TSA: Proper Procedures Followed in Child Pat-Down

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/12/ts ... tml?hpt=T2

TSA: Proper procedures followed in child's pat-down
By the CNN Wire Staff
April 13, 2011 7:44 a.m. EDT
TSA pats down 6-year-old

(CNN) -- An officer who conducted a pat-down of a 6-year-old girl in the New Orleans airport last week "followed proper current screening procedures," the Transportation Security Administration said Tuesday.

However, the agency said it is exploring ways to "focus its resources and move beyond a one-size-fits-all system while maintaining a high level of security."

Video of the April 5 incident was posted on the internet sharing site YouTube. In it, the girl is seen getting patted down by a female TSA officer.

The child was patted down in order to resolve an issue that arose when she went through an advanced imaging technology, or body imaging machine, a TSA official said.

"TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that this officer followed proper current screening procedures," TSA said in a statement. "However, in line with his vision to accelerate TSA's evolution into a truly risk-based, intelligence-driven organization, Administrator (John) Pistole has tasked the agency with exploring additional ways to focus its resources and move beyond a one-size-fits-all system while maintaining a high level of security.

"As part of this effort, TSA has been actively reviewing its screening policies and procedures to streamline and improve the screening experience for low-risk populations, such as younger passengers."

Before the pat-down begins, the girl can be heard protesting, although she complies quietly while it is under way.

"A child who is visibly, audibly complaining 'I don't want to do this,' should at the very least be given some privacy," Marjorie Esman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, told CNN affiliate WWL. "A 6-year-old child shouldn't be subjected to this kind of treatment in the first place if there's no reason to suspect her or her parents of being criminals."

Officers work with parents to ensure a respectful screening process for families, the TSA said, but noted that terrorists can "manipulate societal norms" to evade detection.

TSA's website says that officers will work with parents to resolve any alarms at checkpoints involving children, and that "if required, a child may receive a modified pat-down."

Derionne Pollard told WWL she flies often with her 4-year-old son. Shown the video of the girl's pat-down, Pollard said, "I think we spend a lot more time getting ourselves inflamed about things that aren't really necessary. That took all of, what, 20 seconds to get done? So suck it up. It's a part of travel right now."

Passenger Daniel Amos told WWL he thinks the pat-downs are necessary "because some people do use their children in a way that is horrible."

But, his wife Yukri told the station, their own 5-year-old daughter would likely not understand the process if she had to undergo a pat down.

A backlash against passenger pat-downs -- an alternative to full-body scans in some locations -- swelled during the holiday travel season last year. Pistole maintained at the time that the agency walks a fine line between privacy concerns and public safety.

"The bottom line is, everybody wants to arrive safely at their destination," Pistole said in November, responding to an incident -- also recorded -- in which a shirtless boy received a pat down from an agent in Salt Lake City.

He pointed out the pat-downs are not mandatory -- passengers receive them only if they opt out of a screening with advanced imaging technology. The technology is the TSA's best effort, he said, to head off attacks like the would-be Christmas Day bomber in 2009. Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab allegedly had a bomb sewn into his underwear. He has pleaded not guilty to six federal terrorism charges.

"Very few people actually receive the pat down," Pistole said in November. "In spite of the public furor about this, very few people do."

[Highlord Laan]

Every time I read an article about the TSA, they get more retarded. I honestly don't know how the hell they haven't been sued into oblivion yet.

[Zed Snardbody]

Every time I read an article about the TSA, they get more retarded. I honestly don't know how the hell they haven't been sued into oblivion yet.

Qualified immunity for the individual officers and a preponderance of case law that technically gets the agency a pass.

Hopefully this will shed some light and force the agency to pull its head out if its ass. That pat down was text book as far as the actual procedure itself is concerned.

I'd like to know what triggered it though, either a metal detector pass that couldn't be resolved through divesting, or a body imager pass with multiple anomalies. If it was the first the mag officer should have had the girl keep divesting. If it was the imager, don't get me started on those things. I hate being assigned to them.

