

Fen wrote:
Same-sex screener, in private room with same-sex supervisor.


Well that does make MORE sense. There is very little reason, especially if somoeone is going through a full body scanner to have to then take their top off, but if that is required there should be protocol to do so in private (just in case they are innocent OR they DO have a bomb or something, in which case get them away from the crowd). But even here there are problems.
What if the supervisor is a lesbian? or what if it's a male and the supervisor is gay? Then the same objections could apply.

Robert Cook said...

This what our "War on Terror" (aka "Terror War") has wrought; bend over and submit happily, war freaks...you got what you wanted.

jr565 said...

Lucien wrote:
This is an article in an Australian newspaper about something that happened in 2008, right?

So it has nothing to do with any newly adopted security measures except for the timing of publication, right?

Although the new measures seem incredibly stupid, the underlying article has nothing to do with any fresh abuses, but shows how they could occur under the prior security regime.


That is intersesting as it actually would suggest the idea of the full body scanners and the woman having her top taken off is a red herring. On one level, wouldn't the full body scanner negate the need to have certain people take their tops off?Maybe she had to take her top off BECUASE the airline didn't have full body scanners, and in that case security found a reason (right or wrong) to justify her taking her top off.
So, if we want to take this out of the TSAs hands and suggest that airlines should handle their own security, know there will probably come a time when some overly aggressive or prurient security guard determines that they need to pull someone aside and strip search them or take their top off.What then?
Again, the implication always boils down to "there should be no security". I know people will argue that that is not what they're suggesting. But any security worth it's salt will mean that the guards will be called upon to hold people who don't want to be held, inspect people who don't want to be inspected and take down people who don't want to be taken down. And they'll sometimes make mistakes about it.
Shouting Thomas wrote:

Accept the fact that a free life entails risk. Tell the politicians to stop the cover your ass game and to talk sense about the reality of the risk.
<br.
But couldn't you make the exact same argument about YOUR stance on overzealous security guards? How many millions of people go through airlines every year, and how many have to pull their tops off? .05%? So isn't that a pretty tiny risk. And one could argue, that if you want to fly you'll have to risk the potential overzealousness of inept security guards, so you should be able to deal with that risk as a free life entails risk. Or not fly.

jr565 said...

Robert Cook wrote:
This what our "War on Terror" (aka "Terror War") has wrought; bend over and submit happily, war freaks...you got what you wanted.

No, blame it on the terrorists. Until a terrorist put a bomb in his shoes I didn't have to take off my shoes. Until the terrorists flew planes into 9/11 we didn't have to worry as much about cockpit doors being locked. Wel we did, but people weren't paying attention.

E.M. Davis said...

This what our "War on Terror" (aka "Terror War") has wrought; bend over and submit happily, war freaks...you got what you wanted.

Perhaps things would be different if the first WTC bombing were successful, right?

(That was prior to this whole War on Terror/Terror War nonsense you speak of ... remember?)

LarsPorsena said...

Buddwing:

".."Strip searching grandma is ridiculous"? How about a pregnant Irishwoman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair"

Excellent example of behavioral profiling. Something the TSA should learn about but PC won't permit.

Maguro said...

Along with everyone else, I have a very poor opinion of the TSA but I find this a little hard to believe.

jr565 said...

Mr. Buddwing wrote:
Do that, and I think I can promise that the terrorists will take full advantage.

"Strip searching grandma is ridiculous"? How about a pregnant Irishwoman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

Yes, very dumb of that El Al security screener to fixate on a young (white) woman like that.


Agreed. What, terrorists can't be grandmothers? WOuld it be ok to strip search middle eastern looking grandmothers? What if they're hispanic or jewish, but look middle eastern?
Everyone arguing that we should profile (While right - we should profile) are missing half the equation. They're working backwards assuming that they know exactly what to look for and we should concentrate on that alone. And then we can strip search those people and apply wrist take downs and make them take their tops off or whatever needs to be done to deal with the REAL threats (as if those didn't also involve people being hurt, embarrased, intimidated etc) while letting the rest of the people go about their business.
Except, people can be suspicious and/or terrorists and not meet the profile or be innocent and not terrorists but meet the profile (like suppose a middle eastern guy has the same name as a terrorist on a watch list). And what if that innocent guy/gal who is suspicious enough to be profiled has his or her top taken off and is embarassed by security but turns out to be innocent? So again, the implication always becomes "there should be no security" because if any airline imposes any degree of security it will require in some cases to have security guards maintian security, and will even involve innocent parties getting unintentionally harrased for things they didn't do.
That is true today and that was true prior to 9/11.
As if,prior to the introduction of full body scanners or The War On Terror no one felt they were harrased by security at airlines. My ass.

jr565 said...

