Outraged by TSA

BarbaraA

Jane, they 'say' it is safe. Well, they said thalidomide was safe too. I have had more than enough radiation to last me a life time PLUS I will have to have MRI's and PET's for years to come. I am gonna opt out and I know it won't be pretty but I bought this really cool miniature vid cam that is plastic and can clip onto clothes.

Y'all may think I am nuts but we BC folks do not need ONE more gray of radiation. I am going to tape it all. 12/1 is the date!

JaneGHB53

I'm with you Barbara, I've had radiation enough too with more to come for legitimate medical reasons through the future.  Guess I'll opt out when traveling this Christmas as well, and "the devil take the hindmost"!

BarbaraA

Good luck. I will post my vid of groping (if it happens) on my website and will link it here.

revkat

If you only fly to and from small airports, they are not likely to have the new scanners yet. So if you don't set off the detectors or get randomly chosen for a pat-down, you might make it through unscathed.

As bc patients we had to make lots of decision about cost/benefit. It would appear to me that these new security measures at most would reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on a domestic flight the tiniest fraction of a percent. Are the Homeland Security folks so focused on trying to get that risk to 0 (impossible as we all know) that the are blind to the other ramifications of their actions? They're like an oncologist who orders the most aggressive treatment possible for a small grade 1 tumor without considering the side effects of the treatment. And without recognizing that though the risk line may approach 0 it will never actually get there.

On the other hand, who stands to make the most $$$ of the use of new whole body scanners? It's not the TSA employees. Follow the money. 

singletona80

Oh wow I had alot of reading to do . . . This is turning into a mess.  However everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

SoCal- im not quite sure I can accurately answer your question, its probably just a matter of preference.  Prior to my BC dx, when I was working ive came into contact with many woman with prosthesis and some were "understanding" of the procedure and others were "angry".  I often times questioned to myself whether they more angry at the fact that they had BC or the fact that they were being screened. Alot of the times the passenger would tell (NOT REQUIRED)  me this info prior to the pat down, and I would give them options that they had (ie private screening, hand wand etc), sometimes it made the procedure a lil less traumatic IMO.

Daisy - Thanks for your understanding, actually I dont think we can satisfy everyone, someone is going to have something to say no matter what

Kcrews- LOL You're right about someone acting suspicious, prior to blowing themselve up, Ugh I cant and dont wanna imagine that.

Colette37- Oh, wow you "sound" so angry, but you have the right to your opinion ! I just wonder why are you so angry?? Is it because of the BC dx ?? Im just saying . . .cuz I know this BC dx has and is changing me and for the positive.  I dont get mad easily, life is too short.I look at life in a different light especially when death could be staring me in the face. If I didnt work there than I wouldnt have the medical benefits that gets me through my cancer tx & then I would really have something to complain about, hey im thankful for my job !!!!!

Bessie - Yes I feel that when it come to security it should be proactive, not after the fact that something as happened.

Mamaof3- Thanks for your support.

In the end you have a choice . . . . . "Fly and follow the rules OR travel by another route".

 

Colette37

singletona...I think I made it clear in the original post.  I am outraged by TSAs actions.  The Law of the Land (yes, the Constitution and Bill of Rights still is this) point blank states that all people are secure in their person, period.  This is not what we have with the TSA and to know that people (especially women who have had to already deal with breast cancer treatment) have to automatically be guilty of a crime that people are not guilty of in the first place, is wrong and against the very right of being a human.  The USA laws do not stop just because a person boards a flight, nor do they stop just because they walk onto an airport.

TSA agents are starting to be sued and charged for sexual harassment for the new 'enhanced pat downs' that they are doing?  It has gone that far.  And by the looks of it, it will also be no one flying in the future.  This holiday season will be very telling about how far citizens will let go of their liberty...and what they will do to stop the TSA.

Also, what is 'proactive' about listing everyone as a terrorist?  I can understand if a person can not answer the simplest of questions or are fidgety to look at them closer...but everyone?  Only in a communist country or Hitler's Germany would that be acceptable.

BarbaraA

They HAVE lists of real terrorists but can't do this to them. (Am I nuts but that is what I have read.).

sunsnow

In the end you have a choice . . . . . "Fly and follow the rules OR travel by another route".

