Are the American security agency's patting down procedures over the top?

[yorkie]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/30/mothe...rt-security-pat-down-13-year-old-son-6543948/

This is the moment airport security patted down a 13-year-old boy who his mother has said was left ‘traumatised’.

Aaron Williamson, who suffers from Sensory Processing Disorder, was stopped while heading though security at Dallas/Fort-Worth International Airport.

She was allegedly detained for ‘well over an hour’, during which time an airport officer patted down her son, who was wearing cut off shorts and a t-shirt.

The mum said: ‘He set off NO alarms. He physically did not alarm at all during screening, he passed through the detector just fine.

The American security agency brought in new rules recently calling for ‘comprehensive pat-down procedures’ for passengers....

This doesn't seem proportional or appropriate to me. What do others think?

I also think the security agency are putting their own staff in a ridiculous position and putting them at risk (millions of people have seen that video and I could imagine him being recognised and someone could take their anger out on him).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems excessive for any passenger. But we must bear in mind that some unscrupulous people are bringing bad stuff in hidden with children, so they cannot be exempt.

Did they perhaps refuse the body scanner? The UK doesn't offer a get-out from that at all other than not flying (though I'm yet to go through one, they are only used if the WTMD alarms) - the US offers a highly invasive full pat-down as an alternative.

 

[najaB]

This doesn't seem proportional or appropriate to me. What do others think?

I don't have any comment about this specific case, but the answer to your question in general is "Yes, they can go over the top." In large part it is because the TSA has too been given too much power in their mandate and pay their staff poorly (which means they don't have the sharpest tools in the toolkit).

 

[yorkie]

It seems excessive for any passenger. But we must bear in mind that some unscrupulous people are bringing bad stuff in hidden with children, so they cannot be exempt.

Agreed (especially with the first part!)

Did they perhaps refuse the body scanner? The UK doesn't offer a get-out from that at all other than not flying (though I'm yet to go through one, they are only used if the WTMD alarms) - the US offers a highly invasive full pat-down as an alternative.

The article goes on to say:

Making searches more intrusive the standardised system replaces giving airport customers a choice between body scanners or other technology only if they set off alarms.

I'm not totally clear on what that's saying but it sounds like anyone can be forced to have the intrusive search and has no choice?

 

[najaB]

I'm not totally clear on what that's saying but it sounds like anyone can be forced to have the intrusive search and has no choice?

Yes. That is correct. The TSA appears to have been given instructions to be more 'robust' since the new administration took over in the White House.

Creating a climate of fear in order to increase control of the people, you say? No idea what you are talking about.

 

[greatkingrat]

Presumably there is some sort of system that picks a certain percentage of passengers at random for an additional search whether they set the alarm off or not.

It sounds like the only reason they were "detained for an hour" is because the mother was arguing about the search. There is also nothing in the video that shows the child being in any distress about the search.

 

[najaB]

Presumably there is some sort of system that picks a certain percentage of passengers at random for an additional search whether they set the alarm off or not.

I'm "brown with a beard" and got 'randomly' selected four out of four flights the last time I was in the US.

Creating a climate of distrust of 'them', you say? No idea what you're talking about.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm "brown with a beard" and got 'randomly' selected four out of four flights the last time I was in the US.

Creating a climate of distrust of 'them', you say? No idea what you're talking about.

Someone I used to work with has an arabic name but looks British, and one of his friends has a very British name but looks arabic. Luckily he has a good sense of humour, but the number of times they have been travelling together and been "randomly" selected (by some confused security staff) is insane

 

[fowler9]

I remember meeting an elderly gentleman from Texas in Buenos Aires and he asked me what it was like crossing the border to Brasil. I told him as a Brit it was not really an issue but that Americans have more trouble. He said "Yeah that is because you don't have an idiot like George W Bush p***ing off the world leading your country". I would be fascinated to see how things have changed.

 

[thejuggler]

The paper is the Daily Mail so the story may be devoid of any facts.

 

[najaB]

The paper is the Daily Mail so the story may be devoid of any facts.

My reading skills aren't the best, but it appears to be The Metro to me.

 

[me123]

The paper is the Daily Mail so the story may be devoid of any facts.

And even if it was the DM, the video demonstrates the security procedure. Here's an original video link, without supporting any news company.

[youtube]cQfyMl8vcVw[/youtube]

Having watched that, I feel that my name will possibly end up on all sorts of lists. Excessive is probably the most appropriate/least reactionary word.

 

[Merseysider]

Hmm. I've been patted down about a dozen times at various airports. The difference was, once the officer had checked my whole body twice over, he didn't come back for more...

 

[AlterEgo]

I saw this video on a much less reputable site a couple of days back.

It is definitely excessive, concerning even. I think the searcher is doing, shall we say, a "too thorough" job.

