Way to go, TSA

[General Zod]

I'm sure we'll all feel so much safer from breast cancer victims from now on.

A longtime Charlotte, N.C., flight attendant and cancer survivor told a local television station that she was forced to show her prosthetic breast during a pat-down.

Cathy Bossi, who works for U.S. Airways, said she received the pat-down after declining to do the full-body scan because of radiation concerns.

The TSA screener "put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What is this?' " Bossi told the station. "And I said, 'It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll need to show me that.' "

Bossi said she removed the prosthetic from her bra. She did not take the name of the agent, she said, "because it was just so horrific of an experience, I couldn't believe someone had done that to me. I'm a flight attendant. I was just trying to get to work."

For Americans who wear prosthetics — either because they are cancer survivors or have lost a limb — or who have undergone hip replacements or have a pacemaker, the humiliation of the TSA's new security procedures — choosing between a body scan or body search — is even worse.

Musa Mayer has worn a breast prosthesis for 21 years since her mastectomy and is used to the alarms it sets off at airport security. But nothing prepared her for the "invasive and embarrassing" experience of being patted down, poked and examined recently while passing through airport security at Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C.

"I asked the supervisor if she realized that there are 3 million women who have had breast cancer in the U.S., many of whom wear breast prostheses. Will each of us now have to undergo this humiliating, time-consuming routine every time we pass through one of these new body scanners?" she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com.

'I was so humiliated'
Marlene McCarthy of Rhode Island said she went through the body scanner and was told by a TSA agent to step aside. In "full view of everyone," McCarthy said in an e-mail, the agent "immediately put the back of her hand on my right side chest and I explained I wore a prosthesis.

"Then, she put her full hands ... one on top and one on the bottom of my 'breast' and moved the prosthesis left, right, up, down and said 'OK.' I was so humiliated.

"I went to the desk area and complained," McCarthy wrote. "The woman there was very nice and I asked her if the training included an understanding of how prosthetics are captured on the scanner and told her the pat-down is embarrassing. She said, 'We have never even had that discussion and I do the training for the TSA employees here, following the standard manual provided.' She said she will bring it up at their next meeting."

If she has to go through the scanner again, McCarthy said, "I am determined to put the prosthesis in the gray bucket," provided to travelers at the security check-ins for items such as jewelry.

"Let the TSA scanners be embarrassed .... not me anymore!" she wrote.

Sharon Kiss, 66, has a pacemaker, but also has to fly often for her work.

"During a recent enhanced pat-down, a screener cupped my breasts and felt my genitals," she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com "To 'clear my waistband' she put her hands down my pants and groped for the waistband of my underwear.

"I expressed humiliation and was told 'You have the choice not to fly.' "

The remark infuriated Kiss, who lives in Mendocino, Calif. "Extrapolate this to we should not provide curb cuts and ramps for people confined to wheelchairs because they can choose to stay home ... This a violation of civil rights. And because I have a disability, I should not be subjected to what is government-sanctioned sexual assault in order to board a plane."

TSA: Pilots to be exempt from some airport security checks

No planned changes to security
So far, the government is not letting up on the enhanced screening program. TSA administrator John Pistole said this week at a Congressional hearing on the matter that "reasonable people can disagree" on how to properly balance safety at the nation's airports, but that the new security measures are necessary because of intelligence on latest attack methods that might be used by terrorists.

Gail Mengel, of Blue Springs, Mo., is used to being patted down; she had a hip replacement five years ago.

"I admit that I was relieved when I flew last week and was able to spend a few seconds in front of the X-ray screen in Seattle and Denver," she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com. "I have heard medical experts say the level of radiation will not hurt us. And frankly I was happy to realize I won't have my body touched, patted and rubbed anymore.

"Unfortunately last weekend, I arrived at the New Orleans airport and learned that airport staff (was) still being trained in using the X-ray machine. Because my hip replacement sets off the security buzzer, I was faced with the new regulations."