Singletona80-That comment bothers me and I feel the need to address it. Those are not the only choices we, the American people, have. While "Homeland Security" has trampled our 4th Amendment rights, our 1st Amendment rights are still available to us. We have the right to complain to our representatives and to confront this travesty in our courts. We also have the right to discuss it without being told what our motivations are by perfect strangers. That is exactly what the pilots began to do before the compromise was reached with the union. This issue is far from resolved, and no single branch of government has absolute power, even in the name of security. This will likely be adjudicated over the coming months. Congress rejected this screening scenario because numerous experts said it would not be effective in its aims. Now we have former HSA Secretary Chertoff publicly vouching for the scanner, but not disclosing that they are a client of his. This is far from over. So, while I will bite my lip when I am forced to fly, I will not stop fighting this ridiculous policy. 

You may to choose to dismiss those who disagree with you as angry about a different issue. Sure, I'm angry I got breast cancer, but I have spent my adult life studying and protecting the Constitution, so this makes me angry as well. I'm an adult who is quite capable of having intense feelings about multiple subjects--those that make me happy and those that infuriate me--all at the same time. It is presumptuous and unproductive to dismiss the indignation of those who do not share your point of view. You are welcome to your opinion, but the women here who do not agree with it did not attack you personally. Perhaps you might want to stick to your field of expertise, rather than attempting to analyze the motives of those you have never met. 

Enjoyful

Medigal - Hahaha!  I only had one pot of coffee today, so I'm definitely short on caffeine.

Well said, sunsnow!

Celtic_Spirit

Spot on, Sunsnow!

doingbetter

I have found Homeland Security and TSA actions angering and useless before my recent bout of breast cancer.  Anger about breast cancer (which I have to admit, while I'm not thrilled about I have gotten over the anger phase) has nothing to do with my reaction to the senseless type of screening that TSA conducts.  I do not want to paint all agents with the same brush.  We used to travel frequently (notice I say used to because we have already cut back dramatically due to these new measures), and there were many fine enough, professional agents who did what they had to with minimal unneccessary hassle to passengers.  BUT, there have also been many agents with major egoes who seem to get a thrill from screaming at and ordering people around - usually the perceived "meeker" people - older, some kind of limited mobility, women, etc.  And frankly, the inconsistent and random nature of the screenings was only more unnerving. How anyone can say they feel safer with what's been happening with airport security since 9/11 baffles me.  The attempts that have been thwarted since then were due to sheer luck and sometimes "intelligence."  Notice the word intelligence - no one found anything on anybody that prevented an attack.  And the scariest part is, it wasn't even the U.S.'s own intelligence.  Heck, before 9/11 the evidence of what was about to happen was practically screaming out to the government and they still couldn't step up security enough to stop it (let's see, you've been told that a major attack is likely by flying planes into buildings, there are middle eastern guys taking flying lessons at small airports around the country, they buy one way tickets with cash and no warning bells go off???). 

 Bottom line is, without real screening of people with the understanding that revkat pointed out (great analogy with bc), that you will never get the risk completely down to 0, we are no safer now then we were before all the nonsense started (and I mean even before this - i.e. shoes, water, etc.)

jo355

A suggestion  for those who have to fly while the system is the way it is. One: opt out of the machine scan. Every doctor I have spoken to says its too much radiation. Two  as stated  above carry a letter from your doctor if you have implants or prosthesis to that effect. It works. at least it does in NY

Anne888

Ladies, as far as carrying a letter from your doctor re the implants, good luck with that.  I have a total knee replacement courtesy of Femara and carry a medical card that actually includes an xray of my knee.  It has done absolutely no good when I've gone through security, and that was before the new stepped up security.  The reason is that this sort of thing could easily be forged.  So I can't imagine in this new wave of paranoia the TSA would accept the card and forego the grope.  But I guess hope springs eternal - Jo355, could you tell us how it worked for you in NY?

otter

singletona80, I am sorry if it sounds like we're all jumping on you. It's understandable that someone in your position would step up and defend your employer's policies, even if other people find them distasteful.

You are right -- we are buying plane tickets and boarding airliners voluntarily (for the most part).  Because of that, you and your TSA colleagues -- including your boss, Mr. Pistole, and his boss, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano -- say, "If you object to the screening process, you will not be allowed to fly" (e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/16/AR2010111607255.html).