Hopefully the press on this will force HQ to find something in between Machine->Full Blown Custody Search. We saw this coming the minute we piloted then rolled out the new procedure nation wide. I'm surprised its taken this long.

[Simon_Jester]

That was what, six months ago?

From the sound of it, I'm surprised it's taken this long too. I know nothing about the hardware, but I do know the physics, and terahertz radiation and Compton scattering are funny things.

Is this the first time a child's gotten a patdown, or just the first time a child's gotten a patdown that someone videotaped and made a fuss about? I'd expect the latter.

[Zed Snardbody]

I cant speak to numbers, but in a day to day thing (Keep in mind I work the second busiest checkpoint at the 6th busiest US airport) probably not the first kid, but searches on kids are rare. They don't wear the crap that adults do, don't care cell phones or money clips, and when you tell them to take whatever they have in their pockets out, they do.

It could have been triggered by a property search which the more I think about is more and more likely

[Count Chocula]

Just for grins (I'm just back in town from a red-eye out of California) I elected, insisted actually, on a pat-down when I left Tampa on Tuesday. I figured if I'm going to be uncomfortable, then by God I should be able to look the person making me uncomfortable in the eye. The TSA screener was very professional and courteous, more than one of them asked me if I'd like a private screening (I did it at the end of the conveyor just to be perverse); while it was just as infuriating as I expected, I could also tell the guy patting me down wasn't especially enjoying it. I can't imagine that more than a tiny, tiny minority of TSA screeners actually like doing the patdowns.

Okay, enough about me; WTF is it with TSA policy that requires children to get a pat down? My son's six years old, and if he had to get a pat down I'd probably be loudly disapproving and miss my flight. This shit's ridiculous.

Profiling is NOT always a bad thing, when you know who your likely airport terrorists are. Put a child through a metal detector, fine; x-ray his kiddie backpack, fine. Offsite viewed imaging? Hell no. Patdowns by a stranger? Oh hells no. TSA procedures really, really need some common sense applied.

[salm]

What exactly does a pat down involve? If it involves what it think it does I don´t get the fuss made about it. But I guess there´s more to it.

[Zed Snardbody]

What exactly does a pat down involve? If it involves what it think it does I don´t get the fuss made about it. But I guess there´s more to it.

I hate this question. I should be able to tell you, but the actual procedure is SSI, which means its my ass if someone somewhere reads it and decides I said to much.

Basically if you watch the video its spot on. Its a sliding search of the clothed areas of the body, with the back of the hands used on sensitive areas. The major change that came down was from actual patting to a sliding, and on the legs we go up and then back down and we check the waist band.

Now whats even more bullshit is I'm skirting the line by saying that, but I have to tell you even more if you were to actually meet me face to face on the job. The advisements I give before I pat someone down are about the same as Miranda as far as the agency is concerned, and take about as long.

[White Haven]

How does it even begin to make a shred of sense that a procedure intended for use on the general travelling public and at least sometimes performed in full view of video capture devices is a 'secret?' That's like...that's like trying to classify milk.

[Count Chocula]

Well Salm, here's what mine involved:

• I elected the metal detector and patdown instead of the remote-viewed millimeter-wave scanner;
• I was asked, and confirmed, three times if I wanted the metal detector and understood it would involve a pat-down;
• After a two-minute wait, a male TSA screener met me on the input side of the metal detector;
• The female screener asked me if I'd like a pat-down in private; I politely refused;
• After passing through the metal detector, I stood just past the end of the conveyor, arms out; the (male) TSA screener had me turn so I could view my possessions, shoes, belt, computer, etc., which were at the end of the belt;
• The screener frisked my arms, body, feet, etc. His hands were in my pocket. The edges of his palms came perilously close to my junk when he frisked my legs. His hands went in my waistband. The backs of his hands ran down my ass. He told me, at every phase, what he was going to do;
• I obviously passed, collected my belongings, and went to catch my flight.