 

[HenL]

I would definitely be extremely uncomfortable if someone touched my baby that way.. though at the same time I can understand that they're in a difficult situation in that people are wanting them to do more... however I don't think that excuses just how thorough he was checking!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would definitely be extremely uncomfortable if someone touched my baby that way.. though at the same time I can understand that they're in a difficult situation in that people are wanting them to do more... however I don't think that excuses just how thorough he was checking!

It isn't nice, but I'm sure you'd rather that was done than someone else smuggled a bomb or other weapon onto the aircraft you and your child were flying on by hiding it in their child's clothes (these people are nasty enough to do that, they have no respect for life whether adult or child) and killed you both.

I still suspect they may have declined the body scanner, that is the usual case when such in-private, intrusive pat-downs are used, because their risk assessment says they have to be able to find everything the body scanner would.

FWIW, the UK triggers random scans by making the WTMD alarm randomly[1] so it's harder to identify that it *was* random, allege it was because of skin colour, or argue with it - I don't think other countries do that, they just grab people at random.

[1] Not hard to work out that that's what it's doing when you use the same scanner (priority lane at Luton only had one at the time I was doing that) at the same airport weekly for 2 years with the same clothes on every time and the same stuff in the tray!

 

[WelshBluebird]

It isn't nice, but I'm sure you'd rather that was done than someone else smuggled a bomb or other weapon onto the aircraft you and your child were flying on by hiding it in their child's clothes (these people are nasty enough to do that, they have no respect for life whether adult or child) and killed you both.

Ahhh the usual argument that governments have used for decades and centuries to invade peoples privacy. If you actually genuinely believe what you have said then what about everyday situations that are more likely to kill you than a a terrorist on a plane (like crossing the road, or domestic violence etc).

FWIW, the UK triggers random scans by making the WTMD alarm randomly

Being picky, but I doubt they are actually truly random.
Either they are computer controlled, in which case that is pseudo randomness not true randomness. Or they are controlled by a human, in which case it is likely that they are influenced by other factors (such as a persons race etc).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ahhh the usual argument that governments have used for decades and centuries to invade peoples privacy. If you actually genuinely believe what you have said then what about everyday situations that are more likely to kill you than a a terrorist on a plane (like crossing the road, or domestic violence etc).

What about them? They are different situations. I am in favour of road safety improvements, and I am in favour of strong legal remedies against domestic violence. None of that is mutually exclusive from airport security provision.

Being picky, but I doubt they are actually truly random.
Either they are computer controlled, in which case that is pseudo randomness not true randomness. Or they are controlled by a human, in which case it is likely that they are influenced by other factors (such as a persons race etc).

They are, so far as I am aware, pseudorandom, though a pseudorandom number generator on a computer seeded from the time is pretty effectively random. As per my post regarding the Priority Lane at Luton, I've been random-ed a number of times, and I do not fit what you might term the current terrorist demographic at all (I'm a middle aged white English bloke - slightly darkish skin for that but not even remotely close to Asian, much as an Asian colleague used to joke about me competing with him if I'd been in the sun a bit).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Having watched that, I feel that my name will possibly end up on all sorts of lists. Excessive is probably the most appropriate/least reactionary word.

That TSA agent looked like he was definitely enjoying his work, shall we say...

He was thorough searching around the kid's groin. Very thorough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That TSA agent looked like he was definitely enjoying his work, shall we say...

That is quite a serious allegation (a *very* serious one indeed) - and it does not appear to be being made by the parent, so careful...

 

[Tetchytyke]

That is quite a serious allegation (a *very* serious one indeed) - and it does not appear to be being made by the parent, so careful...

Let's just say the TSA agent appeared to be remarkably thorough in his checks of the young boy's groin area, repeatedly reaching inside his shorts and between his legs. There's thorough and there's thorough.

I see I'm not the only one to have similar thoughts.

I wouldn't say anything if I was the parent in this case either, otherwise this would happen every time I went to the airport.

 

[me123]

That TSA agent looked like he was definitely enjoying his work, shall we say...

He was thorough searching around the kid's groin. Very thorough.

To be fair, I've seen a few people online who claim to work for the TSA and claimed that this is indeed the correct protocol for a full search. So it does lead to the question of just who is the one being excessive here. There is no doubt that this is excessive to any reasonable person.

By contrast, when I was going through Amsterdam a few months back I was stopped for a pat down. The X-Ray machine (there is no metal detector) detected something on my right leg. This was shown to me before and the focus of the examination was my right leg. More logical, more appropriate, and if an intimate examination was warranted there would be a demonstrable reason for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do AMS use body scanners as first-line? That's unusual if so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I did notice the checks were thorough, but it is not appropriate in my view to bandy such allegations about on forums. If anyone takes the view that there is anything sexually inappropriate going on, this should be reported immediately to the appropriate authorities in the US. If it is the case he needs removing from the job, but if it isn't this kind of casual talk can ruin lives.