While she is "used to" being patted down, "this experience was certainly much more personal, uncomfortable and embarrassing," she said. "Every part of my body was touched. I do not want to be harmed by radiation, but the experience was painless and quick compared to what I have faced over the last five years. I support security measures but I also hope we can be assured of safe procedures."

One man, from Nashville, wrote in an e-mail that "as a handicapped person, I am sick and tired of being 'raped' at the security line. I lose my crutches and leg orthotics to be 'nuked' by the X-ray machine. Then manhandled by the pat-down, followed by chemical swabbing for 'possible explosives.' ...Enough is enough."

Said Mayer, the longtime breast cancer survivor: "I am outraged that I will now be forced to show my prosthesis to strangers, remove it and put in the X-ray bin for screening, or not to wear it at all whenever I fly. To me, this seems unfairly discriminatory and embarrassing for me, and for all breast cancer survivors."

Is there a single group of people they haven't managed to degrade and humiliate yet?

[aerius]

And they employ pedophiles I wouldn't be surprised if he was body cavity searching kids with his penis.

[Alyeska]

That was real crass aerius. Lets try for a higher standard in this forum shall we?

[Chardok]

Okay, I'll say it: What the hell is the problem? They're being searched. There COULD be a something hidden anywhere. I COULD have a gun stashed in my undies against my taint. Someone COULD put a knife in their prosthetic breast (I guess; I mean if it looks weird on the scanner, what exactly is the issue with checking it out?).

If the TSA agents are following protocol, then they're absolutely right: Ms. Kiss can elect to NOT FLY. People need to wake up and realize that this is a different world. They fly, they're getting searched. When I fly, I EXPECT to be searched, I'm HAPPY to be searched, I'd be glad to have my balls cupped for a few seconds, if even by a fat, ugly bald chick. I've accepted that this shit happens now. I'm not *scared* of them damn turrists, but I recognize that a lot of people are and DON'T want to ride on a plane with them. Fine. There's a law, it's not ZOMG OPPRESSION, you're not being forced into a religionn you don't believe in, you're not being jailed for no reason, you're being searched before getting onto a multimillion dollar aluminum tube with flammable fuel all inside it. if it goes down, I'd rather it be because of mechanical failure, not because some rube with a steak knife shanked the pilot and is now flying the thing into a daycare.

I will grant that if you're going to squeeze a boob, you should probably do it behind a screen or enclosure, but honestly, Give me a break. This smacks of impotent whining. "OMG it was the most humiliating thing evarz." "ZOMG I get teh rapezored by the mean agents who manhandle me by lightly brushing my pantsleg and crotch." "zomg teh scarey Radiations will melt me!" "Oh no! They're going to rub a cotton swab on my asscrack!" Whining fucking maggots. Jesus Christ what bunch of pussies.*shrug*


Or maybe my faux internerdrage is misplaced and I'm completely reading the article wrong.

[The Romulan Republic]

Crass, yes, but the point is valid. From what I can see, these people have basically a blank check to grope.

Edit: Well, to be fair I don't know all the details of the regulations. Maybe its not that bad. It certainly looks bad, though.

[General Zod]

If the TSA agents are following protocol, then they're absolutely right: Ms. Kiss can elect to NOT FLY.

Did you miss the part where she's an airline attendant? "Submit to public humiliation or lose your job" isn't much of a choice.

[Chardok]

If the TSA agents are following protocol, then they're absolutely right: Ms. Kiss can elect to NOT FLY.

Did you miss the part where she's an airline attendant? "Submit to public humiliation or lose your job" isn't much of a choice.

Ms. Bossi was the flight attendant, as I read it. Ms. Kiss was the one told to elect not to fly.

[Alyeska]

If the TSA agents are following protocol, then they're absolutely right: Ms. Kiss can elect to NOT FLY.

Did you miss the part where she's an airline attendant? "Submit to public humiliation or lose your job" isn't much of a choice.

Ms. Bossi was the flight attendant, as I read it. Ms. Kiss was the one told to elect not to fly.

Actually that argument is trotted out to everyone who disagrees. That is the standard defense given to those who will always be searched.

