×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

TSA Defends Pat Down of 4-Year-Old Girl

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the child-ticket-for-security-theater dept.

Transportation 1174

cosm writes "With public outcry against the TSA continuing to spread, the TSA is defending a recent episode in which a four-year-old was patted down while kicking and screaming at Wichita Airport in Kansas. From the AP article: 'The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1174 comments

Of course. (5, Interesting)

NeverSuchBefore (2613927) | about 2 years ago | (#39805183)

Otherwise, despite increased cockpit security and civilian awareness, we'd all die from terrorist attacks! That's why you must surrender your privacy in exchange for the all-important security theater like a good citizen would do. Otherwise, you're just a terrorist!

Re:Of course. (5, Funny)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about 2 years ago | (#39805203)

Personally, I'm at the point where I'd rather take my chances with the alleged terrorists than the TSA.

Re:Of course. (5, Insightful)

anomaly256 (1243020) | about 2 years ago | (#39805283)

No shit. I can promise you right now if anyone ever did that to my daughter they wouldn't be breathing for long after. TSA, cop, a judge, The Pope, The Queen, I don't really care who it is they would be dead before they hit the ground. Duress is applicable when it's your child being attacked and molested.

Re:Of course. (5, Insightful)

Oswald (235719) | about 2 years ago | (#39805503)

This +5 Insightful communication operates at pretty much the same level as my dogs' communication when they see a stranger out the front window. The bad news: you're not as tough as you think you are. The good news: you're probably not as reckless and violent as you want to think you are, either.

Here's hoping it's all fantasy, and you don't actually have a daughter to expose to these kinds of "Insight".

Re:Of course. (5, Insightful)

anomaly256 (1243020) | about 2 years ago | (#39805535)

Do you have children? I'm guessing not. When someone grabs at your child wanting to touch them all over, adrenaline and rage take over all cognitive function and I doubt any TSA rentacop has reflexes to reciprocate.

Re:Of course. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805509)

Big jaw until you're in that situation. You'll be cuffed so fucking fast you won't know what hit you.

Re:Of course. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805539)

sure thing, internet tough guy. whatever you say.

Re:Of course. (3, Insightful)

benito27uk (646600) | about 2 years ago | (#39805425)

Whilst the story in itself is deeply distressing, so are some of the comments from the Washington Post's article on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/grandma-tsa-agents-forced-crying-4-year-old-to-undergo-tsa-pat-down-at-kan-airport-after-hug/2012/04/25/gIQAojLohT_allComments.html?ctab=all_&#comments [washingtonpost.com] One prime one being: "In this case, however, the child had completed screening but had contact with another member of her family who had not completed the screening process. This absolves the TSA entirely. I do not want ANYONE (muslim or christian or young or old) passing through a checkpoint after making contact with an unscreened passenger."

Re:Of course. (4, Insightful)

anomaly256 (1243020) | about 2 years ago | (#39805485)

Astroturfing, I'd wager

Re:Of course. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805523)

That's depressingly naive of you. Do you really think that there aren't people who are comforted by this show of security theater?

Re:Of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805207)

Perhaps the terrorists has won, but aside from the panic attacks i get in airplanes now (not from fear of another 9/11 but from the buffalo incident where the plane literally just fell from the sky without hope), the TSA is why I do not fly anymore, and never again plan to unless absolutely necessary.

sad really, because i'd like to visit some countries in europe again.

Re:Of course. (1)

MDillenbeck (1739920) | about 2 years ago | (#39805269)

I'm curious if this level of search is unique to US airports - do you know? After all, I may consider taking a bus or train up to Canada or down to Mexico and fly from there - but if this new level of invasive "security" is universal, then I might as well not bother...

Re:Of course. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805303)

TSA is a US thing.

Re:Of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805365)

That's why us terrorists only take international flights now - Mexico to New York for example.

TSA is just BS to keep you thinking there is more of a threat now, a population in fear is one under control.

Re:Of course. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805423)

I don't know about Mexico, but my experience driving into Canada for a weekend trip was worse than anything I've been through at the airport. The Canadian immigration and customs searched my car and luggage thoroughly, questioned me for an hour about what I was doing and asked me to provide all kinds of documentation showing I had a job in America and was currently working. They made me show them my badge for my job, then weren't satisfied because the badge doesn't show the city I work at, so they made me get my laptop and show them the weekly reports I write. Then they didn't seem to understand that even though I'm based in Atlanta, I drive all over the Eastern US for my job and was working in Buffalo, NY for a couple of weeks. I don't know why that concept was hard for them to understand, but they just didn't get it. At one point the lady questioning me accused me of having and attitude and threatened to kick me out of the country. Out of all the countries I've been to, Canada was by far the worst to get into.