The two screeners involved were polite and professional; I have no complaints about their conduct (or, frankly, with the conduct of the screener that patted down the 6-year-old). It was still infuriating. I wasn't embarrassed or humiliated, but damn it felt just like the one police pat-down I've had in my life. My issue is with the TSA policy. It was way more invasive than the pat-downs some nightclubs give you before you enter.

[Zed Snardbody]

How does it even begin to make a shred of sense that a procedure intended for use on the general travelling public and at least sometimes performed in full view of video capture devices is a 'secret?' That's like...that's like trying to classify milk.

Thats above my pay grade.

I got a better one for you. TSA officers are tested yearly on their proficiency in the search and identification aspects of the job.

Part of that is conducting a pat down, right down to the advisement. I had to have a five page email discussion with the Sensitive Security Information coordinator, about if a card saying "My name is blank I'll be conducting a pat down......" constituted SSI and if I could be reprimanded for distributing them to the workforce, despite the fact that I say it to people every bloody day and have been recorded and filmed on more then one occasion. Saying it isn't a violation, but apparently putting it on a card is. That email saved my ass, when they forgot that they authorized it and gave a few people write ups the year after when my card was reproduced.

[Count Chocula]

Holy shit, Zed! There seems to be an adversarial relationship between the brass and the folks on the screening lines. It sounds, to this frequent flier, like the TSA upper-uppers are wayyy too hung up on lawsuit-fear and political correctness. Feel free to not reply if to reply would be above your pay grade or draw unfavorable attention.

P.S. Jesus Christ it's a pisser that I even have to think that way in free-free, non-repressive America.

[salm]

Well Salm, here's what mine involved:

• I elected the metal detector and patdown instead of the remote-viewed millimeter-wave scanner;
• I was asked, and confirmed, three times if I wanted the metal detector and understood it would involve a pat-down;
• After a two-minute wait, a male TSA screener met me on the input side of the metal detector;
• The female screener asked me if I'd like a pat-down in private; I politely refused;
• After passing through the metal detector, I stood just past the end of the conveyor, arms out; the (male) TSA screener had me turn so I could view my possessions, shoes, belt, computer, etc., which were at the end of the belt;
• The screener frisked my arms, body, feet, etc. His hands were in my pocket. The edges of his palms came perilously close to my junk when he frisked my legs. His hands went in my waistband. The backs of his hands ran down my ass. He told me, at every phase, what he was going to do;
• I obviously passed, collected my belongings, and went to catch my flight.

The two screeners involved were polite and professional; I have no complaints about their conduct (or, frankly, with the conduct of the screener that patted down the 6-year-old). It was still infuriating. I wasn't embarrassed or humiliated, but damn it felt just like the one police pat-down I've had in my life. My issue is with the TSA policy. It was way more invasive than the pat-downs some nightclubs give you before you enter.

Ah, ok, then it´s just the same as here and it was done several times when i took the plane (always at the conveyor belt, never been asked if i wanted a separate room) and the metal detector went off. Must be a cultural difference as I don´t think people over here would have a problem with this procedure on kids.
I don´t really know if they do it with kids here, though.

Personally i really don´t care that much if some security guy comes close to or touches my shlong.

[Zed Snardbody]

Holy shit, Zed! There seems to be an adversarial relationship between the brass and the folks on the screening lines. It sounds, to this frequent flier, like the TSA upper-uppers are wayyy too hung up on lawsuit-fear and political correctness. Feel free to not reply if to reply would be above your pay grade or draw unfavorable attention.

P.S. Jesus Christ it's a pisser that I even have to think that way in free-free, non-repressive America.

Once upon a time Sensitive Security Information or SSI was used by the airlines and the FAA to cover stuff like security plans and baggage handling, stuff that really was sensitive, but a fuck ton of people had to know it. They slapped it on stuff so they knew 'hey, don't leave this in your car'.