Looks simple enough: if we don't like it, we stay home or find another way to travel.  Thousands of travelers have made that choice already; and that will not sit well with the already-shaky airline industry.  But, it's more complicated. The TSA has made it clear this past week in the John Tyner case that, once we start the screening process, we are not free to leave the security checkpoint without completing it. So, if we are waiting in line and we have second thoughts because the pat-downs of people ahead of us look too invasive, we cannot just turn around and walk out the front door. If we try to leave without "completing the screening", we are subject to arrest and civil penalties up to $11,000. False imprisonment?  Being held against our will?  Maybe so; but it's perfectly legal.

The TSA appears to have the upper hand in this, so far.  Despite all the ranting about 4th Amendment rights, there apparently is plenty of judicial precedent allowing the TSA's unprovoked and warrantless searches at airports.  Airports are special places, and the federal government (the "administration") has been given the authority to regulate who goes through them.  Much of that authority was conferred by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, Public Law 107-71).  That act was passed hurriedly by Congress and signed by the President in November 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.  The act created the TSA and transferred authority for civil aviation security from the FAA to the TSA.  Among other things, it ordered that all checked and carry-on bags be tested for explosives, and that all vehicles and passengers entering the secure area of an airport be "screened."  Folks, the joke is on us:  we pay for the program through a fee that's added to the cost of each flight segment of our tickets.  So, you've already paid for that groping you'll get.

Despite TSA's claims that the Nude-o-Scope scans and "enhanced" pat-downs are perfectly legal, there are court challenges underway.  "Reasonableness" of the searches is at issue, as is the “expectation of privacy” inside an airport.  Most people have a reduced expectation of privacy with respect to their luggage -- they accept that TSA will search their checked and carry-on bags.  The recent legal challenges are based on an expectation of privacy regarding the intimate areas of our bodies.  Based on the public uproar since the policies were implemented this month, it seems people do not think virtual strip-searches and/or groping of their breasts and crotches are a necessary, reasonable, or effective means of ensuring the security of commercial aviation.

otter

singletona80

Hey, im not mad, everyone is entitled to their opinon and feelings!!  And yes its too bad that some TSA agents create a bad image of the rest.  Yes, some (TSA Agents) have an ego and get a boost out of ordering people around without regards to the next person's feelings, & thats not right !!! In life people always find a way to complain about something, its life!!! 

Aiight everyone take care, and enjoy life cuz its too short !!

otter

How could I forget this part:  "Oh, wow you "sound" so angry, but you have the right to your opinion ! I just wonder why are you so angry?? Is it because of the BC dx ?? Im just saying . . .".

singletona80, we are trying to be sympathetic to the fact that you work as a TSA officer and you did not write the rules you're being asked to enforce.  Please don't try to invalidate anyone's concerns by suggesting that our anger at TSA policies is misdirected, and what we're really angry about is the fact that we've had breast cancer.

This is not about breast cancer.  It's about privacy and dignity and civil rights.  As evidence, I cite my husband.  He has never had cancer of any kind, nor has he had any other type of serious disease -- yet, he is more angry about TSA policies and procedures than I am.  He will not discuss the issue; he will not stand still long enough to listen to what I have to say about it; and he absolutely refuses to ever fly again on a commercial airliner.

otter

[Edited:  You are right -- life is too short, especially if we'll be driving instead of flying to visit our families for the holidays.]

[Edited again to back off a little with the verbage, because I do think singletona80 is listening and I don't think she is trying to be obstinate.  I would be defensive, too, if my profession had been denigrated the way the TSA is being criticized lately.]

singletona80

Otter- that was directed towards someone else

kellyj

Does anyone else think that it is comical that they scan pilots?  Isn't the plane a weapon?  Silly.

Beesie

otter, if I may, I will add to your comment:

"This is not about breast cancer.  It's about privacy and dignity and civil rights." And it is about security.  These humiliating invasive inappropriate scans and searches do absolutely nothing to enhance security and make it safer to fly.  They are just a show, put on to make people think that something is being done and that we are all now safer when we fly.  But the next threat, the next attack, won't be from someone with a bomb strapped externally to their private parts.  It will be something placed in cargo (which as noted, isn't searched).  Or it will be something placed in a body cavity (I shudder at the thought but that is where this is going).  Or it will be a powder (but not a liquid).  Or it will be something else that we haven't thought of stopping yet. 