Re:Of course. (4, Informative)

Benaiah (851593) | about 2 years ago | (#39805447)

Well I have traveled Domestically from australia and internationally to places such as the UK recently and not once have i seen a security employee pat someone down. At one airport their was a spread leg station where you had to stand on a platform spread eagle while they wanded you but thats it. Oh and for a while there they were really anal about you taking liquids on the plane... Every person I know who has travelled to the US has nightmare stories about hour long queues at security and missing transfers due to having their entire luggage emptied for them.

Re:Of course. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805541)

I live in Canada and travel to Europe several times a year. The security is not as bad here. Also the security employees seem human, not like soulless Nazis from an American WWII film. It's really much better.

I have followed the topic of the TSA very closely (as well as other abuses of rights in the US) and trust me, you should really worry about what your government and authorities are doing, because this stuff is not happening in Canada or Europe (except for the UK perhaps).

Re:Of course. (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about 2 years ago | (#39805289)

fell from the sky without hope

Well considering the pilots in that case did all the wrong [usatoday.com] things I'd say it wasn't hope but stupidity that caused that crash. You're more likely to die from a defective plane or a pilot either lacking training or sleep.

Re:Of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805305)

Travel by car to Canada or Mexico and fly from there. That way you have a roadtrip accross the US and a nice european vacation. Win-win, I think.

Re:Of course. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805213)

It's not making the likelihood of attack decrease, it's just moving the crowd (target) out of the plane and into the queue for security.

Re:Of course. (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39805251)

Terrorists, as the name implies, operate more on the psychological impact of what they do than the physical impact. Hijacking a plane and then crashing it wherever they want has a significantly higher psychological impact on the populace than just bombing an airport (not to say that doesn't have an impact, just less of one). So even if that were the only effect, it'd still be disincentive for a terrorist act because they have limited resources and need every strike to count for it to be effective. However, the TSA has an abysmal record of preventing people that should be suspects from getting on the plane anyway.

Re:Of course. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805373)

Terrorists, as the name implies, operate more on the psychological impact of what they do than the physical impact.

I travel a lot less than I did before TSA showed up. I grew up in an age when "nobody can touch you there without your permission, and if they do, you fight them. You kick, you scream, and you keep fighting until you get help".

Todays parents have to teach their kids "nobody can touch you there without your permission unless they have a cute little patch [sodahead.com] on their shoulder. You can fight the priest if he does it. But not the people at the airport. You can't even call for the policeman who's standing 20 feet away to help you. You have to let them do it". I loved America when it was free. I'm looking to emigrate.

Explain to me again, who are the terrorists?

Parody from pre-2010: My First Cavity Search: Ages 6 and up [thegatewaypundit.com] .

Reality in 2012: Four year olds. Four year olds, dude.

Re:Of course. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805217)

You're defending the terrorists, so YOU must be a terrorist too!

Re:Of course. (3, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#39805417)

Exactly.
Terrorists are no longer welcome on our airplanes.
If you really want to terrorize people that badly, go join the TSA!

Re:Of course. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805445)

I guess Americans must enjoy being victimized by the TSA, otherwise somebody would have done something more than protest by now..

LOL! American Freedom! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805195)

LOL! American Freedom!

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805307)

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

- Kris Kristofferson -

They called her an :uncooperative subject" (5, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about 2 years ago | (#39805211)

No shit! I honestly don't know of ANY 4 year old that's going to be graceful and cooperative about being taken away from a family member and groped. Sorry, this isn't some sicko loli fantasy. This is real life with real people, and some real perspective needs to be acquired here.

Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" (4, Informative)

mea_culpa (145339) | about 2 years ago | (#39805267)

I just wish there were a candidate for president running right now that would actually do something about it.
Oh wait.

Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" (1)

laffer1 (701823) | about 2 years ago | (#39805367)

Both parties benefit from security theater and the small parties can't win now. We're stuck.

Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" (5, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#39805379)

There are several, unfortunately none of them belong either of the 2 parties that the media have deemed worthy of the office. So you'll never hear about them.

Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" (1, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#39805521)

Yeah, and if that same candidate also had a sound monetary and economic policy and a sound foreign policy, he would be the top choice of all of the voters regardless of their party denomination.

Oh wait.