Either report it if you feel it is actually true or stop making such allegations in my view. They are potentially libellous and very, very serious, only one step down from allegation of murder in many ways.

 

[WelshBluebird]

What about them? They are different situations. I am in favour of road safety improvements, and I am in favour of strong legal remedies against domestic violence. None of that is mutually exclusive from airport security provision.

But we are not just talking of safety improvements or legal remedies here. We are talking about pretty damn large violations of privacy in the name of security. I'd argue that the comparison of the TSA "pat down" seen in this thread to the things I mentioned would be putting cameras in peoples cars and homes "just incase".

They are, so far as I am aware, pseudorandom, though a pseudorandom number generator on a computer seeded from the time is pretty effectively random. As per my post regarding the Priority Lane at Luton, I've been random-ed a number of times, and I do not fit what you might term the current terrorist demographic at all (I'm a middle aged white English bloke - slightly darkish skin for that but not even remotely close to Asian, much as an Asian colleague used to joke about me competing with him if I'd been in the sun a bit).

Fair enough - nice that someone else actually understands pseudorandomness! The number of times I've been involved in discussions about it is annoying (of course there was the issue of the iPod / iTunes shuffle feature being too "random" back a while ago which just proves people don't really know what random means, let alone pseudorandon!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

But we are not just talking of safety improvements or legal remedies here. We are talking about pretty damn large violations of privacy in the name of security. I'd argue that the comparison of the TSA "pat down" seen in this thread to the things I mentioned would be putting cameras in peoples cars and homes "just incase".

FWIW I would expect dashcams to become near mandatory in the near future as well as telemetrics boxes - not by law but by insurers who will charge richly if you don't have them.

Fair enough - nice that someone else actually understands pseudorandomness! The number of times I've been involved in discussions about it is annoying (of course there was the issue of the iPod / iTunes shuffle feature being too "random" back a while ago which just proves people don't really know what random means, let alone pseudorandon!).

Quite. I don't think the iTunes random feature *is* completely random (time seeded pseudorandom), though, I think it tries to be more clever than that by selecting songs that fit together based on previous listening. Might be wrong, but that would be a very Apple thing to do.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If anyone takes the view that there is anything sexually inappropriate going on, this should be reported immediately to the appropriate authorities in the US.

It's just a hunch, but I'm guessing that the TSA are already aware of the existence of this video, and I;m sure they're capable of drawing their own conclusions.

To be fair, I've seen a few people online who claim to work for the TSA and claimed that this is indeed the correct protocol for a full search. So it does lead to the question of just who is the one being excessive here. There is no doubt that this is excessive to any reasonable person.

I understand the dilemma, if you're not thorough enough then you might potentially miss something, and kids are perfectly capable of being used to smuggle things through security. And I understand that the TSA have unusually thorough procedures even at the best of times.

But seriously, how many times did the guy stick his hands down the back of the kid's shorts? And how many times did he pat down the kid's crotch? That's excessive on anyone, really, but it's certainly excessive on a ten-year-old boy.

ETA: I've just timed it, of a 2:00 video that agent spent almost 1:30 searching the area between the boy's navel and his knees. That's just ridiculous.

It's one reason why I'll never understand America. On one hand you have United Airlines denying boarding to a young girl because she was in leggings, and that's too sexual, but on the other hand you have a public pat-down procedure that's more intimate than some people are with their spouses.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have experienced the TSA several times, but never had pat down as intimate as the one in the video.

How do I pay to get this sort of service?

 

[najaB]

Do AMS use body scanners as first-line? That's unusual if so.

It's been a while since I've been to AMS but certainly it used to be the case that a small percentage of passengers were given the option of body scanner v pat down.

 

[me123]

Do AMS use body scanners as first-line? That's unusual if so.

Certainly I wasn't given an option a few months back - full body low dose X-Ray as first line. Don't know if it was a trial?

It's just a hunch, but I'm guessing that the TSA are already aware of the existence of this video, and I;m sure they're capable of drawing their own conclusions.

I understand the dilemma, if you're not thorough enough then you might potentially miss something, and kids are perfectly capable of being used to smuggle things through security. And I understand that the TSA have unusually thorough procedures even at the best of times.

But seriously, how many times did the guy stick his hands down the back of the kid's shorts? And how many times did he pat down the kid's crotch? That's excessive on anyone, really, but it's certainly excessive on a ten-year-old boy.

It's clearly excessive, but if that's what the rules say (as some people claim) perhaps it's the rules that need to change? If those are the rules, can we really blame this guy for adhering to them? I wouldn't have ordinarily believed that this was really what the normal procedure is, but then again this is America we're talking about.