And that's why I'm angry.  Because all these enhanced security methods are useless.  It has nothing to do with my having had breast cancer.  It has to do with the fact that every innocent passenger is being treated as a criminal for no reason at all.  It's that we are getting nothing for our discomfort/humiliation, no benefit at all. 

What I want is for Homeland Security to come up with a security plan that will actually make us safer. Then they can stop wasting money humiliating innocent passengers.

otter

Beesie, I absolutely agree with everything you are saying.  I could not have said it better.  There are so many alternatives that are being underutilized but would be less objectionable and certainly less invasive.  The use of multiple contrasting but less invasive methods ought to provide an overall level of security that's equivalent to the current, "strip 'em or they won't fly" approach.  And, as most of us would agree, it is impossible to provide an environment in which there is zero risk.

I do think the TSA is pushing things as far as they possibly can, with whatever high-tech methods they can find (all while providing Michael Chertoff with a nice retirement package), and then backing off only when the level of public outrage becomes too great to ignore.

For example, the TSA backed off this week on the "enhanced" pat-downs of young children (under the age of 12).  Their argument that it was necessary, on the basis of airline security, to hand-search the bottoms of screaming children was unsustainable.  So, after enduring a week or so of hostility from parents, they've decided those invasive searches of young children aren't necessary after all.  They aren't disclosing exactly what they plan to do with young children at TSA checkpoints, now that they've discontinued the "enhanced" pat-downs -- it's a National Security issue, and can't be revealed.

Also, for kellyj, there is the news today that the TSA is cutting airline pilots some slack.  After listening to logical and reasonable arguments (e.g., "Why would I attempt to smuggle a butter knife onto a plane to bring it down, when I could accomplish that more easily by simply pushing the yoke in?"), the TSA is going to change its screening of the cockpit crews.  There will be a transitional period, and eventually some sort of biometric ID will be involved.  But at least some common sense has prevailed:  http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=46563&oref=todaysnews

For those of you still interested in the 4th amendment aspects of all this, here is a nice, easy-to-read article that considers the legality (or illegality) of Nude-o-Scans and "enhanced" pat-downs at airport checkpoints:  http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2010/11/18/tsa-scans-patdowns-do-these-violate-the-4th-amendment-maybe/

Time for a long nap....

otter

SoCalLisa

In 1973, I was traveling from Madrid , Spain to Stuttgart Germany

and had to change planes in Switzerland, without leaving the international

terminal or going out of the security area...every person switching planes

was herded to an area in the middle of the terminal and made to take off

all our clothes...they used pvc pipe and sheets to set up areas away from

view..some lady from the Swiss government examined us visually when we

were naked..we were alone in the cubicle...

Is this where we are headed??

Celtic_Spirit

As I read this thread, I keep thinking of the movie "V for Vendetta." That's another place we may be headed.

Grazie47

Now that I have BC I am at a point in my life where I could care less who sees my naked body, I have been looked at and probed by more medical people than I care to remember.  

If the TSA wanted me to strip in the middle of the airport, I would, but if I was travelling with children or teens I would be horrified that the TSA would want to see them naked or to grope them, I would never fly again if I had young children.   How to do you explain to a child "No one can touch you" then say "Honey it is OK for this lady/man to touch you" .   Pedophiles will be telling kids "It's OK to touch you, its the same as the airport"  Also teens are just becoming aware of their sexuality and having to be groped is just not acceptable.  Women searching women, I'll bet the men working at the TSA and the ones in line love to watch that.   If I was gay what a perfect place to work. 

That said, I can't imagine being a TSA agent and having to stick my hand into someones pants, what if they have their period, or a diaper on that needs to be changed.  Yuck, I would demand gloves that come up to my elbow.

This security at the airport is a show to make us feel safe.   Why not have the same thing at every subway station.  How many trains packed to the gills are running under buildings and tunnels and no one is checking them?  How many trucks are inspected?  Why not have the same security at every hotel lobby, one could easily check into a hotel with a bomb and take out a thousand rooms.

I don't mind the going through the metal detector, or the wand, but I get really pissed off when they pull me aside for an extra check and let a young buff man walk right on in.   I am almost 60, short fat and anyone could easily kick my butt, what kind of threat am I? Last time I flew I had to throw out my water - guess they thought I would drown the pilot with 16oz of H2O but they let me keep my cigarette lighter, you would think they would have at least let me keep the water to put out the fire from the lighter - go figure.