Robert Cook wrote:
Robert Cook wrote:
This what our "War on Terror" (aka "Terror War") has wrought; bend over and submit happily, war freaks...you got what you wanted.


If youre at work and complaining about how slow your computer is because of all the spyware on it, and complain about all the excessive safeguards put in place by IT (like you have to call the help desk to have your zipped files realeased to you, as opposed to having them simply mailed to you) do you blame IT, or do you blame the people who are constantly trying to find ways to cause chaos by writing worms that will destroy a companies data?
If assholes weren't constantly writing worms and viruses or trying to hack into networks IT woulnd't have to put up safeguards to deal with said attacks.
And saying we should just deal with the risk and do away with firewalls is not going to stop people from trying to get access to your network

Dudley Do-right said...

Checked through Ft. Lauderdale Tuesday AM and the TSA staff was ALL black. Did not see ANY TSA white folk in the considerable period I was there. Passengers being checked through were a normal mix of white, black and Hispanics.

Imagine the furor if a purely white staff were patting, scanning and humiliating "people of color". TSA is a jobs program for minorities. In fact, it may well be were Obama's Brownshirts will come from.


Dud

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagar said...

It has been suggested that the DHS's strategy is to make air travel so repulsive that the terrorists will avoid it.
Of course, the trouble with that theory is that so will the rest of us.

Joe said...

Put a bunch of dummies in uniform and give them power and nobody should be surprised when they act like thugs.

LarsPorsena said...

Help is on the way...the TSA is going to be organized by the unions.

It was cleared on Nov 12.


Another 50,000 unfireable government louts with one hand in your wallet and the other on your crotch.

holdfast said...

Re Hindawi - the bomb was caught because the El Al Security Guy questioned the female mule and asked intelligent questions. As soon as she mentioned that her boyfriend was an Arab, he profiled the sh*t out of her.

Ankur said...

Deborah, one of the big drivers of the airline industry is business travel. Unfortunately, business travel doesn't have a viable alternative to flying. Market driven optimization usually fails in a low-option situation.

I have to fly to phoenix tomorrow. I'll be happy to let the TSA people see me naked. Maybe I'll even give an elvis style thrust when passing through the machine. I mean, what other alternative do I have? I can't drive to phoenix for a 11 AM meeting.

Ankur said...

And, Deborah - the screening procedure is the same regardless of the airline. So, no, one cannot choose airlines based on screen procedure.

JAY said...

the screening procedure is the same regardless of the airline. So, no, one cannot choose airlines based on screen procedure.


It is going to be different based on airport:

Orlando Sanford International Airport has decided to opt out from TSA screening.

"All of our due diligence shows it's the way to go," said Larry Dale, the director of the Sanford Airport Authority. "You're going to get better service at a better price and more accountability and better customer service."


Interesting stuff

jr565 said...

holdfast wrote:
Re Hindawi - the bomb was caught because the El Al Security Guy questioned the female mule and asked intelligent questions. As soon as she mentioned that her boyfriend was an Arab, he profiled the sh*t out of her.

And in the case of a Richard Reid, he sailed through security and had to be tackled by a passenger while he was trying to ignite himself. Now, I hope you see the flaw in that security hole. It was simply blind luck that Reid was knocked down. What if he was surrounded by old ladies and the only one who was strong enough to take him down was three aisles away. Or what if terrorists get smart and book three rows of seats together so that there is no one in the immediate vicinity that can overpower the guy with the bomb because they have all the seats.

Surely there has to be more to airline security than,if the guy gets on the plane the passengers will tackle him.

