They didn't force this person through the scanner, they could have asked for a supervisor and discussed the situation. Don't trust the people at the bottom of any organization if you have a concern.
Hard to say how things would play out.
"Despite the woman's request for a pat-down search, a TSA agent told her that her only option was to pass through the AIT device."
>they could have asked for a supervisor and discussed the situation
"Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant."
They don't exactly have a great track record in that regard.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-...
"In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as passengers were able get weapons past TSA agents in 67 out of 70 tests — a 95 percent failure rate, according to agency officials."
(Don't worry, though. They fixed it... by classifing the reports. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noem-dhs-watchdog-feuding-over-...)
That is not super comforting.
> And the point of these exercises is precisely to continually improve in response to the findings.
Then they should proudly release some more recent results showing that improvement!
> Most of the people who bring guns on to planes aren't trying to hide anything at all, they're idiots who forgot their CCW in their bag.
Which means they aren't even bothering trying to hide it.
They miss more knives than they find.*
They did, in fact, summon a supervisor, who lied to her.
*I am of the opinion that, since 9/11, passengers should be encouraged to have knives rather than discouraged. Knives won't get through the cockpit door; no one will open the cockpit doors for a hostage anymore.
Nobody said that. Go back to pre-2001 airport security, together with locked cockpit doors and the widespread understanding that it isn't safe to cooperate with hijackers.
Random citizens on planes have. At least once.
We’ve had lots of stories about them missing weapons. Lots of stories about them making up ridiculous rules. Lots of stories about them sexually harassing people. Lots of stories about random agents going mad with power.
They have never accomplished anything that wasn’t accomplished by the much simpler and less invasive security we had before 9/11.
No one suggested that. What do you think we did 30 years ago (look it up if you have to)? That, and locked cockpit doors: what value-add is TSA over procedures from 30 years ago?
There is a lot of security theater happening at airports.
When there is no coordination between airlines, none of them wants to be the one who implements tough security and pisses off their customer base.
Maybe in the 70s, but that pretty much stopped with advent of metal detectors. And the hijackers had guns, not knives. Before 9/11 I carried a pocket knife on every flight I took.
Regardless, they’re doing it now, so I fail to see your point.
Yes, because in most cases the hijackers would demand you land, negotiate, and either get some sort of asylum deal or get shot. Big inconvenience, but usually not much bloodshed.
9/11 changed the math for the people on the plane a lot, from "sit down, be quiet, and you'll probably be fine" to "you are about to be flown into a building". Reinforced cockpit doors are one of the little bits of legitimate security improvement made since then.
Look how many on the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings end with "no casualties".
It's the Ford Pinto cost-benefit analysis scandal of the sky.
Too much security can be a problem just like too little can.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
to
"If you don't agree with what I think a nanny state should be doing you're a terrible person"
What I wonder is if this is brought on by a demographic shift or a viewpoint shift among the same demographic.
It is fine by me that a person might have a powerful lust for the taste of boot leather. I don't kink shame.
I just wish I didn't have to be a part of it.
Are you suggesting that the level of security at airports be reduced?
Are you suggesting that people and object that get onto planes be given less scrutiny?
That is what you call security?
At $10 Billion A Year, TSA Still Fails 90% Of The Time—And Covers It Up - https://viewfromthewing.com/at-10-billion-a-year-tsa-still-f... - January 27th, 2025
TSA Admits New Machines Are Slowing Security To A Crawl—And Says Screening Won’t Improve Until 2040 - https://viewfromthewing.com/tsa-admits-new-machines-are-slow... - August 10th, 2024
> But TSA itself has filed in court documents that they’ve been unaware of actual threats to aviation that they’re guarding against, and they haven’t stopped any actual terrorists (nor with past failure rates at detecting threats were they deterring any, either).
Accidentally Revealed Document Shows TSA Doesn't Think Terrorists Are Plotting To Attack Airplanes - https://www.techdirt.com/2013/10/21/accidentally-revealed-do... - October 21st, 2013
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States....
And, is the actual amount of security provided greater than that amount?
My hot take is that its almost certainly a recruitment and training issue: there seem to be just enough bad apples getting through and not having poor behaviours trained out of them to mean the self-reported "these guys are idiots" numbers are higher than in other parts of the World.
But even if you want to keep security/scrutiny as it is now, that doesn't mean you need TSA. We had airport security before there was a TSA. We currently have airport security without TSA in some airports, such as SFO.
> Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant.
You can be fined thousands of dollars for refusing to comply with a TSA agent: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/disobeying-a...
I’m not surprised they can’t get something important right.
What if someone had to fly for necessary medical treatment? What if the device had been something even more important, like a pacemaker or artificial heart like Cheney had?
I said, "can you please be careful with that? It's a $3,000 lens..."
The person cut me off and flatly stated: "Excuse me sir, I know what I'm doing..."
The great thing is that if the person had dropped it, they would've faced zero consequences and I would be out a lens which was central to my need to travel.