My 2 cents (5, Insightful)

JasoninKS (1783390) | about 2 years ago | (#39805219)

Could we please shut down this joke of an organization? How many stories do we have to hear like this? Frankly, if you touch my daughter and yell at her like this I'll have you arrested for indecent liberties with a child, abuse of a child, and I'll do whatever I can to have you listed on every sexual predator website I can find and basically I'm willing to destroy your life. If a parent acted like this they'd be arrested and the kids taken away. But because "Floyd" watched a 15 minute instructional video, he gets a cardboard badge and the ability to make up any rules he wants and doesn't have to tell anyone what the rules are.

Re:My 2 cents (5, Insightful)

timlyg (266415) | about 2 years ago | (#39805319)

The very existence of TSA proves the victory of OSAMA. I'm sorry to say this, but it's true.

Re:My 2 cents (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805357)

Frankly, if you touch my daughter and yell at her like this I'll have you arrested for indecent liberties with a child, abuse of a child, and I'll do whatever I can to have you listed on every sexual predator website I can find and basically I'm willing to destroy your life.

Sorry, can't be done, others have tried (do a search on TSA abuses of children). The only reason these clowns get away with this crap is that we continue to allow it happen by not demanding congress get rid of them. Since they are "government agents" they are immune to a wide variety of offenses. Congress keeps threatening to strip them of their immunity, but as far as I can tell it is just election year "democracy theater" and my guess is nothing will actually be done until there is a massive public outcry or armed rebellion.

Re:My 2 cents (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805457)

Posting as AC because I've been modding.

Sorry, can't be done

Since they are "government agents" they are immune to a wide variety of offenses.

No, this is incorrect.

When a police officer for example acts outside his professional role, his immunity evaporates.

The Congressional members themselves, according to the Constitution:

Section 6. Clause 1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

So they cease to be immune in cases of Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace. When they blather on about supposed immunity of federal agents whose office isn't even provided for in the founding documents, you have a clear argument for felony fraud and racketeering, if not treason. Same goes for any other official covering for them.

The underlying problem has been the apathy of the People, tolerating any old excuse from government officials to justify clearly unconstitutional practices. It's now become commonplace, and it's still wrong as it ever was. As this four year-old girl is finding out, along with those who read about her encounter.

  Congress keeps threatening to strip them of their immunity, but as far as I can tell it is just election year "democracy theater" and my guess is nothing will actually be done until there is a massive public outcry or armed rebellion.

Re:My 2 cents (2)

netsavior (627338) | about 2 years ago | (#39805493)

I think the average slashdotter can do more to defame a person online than the average news organization. Really if I was that mad and I knew the person's name, I could really toe the law making their online presence one of shame and warning.

The TSA (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39805223)

The TSA... where the agents are pedophiles, the supervisors are thieves and the ones pointing out flaws in the system are unemployed.

Re:The TSA (4, Insightful)

MDillenbeck (1739920) | about 2 years ago | (#39805287)

I was going to say that any other person trying to pat down a 4 year old would be considered a child molester...

Re:The TSA (4, Insightful)

Zsub (1365549) | about 2 years ago | (#39805411)

And this is your mistake, see. You should consider any person trying to pat down a 4 year old a child molester. Any mistake to do so results in news like this.

Missing the key (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805309)

the agents are pedophiles, the supervisors are thieves and the ones pointing out flaws in the system are unemployed ...and the architects are multi-millionaires.

Re:The TSA (1)

Kierthos (225954) | about 2 years ago | (#39805439)

And hey, they're 'stopping terrorists' but they're letting drug dealers right on through! [nwsource.com]

Of course, it says something that the only reason the authorities found out about this going on was that one of the drug couriers was too friggin' stupid to go to the terminal with the bribed TSA agents.

On the plus side (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 2 years ago | (#39805245)

Now that US airports are treating their own citizens as badly as they do foreigners, they can no longer be accused of being racist.

Re:On the plus side (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805403)

I'm guessing you don't actually understand the term "racist".

Security Theater (5, Insightful)

CyclistOne (896544) | about 2 years ago | (#39805249)

It's been said before but it bears repetition, the TSA is security theater, that's all. And all paid for with our tax dollars. We are a nation of sheep.

Good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805257)

Do this to everybody who's one of the "but it keeps us safe", particularly the red staters. It's all well and good to vote laws that affect others - they should suffer the same as "them".

What is it? (1)

Buchenskjoll (762354) | about 2 years ago | (#39805261)

Please excuse my ignorance, but what does "patted down" mean?