[Gil Hamilton]

Aerius had about the same standards in his post as the TSA does in airport security. Seriously, it's a breast prosthesis, that's something you can take at face value.

[General Zod]

Frankly if people are really concerned about idiots smuggling shit onto airplanes? Make sure there's an air marshal aboard every flight. There's no need to humiliate people in the name of "safety".

[Uraniun235]

There's no way to actually 100% secure against a threat to air travel. Saudi Arabia has already had someone commit an assassination attempt where the suicide bomber had concealed explosives within his body. I suppose you could do a cavity search, but suppose someone shoves plastic explosives down their gullet - do we then do a stomach pump on anyone who wants to fly? Enforced nudity? Mandatory sedation while flying?

Seriously the endpoint to this security theater parade is just banning air travel altogether.

[Slacker]

Frankly if people are really concerned about idiots smuggling shit onto airplanes? Make sure there's an air marshal aboard every flight. There's no need to humiliate people in the name of "safety".

It really strikes me as being cheaper and less of a hassle at this point to put an armed air marshal on every flight and just being done with it. Go back to the normal scanner and trust the cop to bust a cap in anyone trying to be stupid. Then, because they're armed, they have to be trained and actually held to a higher standard than the TSA mooks.

[Broomstick]

Okay, I'll say it: What the hell is the problem? They're being searched. There COULD be a something hidden anywhere. I COULD have a gun stashed in my undies against my taint. Someone COULD put a knife in their prosthetic breast (I guess; I mean if it looks weird on the scanner, what exactly is the issue with checking it out?).

Yes, how silly - asking a woman to remove her breast in public The problem is that people with prostheses are wearing them either to conceal a body defect, or to fill in for a non-functioning or absent body part. The are frequently custom made and custom fitted, and far more personal than your underwear. Also, replacing them isn't always a matter of just slapping them here or there on your body, replacing a prosthesis (depending on what it is) can take some time and involve more undressing than anyone should be called upon to do in public. Granted, a breast prosthesis is probably one of the least cumbersome of such, but the woman's point is valid - there are millions of women who will now be expected to remove their fake breast(s) in order to get onto an airplane, and apparently they are expected to do this in full view of the public. Do you seriously think not one of those bystanders will have a cutting or rude remark for the woman in question? Multiply that by everyone else who has a replacement body part.

If the TSA agents are following protocol, then they're absolutely right: Ms. Kiss can elect to NOT FLY.

In other words, many jobs will be off limits to her without her consenting to what, under almost any other circumstances, would be sexual assault. She can just forget about vacationing on any continent but North America. Instead of taking a few hours to go from New York to California she can just STFU and drive, never mind it would take at least a week.

Restricting a person's ability to fly is a de facto restricting of their ability to travel, to go places, and in many case a restriction of their professional life. Inability to fly closes off careers. People should not have to submit to humiliation to hold down a job.

People need to wake up and realize that this is a different world. They fly, they're getting searched. When I fly, I EXPECT to be searched, I'm HAPPY to be searched,

I'm not.

In fact, I find it appalling. Worse yet, it won't keep people safe in the way they think it will. It's punishing the innocent in order to inconvenience - but not stop - the bad guys.

I'd be glad to have my balls cupped for a few seconds, if even by a fat, ugly bald chick.

I'm tired of hearing this shit - there is NO way you'd be searched by a woman. I'm tired of this bullshit hur, hur, get my balls felt by a chick I keep hearing every time this subject comes up. You'll get your balls felt up by a fat, ugly, bald GUY.

Which, by the way, does bring up the issues of pre-operative transsexuals. There's no way in hell they can go through the "pornoscanners" without being outed. It gives me a very bad chill to think that someone who looks, acts, walks, and in every way appears to be a feminine woman is likely going to get her crotch groped by that same fat, ugly, bald guy who just felt YOU up, Chardock, simply because she either hasn't been able to afford, or hasn't yet scheduled, a particular surgery. Cause, you know, pre-op transwomen are just aching to be outed in public, the fact they still have a penis and testicles made public, and groped by a total stranger. Probably in front of all those other passengers, some of which will undoubtedly be homophobic or trans-hating. Way to set someone up for assault.