Now lets take the idea about a shoe bomb. I've heard people argue that you would only do that once but never again, therefore it's not a realistic threat. That's only true, if people plug the security hole and start checking peoples shoes. So yes, now that they're checking shoes it makes it harder to put a bomb there, so those trying to plant a bomb will put it somewhere else, like say in their underpants.
But, suppose we stopped checking shoes. Woulnd't any terrorist know that you can now put a bomb in a shoe because they're not checking any more?

So then if you're suggesting that they shoulnd't make people take off their shoes because its a hassle, then aren't you acknowledging that there is a huge security hole that you refuse to address? How many times would someone have to get on a plane with a bomb in their shoe before someone said, hey you know we should probably check peoples shoes as terrorists are using their shoes as a way to bring bombs on board planes.
And what is the harm of checking your shoes? Yes, it takes a few minutes more and yes it's an inconvenience but so is being blown up on a plane.

Saying we will ignore security holes is not a good example of security. Same with a pat down or a grope. We've had pat downs for ages. Not for every single passenger, but certainly it shouldn't be outlawed as a means to secure a location especially on the grounds that someone feels their rights were violated. How many times have you haerd of someone getting weapons into a court room and then shooting up the place, And it usually occurs because someone didn't do the basics and pat someone down or make them go through a deterctor. That's not a civil rights issue, that's gross negligence. And the person who let the guy get into court with a gun would be fired.

jr565 said...

Jay wrote:

"All of our due diligence shows it's the way to go," said Larry Dale, the director of the Sanford Airport Authority. "You're going to get better service at a better price and more accountability and better customer service."


It doesnt' stand to reason that simply because it's a private company they will not grope customers or engage in security measures that wont be offensive to customers. And similarly there's no reason that the more lax security protocols will somehow produce more security. If they're not going to make passengers take off their shoes, for example, I'd have to then hear how they would detect a bomb in a shoe or deal with that threat before I could say not taking off your shoes was a better solution (for security purposes). It may very well mean they are overlooking a glaring security hole and are refusing to acknowledge it.

Michael said...

Ankur:

As someone who goes through airport security two to six times a week I think I have seen it all. I go through the routine because I have to. But what troubles me, saddens me actually, is the theater of it all, the fucking pomposity of these TSA jerks yelling out orders, droning on and on, and the chatting back and forth and laughing of the TSA people and the sheepishness of the travelers. It is bizarre, actually, astonishing that we submit to this stupidity. Any reasonable program could easily devise a way to randomly pick groups of people to skip the entire process. There are thousands of people who go through the airports every day who I would let through by giving them a quick look. I would be willing to stake my life and the people on whatever plane they are going to that they are no threat to anybody. Period.

By the way, why are we not screened as we come into the airports? What clever foreign bomber will pull the extra double secret plan of walking into a huge security line and blowing them all to fucking bits way, way before he gets to the "security" area?

Just Lurking said...

I would prefer to fly on an airline that used intelligent profiling, over one that does not. With intelligent screening procedures the likelihood that I will be unreasonably searched is reduced. The current brain dead process means there is a very high chance I will be groped against my will, since I am automatically labeled a terrorist suspect the minute I enter the security area. In the name of political correctness, everyone is deemed a terrorist suspect, because too many liberals can't understand what "profiling" means.

"Profiling" does not mean picking only "brown" people for searches. Profiling means picking suspicious people- like one-way tkt holders, or people with no luggage, people who are nervous, people wearing trenchcoats in the summer, people whose father have alerted the FBI that they may be carrying a bomb on a plane. People like that. If your brain automatically equates suspicious with "brown skin", then you are the bigot, not me.

The TSA did not stop the shoe-bomber or the undie-bomber. Profiling would have. The current TSA procedure will likewise not stop people with explosives hidden inside their bodies. Intelligent profiling might, since someone with explosives in their ass will probably look uncomfortable, to say the least. The current process is a dangerous farce.

Ankur said...

Just Lurking,

As a brown person living in America, I have never been profiled unfairly at airports - except once.

It was at PHX, a few years ago, when I was the only guy out of a line full of white people pulled out for extra search - AFTER I had already passed through security and was waiting to board.

I was a student at the time, in grad school. I had return tickets. All my luggage was checked, except my laptop bag (which had been screened at security). My name isn't a muslim name (its a hindu name), I was dressed in a dark suit and jacket and I was with a group of 4 other students(2 men, caucasian, and 2 women, caucasian) - we were all traveling back from a business plan contest in which we had just finished participating. We were all standing together in line, boarding. We were all dressed the same way - business formals.