When they rolled out TSA, they took it basically one step below classified and slapping it on everything because they didn't know what was sensitive, where the holes were, what was exploitable, and what wasn't. At one point one the FAMS office slapped the SSI header on a retirement announcement for a secretary, that was a fun little shit storm.

SSI has caused so many bloody headaches. There is legitimate stuff that needs to be restricted, alarm resolution procedures, incident response things like that.

I believe though that everything I do to you, and that you're expected to comply with are something you should be aware of. But they've muddied the water so much half the time I have to check the damn civil website just so I know what the hell passengers think we're doing. Hell at this point, the prohibited items list are different on either side.

Their insistence on restricting information and updating it constantly has lead to the issues that the agency has with training and keeping the people in the field up to date. I've worked for the agency for almost 5 years, and I say with complete honesty and no exaggeration, I have forgotten how many time the Screening SOP has been changed and reissued. And because its SSI, I can't even tell you what revision we're currently operating under, because the the Revision and Version are....SSI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_ ... nformation

[Zed Snardbody]

And to add on, yea there has always been a massive disconnect between DC and the airports, hell theres one between the uniforms and suits inside the airports. A lot of it is cultural. These people came from the airline industry, people in uniforms don't mater, its the suits that make decisions, they direct, they don't need nor want our input. Its small things to.

TSA nearest equivalent could be argued to be Customs and Border Protection. In CBP, all the way to Port Director is in uniform. TSA, bottom three ranks, the rest of the staff is plain clothes. The agency is hugely management heavy. I have multiple Deputy Directors for screening at one airport. They don't even work different shifts. They in turn answer to a Assistant Director.

Granted I'm a peon, a professional NCO as it where, so maybe they need all these people, but I maintain my doubts. Ask most TSA officers why all we do is dream about jumping ship to another job (CBP #1 with a bullet) and 9 times out of 10 its not grief from passengers. You don't get an entire agency begging for union representation when its passengers that give you a hard time.

And I've really let this get off topic, I'm sorry.

[Count Chocula]

Thanks, Zed. I'd totally understand if you just had to pat down some femme hottie because a female screener wasn't available. I wouldn't approve, but I'd understand.

Annd on the lighter side, follow this link to The Blaze for both reason and hilarity on another kid getting teh pats-downs:
First, the good part (two-click link to ABC News):

The TSA said it has reviewed the tape and that the “officer followed proper current screening procedures.“ They added they ”are exploring additional ways to focus its resources and move beyond a one-sized-fits-all system.”

The bad part: most of the comments. Sheesh. 120 comments and I don't need both hands to count the reasoned ones.

[Serafina]

One could argue that terrorists could use information on the pat-down-procedure in order to hide things during it, thereby justifying the classification of that information.
Of course, they just have to appear conscious about full-body scans and choose to get a pat-down voluntarily, and they already have all that information first-hand.

BTW, i think this is a fine, tough mild, example on how "classified"-labels can run rampant to a point where it looses any sensible meaning, which is a trend we've seen quite a bit in the USA (think Wikileaks).
I think transparency is an important value, especially for an organization that is interacting with the public all the time. As far as i can see, this is yet another aspect where the TSA is failing.

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Zed:

Nah, this is on topic, because the TSA having management issues is probably the cause of a lot of the objectionable procedures that have gotten into place. The people in charge of the agency keep looking for "better" scanners and metaphorically bulletproof security procedures, and no one's holding them accountable for... shall we say, failing at "the Zen of not fucking up?"

Holy shit, Zed! There seems to be an adversarial relationship between the brass and the folks on the screening lines. It sounds, to this frequent flier, like the TSA upper-uppers are wayyy too hung up on lawsuit-fear and political correctness. Feel free to not reply if to reply would be above your pay grade or draw unfavorable attention.

P.S. Jesus Christ it's a pisser that I even have to think that way in free-free, non-repressive America.

I'd argue it's not even political correctness; it's the instinctive urge of all security-organ* bureaucrats to say "you can't do that."

"Can I write down what I do to everyone who walks through an airport terminal?"

"You can't do that."