I've accepted that this shit happens now. I'm not *scared* of them damn turrists, but I recognize that a lot of people are and DON'T want to ride on a plane with them. Fine. There's a law, it's not ZOMG OPPRESSION,

Yes, it IS oppression, you're just too stupid and numb to realize it.

you're not being forced into a religionn you don't believe in

Actually, there ARE religions that would have great issue with a woman being forced to even partially undress in public.

you're not being jailed for no reason,

Actually, there is a man currently facing a court date because he opted to walk away rather than submit to crotch groping. It seems once you're in the security line you no longer have an option and yes, you potentially COULD be jailed if you change your mind and decide you don't want to fly badly enough to submit to sexual assault.

you're being searched before getting onto a multimillion dollar aluminum tube

No, you're being sexually assaulted before getting onto a multimilliion dollar aluminum tube.

I'd rather it be because of mechanical failure, not because some rube with a steak knife shanked the pilot and is now flying the thing into a daycare.

Since 9/11, there have been several instances of passengers overwhelming people who even just appeared to be a threat, including a couple instances of suspected hijackers being killed by a mob before they ever got close to the cockpit door. It will probably be at least a generation, if not longer, before that ever happens again. Regardless of what security is or isn't occurring before people board.

I will grant that if you're going to squeeze a boob, you should probably do it behind a screen or enclosure, but honestly, Give me a break.

It's not a matter of squeezing a boob - it's a matter of asking a woman to remove her boob. In full view of the public. You don't see something amiss with that?

This smacks of impotent whining. "OMG it was the most humiliating thing evarz." "ZOMG I get teh rapezored by the mean agents who manhandle me by lightly brushing my pantsleg and crotch." "zomg teh scarey Radiations will melt me!" "Oh no! They're going to rub a cotton swab on my asscrack!" Whining fucking maggots. Jesus Christ what bunch of pussies.*shrug*

Remember that when they move on to full body cavity searches and some guy the size of a gorilla with hands like a baseball mitt is pulling on the plastic gloves and getting out the jar of lube.

[Master of Ossus]

Restricting a person's ability to fly is a de facto restricting of their ability to travel, to go places, and in many case a restriction of their professional life. Inability to fly closes off careers. People should not have to submit to humiliation to hold down a job.

What? why not? Should we similarly ban employers from drug-testing employees for fear of humiliating them?

Actually, there ARE religions that would have great issue with a woman being forced to even partially undress in public.

Well... so?

Since 9/11, there have been several instances of passengers overwhelming people who even just appeared to be a threat, including a couple instances of suspected hijackers being killed by a mob before they ever got close to the cockpit door. It will probably be at least a generation, if not longer, before that ever happens again. Regardless of what security is or isn't occurring before people board.

Evidence? But even if this is true, it's not really relevant to the question of whether this could conceivably prevent an attack in the future. Surely you don't think it's a good idea to rely upon mobs of passengers to protect their aircraft.

[General Zod]

What? why not? Should we similarly ban employers from drug-testing employees for fear of humiliating them?

Name a single company that posts the results of an employee drug test for everyone to see and you might have a point.

Evidence? But even if this is true, it's not really relevant to the question of whether this could conceivably prevent an attack in the future. Surely you don't think it's a good idea to rely upon mobs of passengers to protect their aircraft.

Or we could use air marshals instead. . . one on every flight would be considerably cheaper than the theater that the TSA is doing and vastly more effective.

[Lusankya]

What? why not? Should we similarly ban employers from drug-testing employees for fear of humiliating them?

Name a single company that posts the results of an employee drug test for everyone to see and you might have a point.

Well, there are sporting organisations.

The the difference between drug testing and what the TSA seems to be doing, however, is that by making air travel difficult and humiliating enough for people with prosthetics that they are effectively banned from flying, they are pretty much discriminating against the disabled. Drug tests are at least testing for something that is either defined as cheating (in the case of sports) or has a large chance of impacting the employee's work efficiency. Even in the case of preventing problems, early discovery of a drug problem increases the chance of recovery, while the removal of prosthetic breast has no proven record of decreasing terror attacks.

