What a joke this illusion of airport security is.
Video shows young girl receiving full pat-down from TSA
Video shows young girl receiving full pat-down from TSA
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Stay Classy TSA
- Thread starter rdowns
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Clip has absolutely no context, so hard to tell if reasonable. Did she trip the metal detectors? Did something show on body scan? Did mom refuse body scan? Were they acting suspicious?
I agree the current screening policies are ridiculous. I'll play devil's advocate. Drugs have been smuggled on children. Why couldn't bombs be stashed on them?
I agree the current screening policies are ridiculous. I'll play devil's advocate. Drugs have been smuggled on children. Why couldn't bombs be stashed on them?
Incredible.
I wonder if they followed this abomination up with a full body cavity search?
Who the **** is in charge of the U.S. of A.? Xenophobes??
I wonder if they followed this abomination up with a full body cavity search?
Who the **** is in charge of the U.S. of A.? Xenophobes??
I don't think this is wrong if the TSA has a valid reason for suspecting that a passenger is carrying something suspicious. Also, it should be policy that if you fail the screening test, a passenger should be allowed to go through a 2nd time, but perhaps with their arms in a different position (or something). They shouldn't be allowed to pat-down someone unless there's a reason, and all other measures have been taken.
Whatta Fu**!????????????????????????? 
Who is the background voice, is it another sibling or the girl saying I don't want to get pat down?
Who is the background voice, is it another sibling or the girl saying I don't want to get pat down?
Yeah, the TSA is pretty absurd. The airport I use just got body scanners-- now when I fly I make sure to shake my junk around for the world to see.
Coming soon to the Internet near you.
Coming soon to the Internet near you.
Without context .... who knows? The story has been updated to state that the TSA does not do drug tests.... which makes sense. If there is another test, then it's possible that it's an explosive test.
She (the little girl) may have the chemical signature for explosives on her. There are lots of innocent ways this could happen, from borrowing the sweater of her friend, whose father works in a mine, to using a fabric softener that uses a chemical that is similar to one of the many chemicals that can combined with others to make a bomb.
If the TSA has a chemical sniffer at that security station, and that sniffer is indicating the presence of a possible explosive.... do you really want a TSA staffer making judgement calls on who needs to be double-checked and who gets a bye?
We don't know what happened.... there is no context.... who knows....
She (the little girl) may have the chemical signature for explosives on her. There are lots of innocent ways this could happen, from borrowing the sweater of her friend, whose father works in a mine, to using a fabric softener that uses a chemical that is similar to one of the many chemicals that can combined with others to make a bomb.
If the TSA has a chemical sniffer at that security station, and that sniffer is indicating the presence of a possible explosive.... do you really want a TSA staffer making judgement calls on who needs to be double-checked and who gets a bye?
We don't know what happened.... there is no context.... who knows....
The radiation dosage from any properly maintained active scanner is still orders of magnitude less than what you get from a 4-hour flight at 10 km. Go ahead and opt out of your full-body scans... if you're doing it for the "health" reason you're tilting at a very small windmill.
I don't see anything wrong with it at all. People use children to carry goods all the time and the TSA agent was totally professional about it talking through each step. The rules are there to provide a layer of safety and if you think that it doesn't and don't like the rules, ride the bus!
Better yet, let's remove the TSA agents and let someone fly a plane into another building.
Better yet, let's remove the TSA agents and let someone fly a plane into another building.
Yeah, because you have access to all of the intellegence reports.
As for the TSA not making air travel any safer you literally have nothing to go on other than making a blind assumption. It is simply another security layer and that in itself will deter some from giving it a try. That being said, if someone wants to kill people bad enough they will and people like you will constantly blame it on others. So tell me, what would you prefer? Ponds guards walking the halls or no security at all? I bet your mind might change if you were on a plane that was hijacked.
Last edited:
The secret service might get lucky and stop a terrorist organisation before they do any harm, but they can do nothing to prevent a nutter getting on a plane if he doesn't have any record. It's up to the airport security to limit the weapons available to him on the plane, it's the best they can do.
And it's up to everyone to decide what the 'best balance' is between privacy and safety. One thing is certain - the TSA (or any other airport authorities around the world) are always wrong: searches like this are wrong/if a weapon slips through and is used in a hijacking they're wrong.
I don't see anything wrong with it at all. People use children to carry goods all the time and the TSA agent was totally professional about it talking through each step. The rules are there to provide a layer of safety and if you think that it doesn't and don't like the rules, ride the bus!
Better yet, let's remove the TSA agents and let someone fly a plane into another building.
I don't get how you see nothing wrong with it. In addition to it being completely pointless and ineffective, if you moved this situation from the security line of an airport to anywhere else, the TSA agent would be thrown in jail for touching a little girl like that and the mother probably would as well for allowing it to happen.
OMG!!! She patted down a little girl using the back of her hands! Send her to jail now for molesting that little girl!
What if that little girl had a gun strapped to her leg because her mother or father wanted to go on a shooting spree and they were using her as a mule to get the weapon in?
The poster above is right, they won't win either way. Like I said, take a different form of transportation if you don't like the rules.
I don't see anything wrong with it at all. People use children to carry goods all the time and the TSA agent was totally professional about it talking through each step. The rules are there to provide a layer of safety and if you think that it doesn't and don't like the rules, ride the bus!
Better yet, let's remove the TSA agents and let someone fly a plane into another building.
The 9/11 hijackers did not bring anything on the plane that was banned. No amount of groping or searching by airport security would've prevented 9/11.
9/11 was a failure of intelligence, not a failure of airport security.
That is a 2+ year old blog article and proves nothing.
So tell me since you seem to be so wise, what would you do to fix this problem? Rather than tear down the current solution how about telling us what you would do to FIX it? We clearly can't get rid of screening as that leaves us open for attack using planes as missles.
Box cutters were banned in response to 9/11. As always, airline security is reactive. Bush sold us a bill of goods while increasing the size and cost of government.
Let me give you a REAL scenario. I used to use my laptop backpack to carry my lunch to work and I was at the airport heading out of town. What I didn't know is that one of my butter knives had slid down under the lining of the backpack. Of course I went in security and was pulled to the side where I was professionally patted down. They then pulled me off to the side to further inspect the bag. I told them the story and they allowed me to slip it in an envelope to mail it home.
1. It worked as they did catch a potential weapon.
2. They were profesional about it the entire time (Boston TSA).
3. If you cooperate with them it is generally no big deal.
People that are making this difficult simply like to complain for the sake of complaining. Take the bus....
1. It worked as they did catch a potential weapon.
2. They were profesional about it the entire time (Boston TSA).
3. If you cooperate with them it is generally no big deal.
People that are making this difficult simply like to complain for the sake of complaining. Take the bus....
The OP was ambiguous ... I read it that the weapons used on 9/11 were still not banned. As opposed to not banned at the time.
Hasn't anyone noticed that not a single US plane has been hijacked in the past 10 years? A quick look at Wikipedia shows 7 US planes hijacked in the 1970s, several in the 80s and 90s. Four planes were hijacked in 2001 (all on the same day....) - and then not a single US, European, Japanese plane has been hijacked.
Something is working.....
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Airport security is on a downward spiral, they really need to rethink the approach. Basic human dignity is being trampled on, the costs involved are skyrocketing and the whole approach just adds to making air travel unpleasant.