"Can I write down what you told me to do to everyone who walks through an airport terminal?"

"You can't do that."

"Can I carry a milk carton onto a plane?"

"You can't do that."

"Can I write down that your nakedcam sensors are piece of crap bleeding edge bullshit?"

"You can't do that."

And so on. This is the mindset you'd expect from the guys who put the "police" in "police state." They don't have to be special monsters or war criminals or torturers to create an oppressive security regime. They're just people whose natural reaction to anything anyone else does that might force them to do work or face inconvenience is to forbid it. People who prefer working in a closed society where everyone has to ask them for permission to do anything, because it lets them minimize the effects of checks and balances on their authority.

We should have known, some of us did know, all along that if we started creating a massive Homeland Security apparatus, closet authoritarians would start appearing in the upper ranks. They always do.

In this case, they enjoy a complicit relationship with a big slice of the American public that thinks this whole pageantry makes them safe, and has gotten the issue pitched to them as "necessary sacrifices for safety!"

I think a lot of people saw this coming immediately after 9/11; they were not heeded.

[Simon_Jester]

GHETTO EDIT:

Interesting piece on the concept of secret laws in TSA policy- in effect, the TSA brass is asserting its authority to write laws about who can travel and under what circumstances, without telling the public what those laws are, and without letting them seek recourse in the courts because their lawyers can't find out what the laws are either.

[Akhlut]

Simon, you have an astericks that doesn't lead to a footnote! I'm in fucking suspense, here! What the hell was your footnote going to say?!?!

Also, I'm rather leary of this sort of thing anyway. I don't see how this is more effective then a combination of metal detector and bomb-sniffing dog, given that the failure rate used to be around 40-75% (depending on airport) for auditers slipping fake bombs past screeners (of course, that was from leaked reports from 2006, and we have no information on how well they're doing now, but I'm not inclined to say they're doing a whole hell of a lot better without hearing new information about that).

I like the idea of a TSA, I really do, but I think whoever the fuck is in charge of procedures is a collective bunch of idiots, frankly. There's something to be said of human dignity, in spite of danger. Metal-detectors, bomb-sniffing dogs, and training people to spot potentially dangerous behaviors in people seem like good starts to me that don't require procedures that make everyone miserable. Further, I'm not sure it's attracting new customers and is bound to drive more then a few away. I know I'd rather take a train or just drive anywhere for vacation now rather then fly, even if I'm unlikely to deal directly with this bullshit.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, you have an astericks that doesn't lead to a footnote! I'm in fucking suspense, here! What the hell was your footnote going to say?!?!

Something like:

*I'm defining the "security organs" as large scale security organizations with a broad remit from the central government to enforce regulations, keep records on citizens, and generally have a high-profile presence as state agents among the populace with the power to punish you for disobedience. This is usually done in the name of protecting the state (and regime) from wreckers/saboteurs/traitors/terrorists.

The FBI is a security organ in this respect, as is the TSA... but the military and the city police forces are not.

One of the defining characteristics of a police state is that the security organs grow large, powerful, and wind up largely immune to oversight. They also tend to have byzantine procedures and faction feuds, because this increases the ability of those running the security organs to retain a hold on power at the expense of the public (and the rest of the government, including the bodies normally responsible for oversight).

If comparing that to the state of the American security organs makes you feel a little bit worried, good. That's a sign that you're still sane.

I like the idea of a TSA, I really do, but I think whoever the fuck is in charge of procedures is a collective bunch of idiots, frankly. There's something to be said of human dignity, in spite of danger. Metal-detectors, bomb-sniffing dogs, and training people to spot potentially dangerous behaviors in people seem like good starts to me that don't require procedures that make everyone miserable. Further, I'm not sure it's attracting new customers and is bound to drive more then a few away. I know I'd rather take a train or just drive anywhere for vacation now rather then fly, even if I'm unlikely to deal directly with this bullshit.

The metal detectors started getting silly when they made everyone take off their shoes and such- I'd say that was the tipping point.