But I am curious:
Can objects like expensive precision optics be insured against damage from the TSA? Is that a thing that regular people can easily find coverage for?
However, that wouldn't help OP if they needed the lens for their trip, suddenly need to find another one, and needed to float the cash until insurance pays out.
Of course you would need an accountant to run the real numbers for each case. Most people would find a $3000 lens breakage something they cannot easially cover out of pocket, which is why many will even if in the long run it isn't the best use of money.
A specific policy can still be cheap however; mine comes in at about 311$ of replacement value per dollar of premium a month, if you're traveling a lot or shooting at places where stuff can come up missing it's not the worst peace of mind.
The problem is, it's not something you can just pick up at Best Buy, so the trip would've been a total loss (it was for business).
For instance, Many insurers offer something akin to 'Valuable Property Insurance' (At least that's what mine is called) and for personal use it covers drop/breaks as well as theft.
You typically need proof of ownership; my insurer lets me upload that, so I usually make a point to upload a copy of the invoice/receipt as well as the camera/lens and closeup of the serial number (even better if the invoice has the S/N present!). That's more important for high dollar items typically.
-HOWEVER-
That's for personal use. A while back I actually hit a coverage threshold where my insurer sent me a letter basically saying "Hey, just so you know, you are not covered for business use". (I don't use for business, I just figured it was a cheaper hobby than a boat)
Edited to add:
FWIW the VPP policy is separate from a homeowners policy, however insurers may or may not (depending on state law etc) be able to use a claim on a different policy to impact rates/etc.
That said, yeah you would have been hosed for that lens, but I'm pretty sure they could still face consequences and you'd at least eventually get some reimbursement (less the time dealing with the process)
E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/02/disabled-can...
She called her partner (who I was with at the time) afterwards, upset and shaken by the experience. @TSA in one of the NYC airports: If you're not going to get consent to grope girls, at least let them know that you're about to do it.
The fact that the TSA agent a woman doesn't automatically make someone else comfortable with whatever liberties the agent feels like taking. It's still likely worse if it's a man doing it, but sharing a gender isn't an excuse for the agent to do whatever they want.
That's way better than them asking you twenty times why the scanner went off.
I don't know, I didn't build the fucking thing.
Last time I flew out of Laguardia I opted out and while I was being patted down another TSA agent about twenty feet away kept making kissy faces at me. Very much felt like intimidation.
What a time..
They feed on folks wanting to avoid embarrassment, not wanting to miss their flights, etc.
They're smart enough to make compliance be the mostly rational decision.
I always get there plenty early and request a pat down, because they always make you wait 10-15 minutes in the hope that you’re desperate to get to your gate.
People have forgotten that the TSA got caught lying about the machines not taking pictures (its just a cartoon!) and their employees laughing at people's bodies.
If the TSA wants to disrobe me they're going to have to do it the honest, old fashioned way. Not some sterilized make believe.
Or at least take me out on a date first
Cool tech, but I don't want it scanning my junk especially, no thanks. I'll just apply Betteridge's law of headlines to the article "You Asked: Are Airport Body Scanners Safe?" at https://time.com/4909615/airport-body-scanners-safe/ and go on my merry way.
The TSA definitely seems to intentionally make me wait unnecessarily long for my patdowns to commence.
The attitude among some TSA employees can be truly confrontational when I'm nothing but polite.
One of them literally shoved their hand so fast and so far up my leg, it stung my private area for a good little while after. Now, whenever their script comes to the point where they ask if there is anything they should know, I have to ask them to not do that please, since it has happened before.
If there is a list of people to be first in line for UBI instead of whatever they do now, I'm okay if it's everybody at the TSA, and I'm guessing that they would be cool with that, too.
They ask me "would you like a private screening?"
Hell no! I need witnesses.
I dread it every time, because when I've tried to inform TSA agents ahead of time about my medical devices (which all the signs tell you to do!) they either ignore me or just tell me to go through. And then when I don't mention it, I frequently get berated on the other side, while they do the swab test for explosives.
I've never had a single issue with the TSA. I went through a checkpoint when I had a shoulder injury and could not raise my arms above my head for the backscatter machine. I explained this and I was politely escorted through the alternate scan/metal detector.
My experience is one data point, doesn't mean much by itself, nor does the experience of the unfortunate person in this story.
I suspect "MOAR PAIN" would have a better outcome. People check out, during training; especially the type of training that is designed to shield the organization from lawsuits, and are given by uninspired, bored speakers.
Some high-profile object lessons are more likely to have an effect.
Doing the same three or four things screening people all day long has got to be mind numbingly boring. Unless you’re at an airport that isn’t constantly busy where instead you get to stand around doing nothing, which can be worse.
It honestly sounds like a terrible job to have. Aren’t they paid pretty bad too? I can see why a lot of people would want to move out of it, leaving only those who are stuck or like the power.
None of this is excuse what happened in the article.
Ive even had an altercation with them that ended up having to file a complaint (never heard back) and got to speak to a manager only because I started, loudly, whistling the anthem.
SunshineTheCat•5h ago