As you say, having a uniformed air marshal on board the plane would be far cheaper and more effective. Hell, it would probably have extra benefits to the flying experience, such as the air marshal being able to help the flight staff when dealing with unruly non-terrorist passengers.

[Master of Ossus]

Name a single company that posts the results of an employee drug test for everyone to see and you might have a point.

That's not remotely analogous. TSA isn't posting the results for everyone to see, and moreover employers DO often have the right to share these results with other employers. That's one of the things that those employment forms you sign for major companies includes.

Evidence? But even if this is true, it's not really relevant to the question of whether this could conceivably prevent an attack in the future. Surely you don't think it's a good idea to rely upon mobs of passengers to protect their aircraft.

Or we could use air marshals instead. . . one on every flight would be considerably cheaper than the theater that the TSA is doing and vastly more effective.

Bullshit. There are going to be more than 24,000 flights on Thanksgiving alone. Even if you could hire enough air marshals to put one on every single flight. Even if each air marshal were able to do four flights, you would need well over 6,000 air marshals to even have nominal coverage. Total take-home pay for an air marshal averages around $60,000, for a total of over $360,000,000 in take-home pay alone. With benefits, training, etc. etc. etc., you're looking at well over half a billion dollars in air marshals for minimal (one marshal per flight) coverage per year. The latest numbers I could find indicates that there are currently around 4,000 air marshals, so you're looking at a ~50% increase in the size of the agency even for minimum coverage. In contrast, TSA is installing roughly 1000 scanners that each cost around $150,000, for a total of $150,000,000 as a one-time expense. They have hired no additional personnel as a result of this, largely because the scanners don't take appreciably more time than existing security procedures.

More importantly, air marshals likely provide a much lower degree of protection since they're only able to react to incidents that take place while on the flight. It's much easier and much safer to stop terrorists before they board aircraft than it is to wait for them to spring their attack while the plane is airborne.~

[General Zod]

and moreover employers DO often have the right to share these results with other employers.

According to what? Every HR person I've ever spoken to has said the only thing they're allowed to confirm is whether or not the person worked there and for how long; anything negative leaves them open to lawsuits.

Bullshit. There are going to be more than 24,000 flights on Thanksgiving alone. Even if you could hire enough air marshals to put one on every single flight. Even if each air marshal were able to do four flights, you would need well over 6,000 air marshals to even have nominal coverage. Total take-home pay for an air marshal averages around $60,000, for a total of over $360,000,000 in take-home pay alone. With benefits, training, etc. etc. etc., you're looking at well over half a billion dollars in air marshals for minimal (one marshal per flight) coverage per year. The latest numbers I could find indicates that there are currently around 4,000 air marshals, so you're looking at a 50% increase in the size of the agency even for minimum coverage. In contrast, TSA is installing roughly 1000 scanners that each cost around $150,000, for a total of $150,000,000 as a one-time expense. They have hired no additional personnel as a result of this, largely because the scanners don't take appreciably more time than existing security procedures.

More importantly, air marshals likely provide a much lower degree of protection since they're only able to react to incidents that take place while on the flight. It's much easier and much safer to stop terrorists before they board aircraft than it is to wait for them to spring their attack while the plane is airborne.

Did you even do the math on how much you're paying out to cover TSA before you cried bullshit? You're looking at well over a billion dollars for all the TSA screeners, assuming a bare minimum salary of $20,000 per year with more than 67,000 employees. Air Marshals are likely to fly more than one flight per day as it is. Given 30,000 flights per day on average we're looking at around 17,000 Air Marshals to make sure everything is fully covered. If the concern is over what someone will do once they're on a plane then all the extra screening at the airport is pretty meaningless.

[The Grim Squeaker]

One problem with the Air Marshall idea - it doesn't stop suicide bombers from blowing up the plane, and everyone on it. Which, y'know, was the main reason the increased security measures started.