I'd argue that if we really care about secure air travel, we need to wind the clock on our policies- the public face of those policies, what you can and cannot do- back to before 9/11 and then rewrite everything from the ground up, with an eye to the fact that practically everyone who goes through the TSA lines and has trouble with them is not an enemy of the state and does have a right to travel free from the arbitrary exercise of bureaucratic power.

[Akhlut]

The metal detectors started getting silly when they made everyone take off their shoes and such- I'd say that was the tipping point.

I can understand taking off shoes, at least for adults, to go through metal detectors. The pair of boots I wore to go to Florida have a steel plate in the sole and a bunch of metal loops for the bootlaces, so it's just going to set the damn thing off and cause problems. I don't think that's entirely unreasonable.

But, we also had to ditch any beverage we brought with us that wasn't our son's to drink. You forgot you had a bottle of pop with you? We're tossing that shit! Now you get to pay $2.50 for 20 ounces of Coke instead of $0.99 for a liter at the local Gas-n-Go! This is especially ridiculous as my son's formula (and, later, milk or juice) simply had a strip waved over it that can detect fumes from volatile/explosive liquids. What the fuck? Why not have that done for people who aren't children?

Sorry if I'm ranting, it's just that there's a litany of bullshit from the TSA as an organization, and it draws my ire.

I'd argue that if we really care about secure air travel, we need to wind the clock on our policies- the public face of those policies, what you can and cannot do- back to before 9/11 and then rewrite everything from the ground up, with an eye to the fact that practically everyone who goes through the TSA lines and has trouble with them is not an enemy of the state and does have a right to travel free from the arbitrary exercise of bureaucratic power.

QFT. Other nations manage to prevent hijackings, bombings, and other shit despite not treating passengers like The Enemy, why can't the US?

[Themightytom]

Um I work in a detox center over the weekends and the clients are pretty open about the shit they stuff down their kid's pants. if someone can stuff a wasteband full of needles, a terrorist can easily place a weapon there and either way TSA is HELPING the children by making it obvious that they will search them too. If we started assuring people that certain demographics would be excluded, children, the elderly, minorities, red heads, cubs fans, we would be identifying populations vulnerable to exploitation.

[Akhlut]

Um I work in a detox center over the weekends and the clients are pretty open about the shit they stuff down their kid's pants. if someone can stuff a wasteband full of needles, a terrorist can easily place a weapon there and either way TSA is HELPING the children by making it obvious that they will search them too. If we started assuring people that certain demographics would be excluded, children, the elderly, minorities, red heads, cubs fans, we would be identifying populations vulnerable to exploitation.

And terrorists can just as easily stuff a block of C4 and a detonator into a child's rectum; would you be okay with cavity searches for kids?

As I said, there's a certain level where excessive measures are involved that are probably not particularly helpful. Hell, the TSA isn't even letting us know how effective they are (no new reports of how many auditors slip by with fake bombs or guns or knives) and the only information we have, while being several years old, also paints a grim picture of failure rates of between 40-75% depending on airport combined with scientists saying that things like backscatter scanners can be fooled and pat-downs can be ineffective. Given that these harsh measures haven't been too effective and can be fooled, I again ask: how is this more effective then the combo of metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs? If a kid is being used as a mule for explosives, a dog will find that more readily then a backscatter scanner or a pat-down, as well as more reliably (fewer false positives and false negatives; the dogs are exceptionally good at this sort of thing). Plus, there's minor considerations like "dignity" and "feelings of intrusion"; most people aren't going to be particularly worried about a beagle or bloodhound going around and sniffing about, whereas people are understandably and justifiably not too pleased about the TSA's current rather invasive procedures.

[White Haven]

Security through obscurity simply doesn't work, and hasn't for quite some time. Maintaining obscurity in the information age is harder than it ever used to be, and will continue to get more difficult as time goes on and interconnected communications grow. False security through obscurity, however, works like a charm, hence the entire TSA doctrine and the secrecy cloaking it.