Re:What is it? (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39805281)

The agent takes you out to see a movie, buys you dinner and then gets frisky. Without the movie and dinner.

Re:What is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805353)

Going to second base.

"Just let strangers touch you, honey" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805263)

Ok, the new paradigm has arrived and we all need to teach our kids and grandkids that it is OK if strangers touch you...even "down there" because it's for the good of the country.

Re:"Just let strangers touch you, honey" (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805363)

Spread your legs for your country, little girl.

Little brat (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805275)

I'm sorry, there's no reason why a child shouldn't be subject to being checked just like everyone else. People (adults) have been known to use kids as mules for transferring all sorts of stuff that would be illegal. I'm all for protecting our civil liberties, but I'm perfectly fine with TSA pat downs and screening. I don't see how my civil liberties are being violated when boarding a plane; everyone should have the same equal protections and confidence that each and every passenger is not going try and hurt anyone on the plane.

Re:Little brat (5, Insightful)

NeverSuchBefore (2613927) | about 2 years ago | (#39805321)

I don't see how my civil liberties are being violated when boarding a plane; everyone should have the same equal protections and confidence that each and every passenger is not going try and hurt anyone on the plane

You don't see how civil liberties and privacy are being violated when you're forced to be patted down and searched when trying to travel?

If you're so scared of terrorists, never leave your house. There is no right to feel safe at the expense of everyone's freedom and privacy. Not only that, but increased cockpit security and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings is more than enough.

Re:Little brat (1)

anomaly256 (1243020) | about 2 years ago | (#39805339)

Yeah because drug mules so often try to hijack airplanes instead of trying to lay low and not attract attention to themselves. Also a gropedown doesn't detect internal objects, which is how said drug mules do it - swallowing condoms of substance. Any other method gets picked up by dogs pretty damned quick

Re:Little brat (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805349)

People have been known to mule all sort of things up their assholes and vaginas. Therefore, everyone should get a free cavity search (women get a two-for-one of course) before being allowed through security. As long as EVERYONE is probled I don't have a problem with it. This should of course also include staff. Get up in there and have a good feel'around!

Re:Little brat (1, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | about 2 years ago | (#39805473)

You are less than human. You are like the dog shit that gets stuck between the ridges on the bottom of my shoe. Read the damn article. The TSA agent was yelling at the little kid causing the problem in the first place. People like you make me sick. You think that just because there's a security protocol people stop being human beings? I guess your plan would be to explain to the 4 year old about the birds and the bees with a nice little pedobear patdown? Get a life scumbag.

Re:Little brat (2)

davmoo (63521) | about 2 years ago | (#39805529)

I realize this quote is way overused these days, but its worth repeating here. Ol' Ben Franklin said it best..."Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

... because terrorrists don't have children. (-1, Troll)

agentgonzo (1026204) | about 2 years ago | (#39805279)

Seriously. Just because the child is young and grandma makes an emotional plea we should let her go through security checks unimpeded? I know that TSA-bashing is en-vogue at the moment but if you just let everyone under a certain age go through without security checks then the terrorists will quite quickly cotton on to this fact and start using children as mules for the security checks.

Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805313)

So what? The cockpit door is locked and the rest of the passengers won't let anyone hijack the plane anymore anyway.

Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805317)

You should RTFA which you clearly didn't.

It's not a case of never screening children. The child had passed the metal detector once, but after that she had contact with her grandmother who hadn't been screened yet, so she had to be screened again. For some reason just sending her through the metal detector again wasn't enough, which makes no sense as it was clearly good enough the first time.

Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805327)

Are you fucking retarded or something? Do you really believe that?

Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. (3, Insightful)

TonyJohn (69266) | about 2 years ago | (#39805335)

Read the article. The complaint (at least from the family) is about the manner in which the agents approached the task rather than the task itself.

Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805341)

How about using just a modicom of common sense. As in re-screening the little girl after grandmother is cleared, using the first method non invasive message?

Or a bit of common sense and screenign the grandmother and letting them go their marry way? After all it's just a little bit unlikely that they could transfer a device capable of bringing down a plane between the two of them in a brief hugging episode?

Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805351)

No, you just put a lower age limit on aircraft passengers. Babies and young children can be very disruptive to other passengers - babies crying and young children getting bored at having to sit in their seat during the journey. So if they wish to travel, go by car or ship or perhaps train (though even on a train, children can be disruptive).

Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 2 years ago | (#39805407)

You're right, there is historical precedent for using little kids with grenades and similar incidents. I believe the concern in this case was that the woman might have passed the child a gun or something to try to evade the screening. The question here is why the TSO does not have the initiative or leeway to make a judgement call about a situation before it escalates into a scene where they threaten to shut down the airport because of a crying child. Security doesn't come from a bunch of rigid bureaucratic rules, it comes from an exercise of intelligence, observation, and experience. If the rules are the only thing that matters then those terrorists will just exploit the inevitable gaps. There's already plenty of holes in the procedures. And as other have pointed out, a security measure does not have to be applied 100% of the time in all situations to be effective, it just has to be likely enough to interfere to force the plotter to try something else. There aren't enough suicide bomber volunteers that they can afford to gamble on a security measure that is merely inconsistent.

This doesn't seem that bad IMO... (0, Troll)

Nailer235 (1822054) | about 2 years ago | (#39805295)

I'm normally as anti-TSA as they come, but I actually think that this patdown was more reasonable than the title suggests. From what I can gather about the facts, first the little girl went through security. Then, while the grandmother was waiting to get a patdown, the little girl ran up to her grandmother and hugged her. That seems like it would be a pretty damn good way to pass off contraband. I mean, I understand that this WAS a four-year old girl getting a patdown, but you have to remember that this four-year old girl was traveling with an adult who had control over her. It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which terrorists use children as mules. I think that this case is an example where the TSA actually did their job properly - some TSA agent noticed something that to the untrained eye would have been an ordinary hug, but very plausibly could have been a pre-planned ploy to sneak contraband into the airport. Maybe the TSA could have approached the child more reasonably and given her more time to cool off, but overall I think that a patdown was justified.

Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... (1)

eddy (18759) | about 2 years ago | (#39805369)

It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which terrorists use children as mules.

Blink [schneier.com]

Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805375)

You've got to be kidding....

You're actually trying to excuse this because she "might have been handing off contraband" to her grandma?

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

What kind of contraband could possibly be worth groping a four year old girl? What is wrong with you?

Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... (-1)

Nailer235 (1822054) | about 2 years ago | (#39805459)

No, her grandma might have been handing off contraband to her (not the other way around). I don't know how much familiarity you have with airport design, but I'm a business traveler and know how these things look. They're typically designed such that the patdown area is the last point of security - that is, after the patdown zone, you basically walk right into the terminal. If someone manages to have contact with a person in the patdown zone, they could easily sneak items past security. This is very poor design and SHOULD be changed. But, from the TSA officer's perspective, that's the design that's there and under these circumstances suspicion seems reasonable. As I said, I'm normally as anti-TSA as they come (and I think that security is too regulated to begin with), but with that said in these circumstances the TSA officer had a valid reason to be suspicious. PLEASE NOTE that I can't say whether or not the patdown went too far (I simply don' t know) - I'm just saying that at least some form of pastdown was justified.

Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805451)

No.
Just no.

If we've really gotten to the point where our fear justifies injustices such as these, the terrorists have been more successful than they ever dreamed.
The TSA has been proven ineffective. The methods and technologies they employ to "protect us" by invading our privacy have proven ineffective. Why is this still a discussion?

Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805453)

'Pass contraband'. But why go through all that trouble when you could just... I dunno, just use TSA employees directly [go.com]

Look, In all seriousness, how do we shut these guys down, defund them, stop these asinine patdown procedures, -anything-. I have yet to hear -one- single good story about anybodys experience with these goons, and that's not a good sign about how this agency is being run. Theft of equipment, drug dealing, molesting children 'in accordance with policy', it all smacks of an agency running by the seat of their pants and at the very least having some very bad employee screening processes, let alone with the main issue of violating our freedom to be secure in our persons and free from (what is without a doubt!) unreasonable search (and seizure).

Ridicurous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805301)

I'd compare this to disproportionate use of military force. You don't need a carrier strike group against a suspected row boat attack. Clearly their focus is on harassing citizens in stead of real threats. I wouldn't be surprised if the next 4 yo to be patted down smacks the TSA agent in the face and is charged with assault and interviewd under the spot lights.

They have won (5, Insightful)

MDillenbeck (1739920) | about 2 years ago | (#39805329)

I think the terrorists have gotten more then they have lost. We live in fear, giving up our rights and freedoms in order to gain the illusion of "security". Then again, this is a police state's wet dream - a passive, docile, and accepting population who never question. (Meaning population as a whole, we know there are plenty of individuals and small organizations that do question the state.)