[loomer]

Didn't the TSA also try to have a man arrested as he was leaving an airport after refusing to be searched a couple of weeks back?

[General Zod]

One problem with the Air Marshall idea - it doesn't stop suicide bombers from blowing up the plane, and everyone on it. Which, y'know, was the main reason the increased security measures started.

The TSA's enhanced molestation won't protect you from suicide bombers swallowing explosives either. What's your point?

[Keevan_Colton]

Didn't the TSA also try to have a man arrested as he was leaving an airport after refusing to be searched a couple of weeks back?

I'm not sure if they've had anyone arrested, they have however said that trying to leave can carry an $11,000 fine and result in arrest.

[loomer]

Didn't the TSA also try to have a man arrested as he was leaving an airport after refusing to be searched a couple of weeks back?

I'm not sure if they've had anyone arrested, they have however said that trying to leave can carry an $11,000 fine and result in arrest.

So then basically the choice isn't 'take the search or don't fly', it's now 'take the search'.

[Keevan_Colton]

Didn't the TSA also try to have a man arrested as he was leaving an airport after refusing to be searched a couple of weeks back?

I'm not sure if they've had anyone arrested, they have however said that trying to leave can carry an $11,000 fine and result in arrest.

So then basically the choice isn't 'take the search or don't fly', it's now 'take the search'.

Once you get to the checkpoint, apparently, yes.

[Broomstick]

Restricting a person's ability to fly is a de facto restricting of their ability to travel, to go places, and in many case a restriction of their professional life. Inability to fly closes off careers. People should not have to submit to humiliation to hold down a job.

What? why not? Should we similarly ban employers from drug-testing employees for fear of humiliating them?

A big difference is that you can stop taking drugs. You can not stop being an amputee

Taking illegal drugs makes you a criminal. Being an amputee should not make you a criminal

Also, piss-tests for drugs are done in private - at most you have one observer. These people are being asked to remove their body parts in full view of the public.

Actually, there ARE religions that would have great issue with a woman being forced to even partially undress in public.

Well... so?

So the statement implying there aren't religious objections is inaccurate.

Since 9/11, there have been several instances of passengers overwhelming people who even just appeared to be a threat, including a couple instances of suspected hijackers being killed by a mob before they ever got close to the cockpit door. It will probably be at least a generation, if not longer, before that ever happens again. Regardless of what security is or isn't occurring before people board.

Evidence? But even if this is true, it's not really relevant to the question of whether this could conceivably prevent an attack in the future. Surely you don't think it's a good idea to rely upon mobs of passengers to protect their aircraft.

Well, we don't know for sure that the passengers of Flight 93 on Sept 11 crashed the airplane... but apparently it's a possibility.

If that doesn't make you happy, on American Airlines Flight 63 it was passengers who subdued the "shoe bomber", not an air marshall. OK, he wasn't a hijacker, he was a would-be suicide bomber, but really, it was the passengers who took care of the situation.

Passengers also subdued the underwear bomber, as well as putting out the fire in his crotch. But I suppose that doesn't count because he was another would-be bomber and not a hijacker?

Granted, it happened before 9/11, but on August 11, 2000 on Southwest Airlines Flight 1763 from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City Jonathan Burton was beaten, choked and killed by fellow passengers when he attempted to get into the cockpit of the airplane.

So yes, passengers will act to subdue Bad Guys.

Do I think it's a good idea to rely passengers to do this? Not really - the possibility of them targeting someone who is loud and obnoxious but not really a threat is a problem with that idea. Mob action is something to be avoided. However, I'd rather a mob subdue a Bad Guy than let him hijack or blow up an airplane, just as I'd rather people not get mugged walking down the street but I also feel they have a right to defend themselves from mugger.

At a certain point the searching and security becomes ridiculous for the 99.9999999% of people who are utterly harmless passengers.

What are we going to do when the first Bad Guy tries to blow up an airplane with C4 shoved up his ass or surgically implanted in his gut?