I don't like to think that it was my skin color that got me singled out. But what else could it be? My foreign sounding name?

In either case, it has happened only once. It never happened before, it has never happened since. And when it happens, you just accept it as the reality of a post 9/11 world. I don't begrudge America the right to protect itself in any way it feels necessary. How could I, especially when I have been made to feel so welcome in every other instance?

Still, I'd be interested to know any other theories, aside from my color or my name that you might have that might explain why I was profiled.

Ankur said...

(Oh..I can assure you, I didn't have a nervous demeanour either. We were all atwitter because we had come second in the competition, and were thrilled)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Unfortunately, business travel doesn't have a viable alternative to flying. Market driven optimization usually fails in a low-option situation.

They will soon, I expect. Corporate jet service by subscription. Private jets. Pooled resources for smaller companies.

The regular business traveler can completely skip the TSA process.

The person with some wealth can also use these types of services.

The rest of the sheeple are screwed. However, that IS the plan, you know, to reduce the ordinary person to serfdom, restrict our freedom of movement, restrict our freedom of choices.

Ankur said...

Ooh - planepooling!

I like that!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It doesnt' stand to reason that simply because it's a private company they will not grope customers or engage in security measures that wont be offensive to customers.

Of course it does stand to reason that they won't do those things.

A private company and employees of such company, can be fired, replaced, disciplined. The private company is accountable to its employer and if they do not do a good job and if they receive complaints, they will be kicked to the curb.

The government goons, soon to be Unionized government goons, can't be fired and are accountable to NO ONE. They are generally under educated, sub par employees who couldn't hold a job in the real world's workplace. Goons who have POWER and have become petty tryants. They are worse than DMV employees because unlike the power mad bitches at DMV, the TSA people are free to grope and sexually molest you at will.

We have NO recourse with government unionized goons.

A private company will strive for excellence. The government employee doesn't give a crap and you can't do anything about it.

Just Lurking said...

Ankur;

I am a short, pale, redheaded middle-aged female, and was picked three times in row, over a two yr period, for enhanced searches. In each case I was traveling with my husband, who was not searched.

I didn't like it. I have a low tolerance for people invading my personal space. Which is why I stopped flying 5 years ago. I would get arrested if some TSA employee tried to grope me, since I would pitch a fit.

It is allegedly random, so that is probably why you and I were picked. But who knows? I don't understand the current system, or why people think it makes them safer. It is not based on intelligence; it is reactionary. It will likely not prevent another incident.

Ankur said...

Redhead, eh? Maybe they thought you were a part of the IRA.

Just kidding.

Yes, randomness is another (very valid) possibility. Yet, if you were the one brown person picked out in a line of 70 other white people - would your first thought be "Oh, its just random!"? Would you not wonder, even for a second, if it had anything to do with prejudice?

Just Lurking said...

Ankur;

I agree it is not unusual for people to suspect racial prejudice if they are singled out for a search. But what's the alternative- never select a person of the minority color in the line, for fear of hurting their feelings?

JAY said...

It doesnt' stand to reason that simply because it's a private company they will not grope customers or engage in security measures that wont be offensive to customers.

Actually, it does.

Private companies are subject to market forces.

I'd have to then hear how they would detect a bomb in a shoe or deal with that threat before I could say not taking off your shoes was a better solution (for security purposes).

How about we just agree you don't know much about airport security?

Why does anyone have to "explain" anything to you?

Just Lurking said...

The rest of the sheeple are screwed. However, that IS the plan, you know, to reduce the ordinary person to serfdom, restrict our freedom of movement, restrict our freedom of choices.

It does disturb me that women and children are now being conditioned to think that it's no big deal to be groped by govt employees. Idiots make jokes about "soothing pat-downs" .

Whereas if some poor slob so much as tells a raunchy joke at work he can be fired; or a father coaching little girls is in danger of being labeled a pedophile. Weird, huh.

AGS Direct said...

Women who have had breast cancer, and then various corrective or cosmetic surgeries that left them mutilated, can grow new, nice looking breasts using molecules taken from their own body fat.

http://health-informer.com/breasts-regenerative-medicine