Re:They have won (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#39805433)

OBL himself stated in interview WAY before 2001 that the US was too big to attack directly, and must be destroyed from within. Bush on his big boat with the "Mission Accomplished" banner was just a joke; OBL was "Mission Accomplished" on 12/09/2001.

You're an ignorant fool if you think otherwise.

So just hide weapons on children (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805333)

Yes it's sad that she cried and the TSA could properly have done it better.
But of course kids have to be search as well.

If not then you could just hide weapons and explosives on kids and take it after your passed security check.
Terrorist are not stupid and would find that security hole fast. And use it. If needed.
And kids trust there parents and will do what they tell them to. So they can not see if it's wrong or not to carry illegal stuff true security

May we not drop this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805347)

with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect

"Let us not assassinate this lad further...; you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
- Army counsel Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, June 9th, 1954

TSA is a 100% failure (4, Interesting)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | about 2 years ago | (#39805361)

The only agency with a well known 100% failure rate. 100% of the terrorist that we know of that tried to get through TSA security were able to get through and detonate their devices. The TSA's response is to add proven useless and potentially deadly scanners, and create new checkpoints at highway and post offices. These people are worse than useless. They take from the tax payers on so many levels that the monetary loss is the least of our concern. Give us our freedom back you assholes.

Slashdot: Whining About the TSA All Day (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805415)

Oh look, another story about how shitty the TSA is! That's why I read Slashdot you know, to get all the latest stories about awkward pat downs!

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805431)

Gangs use little kids to commit crimes all the time (drug dealing, stealing, b-and-e, etc.). But I'm supposed to believe what a bunch of liberal lemmings' looking for a fight with the government have to say - that terrorists have such superior morals they would never conceive to conceal their tools of violence on the body of a child? Whatever.

Ah yes, because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805435)

... we all know of those terrorists who use children to blow people up.

The hell? Isn't the religions of these extremist nutjobs a whole case of "suicide gets you laid in heaven" or some nonsense?
What they'd actually be doing is direct murder if they used a child to blow up a plane. (as opposed to indirect murder when a bomb exploded that killed people)

And this is why I will never travel to America, over it, under it or whatever other forms of it exist. Not even to claim an actual fortune in money.

Their idiotic fault for not enforcing proper security, the little girl shouldn't have been able to come back through if it was done right.

They're terrorists...the TSA I mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805443)

4 year old terrorists and grandmothers. That's what we should be afraid of!

RTFA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805455)

Basically some old broad TRIPPED THE ALARM then immediately went through and hugged her "innocent little granddaughter" who then tried to run from TSA agents.

This is not black and white, and fault on both sides for overdramatization and poor people skills.. but i gotta agree that, after seeing a shoe bomb, after knowing what extremists have done for their Jihad.. i would error on the side of checking if something was transferred to the girl over being the guy that let 16 more boxcutter blades slip through my entrance to the sky.

Good thing the terrorists are idiots (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805471)

If the terrorists were smart, they'd just kill TSA stooges, too-big to fail bank executives, and congress critters. The rest of the country would be happy to meet their demands out of sheer gratitude.

go ahead and close the airport (3, Interesting)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 2 years ago | (#39805479)

From a related article "One officer even told the girl's mother that the airport would have to be shut down and every flight cancelled if the four-year-old did not co-operate" My reaction to this was, yeah go ahead and close the airport because of a crying little girl TSA, let me dial that number for you.

Stupid (1)

neyla (2455118) | about 2 years ago | (#39805499)

I'm still waiting for the first bomb to go off in the security-checkpoint-waiting-line. At which point they'd need a checkpoint to check the passengers prior to the security-checkpoint-waiting-line, but offcourse this new checkpoint would also get a line, whereafter a bomb goes off in the waiting-line for *this* checkpoint repeat as necessary.

This bullshit is a *much* larger threat to both life and freedom than terrorists ever where. People fly 900 million trips a year (that's USA only), thus if every one of them spend 5 minutes extra in the security-theatre, that means more than 100 lifetimes are wasted standing in line every year. That's without considering the resources used, and the costs incurred, and the other inconveniences resulting.

Thus the TSA has almost certainly killed more people than they've saved.

Say What (2)

snowcat1964 (1549097) | about 2 years ago | (#39805505)

The TSA has now shown they are just an organization of child molesters. How can they justify molesting a 4 year old. If anybody else performed this action they would be arrested and thrown into jail.

Nothing more then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39805525)

TSA "agents" are nothing more then prison guard monkeys!!! They only do as they are taught.

Welcome to the new America ladies and gentlemen, land of the not-so-free and home of the suckers!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...