They have gone too far, but despite all that I will continue to fly, subject myself to humiliation, but I also plan to ask to be taken behind the screen and then I am going to do  a "When Harry met Sally moan and groan"

mamaof3bugs

I think that it is so sad the people on this "support" board are being so hard on those that have differing opinions.  Back off people, telling someone to quite their job is a bit extreme in this economy don't ya think?  Especially since she is going through treatment with the insurance provided by that job?  I don't understand why everyone is so pissed off, I guess I agree with the poster above...I have been seen by so many people at this point I could care less if some person sees an xray of me.  If you don't like the process then do something about it, write a senator, congressmen, hell write the president and don't stop until you get the desired results.  Here's to agreeing to disagree.

ravdeb

I agree to disagree as I read the posts. Would never tell somebody to leave their job. It's a job. Hard to get those these days.

I would like to agree with those who wrote about Israel's security, though, and food for thought for those who would like to write to their congressmen and senators and heck..even Obama.

 Living in Israel we are up against constant terror attacks.Security is very tight in our airports and there are no scans (except for our luggage), but there is a ton of security everywhere. Our passports are double and triple checked on occasion. Our suitcases are opened if there is something suspicious looking (I was traveling with paintings that were packed in cardboard and was questioned about that a zillion times). My friend who has traveled alone to visit me ...one year I got a phone call from El Al asking me if I was expecting somebody and who was it, etc.. My sister who has traveled alone here has had her suitcase opened many times.

they ask us questions. Ask us why we are leaving the country and why we are returning. They are trained. We are questioned before we even enter the road that leads to the parking at the airport. They will often ask us simple questions just to hear our voice, our accents, our whatever it is they are looking for. They are trained.

No scanning. No embarrassing body checks.

I travel to the States once or twice a year. I'm really concerned now after all these stories. I had no situations like this in Aug. when I traveled, but will that be the case on my next trip since I take several domestic flights while there? I won't do the body scan because those, I think, have not been tested and studied enough to understand how much radiation is exposed. I get enough radiation yearly on ct's and bone scans and x-rays and mammos that I must have to try to keep me living and well.

having somebody touch me in intimate areas doesn't sit well with me. I am not sure how I would get through that.

And mostly because I find it unnecessary. Instead, I think a new kind of training of security is in order. Just have no idea how that would work.

joan888

What a heated thread we have going here!  My DH is an international airline captain and I own a travel agency.  I have just gone through 8 months of hell dealing with BC diagnosis, BMX, reconstuction, chemo, and just finished radiation last week.  I am probably a little fragile emotionally right now but I have to pipe in now.

I am used to flying alot but when I met my first body scanner and full pat-down in public view at the Charlotte airport in September, I nearly broke down in tears.  The TSA agent was terribly rude.  I was pulled aside after walking through the magnet detector that did not even go off.  I was wearing a scarf so maybe that made them suspicious.  I ended up with a full scalp massage and breast massage.  How humiliating for me with the rest of the line watching this going on.  I was not given the option of any private room.

And so.... since then, I have gotten sent through the body scanner AND full pat down every darn time, in EVERY airport that I have passed through.  I am absolutley dreading my upcoming flight from Chicago to Seattle next week to visit our daughter and family.

As the owner of a travel agency, I will tell you that I am hearing many clients looking for destinations that they can drive to for spring break with their children this year.

As the wife of an airline pilot, I will tell you that we have had some heated discussions on this topic.  Of course, he wants to know that the passengers have been properly screened and feel safe, but he is emotionally torn with having to watch me go through this experience.  He knows the hell that I have already been through.  Thre just has to be a better way!

Medigal

Let's face it.  Just like in any job, we are going to have TSA agents who will respect the people they pat down by doing it as carefully as possible and others who will take advantage of their new responsibilities and do embarrassing pats.  I agree they need to change "gloves" each time and follow all procedures.  If they don't you should report the particular TSA agent asap!  I say "you" because I, thankfully, will not be flying any longer for other reasons.  I can't believe this is the best our government can come up with to "protect" us!

Deirdre1

I, for one, only fly because it is convenient - not anymore!  Won't be flying to Toronto (as planned), to Chicago (to visit my sister), to Sioux Falls (to visit my daughter) or to Sacramento (my other daughter)... The only way to get the message across is to stop buying tickets!!!!

I realize that's not practical for those of us that may fly for our business (or family illness etc)  but if those of us who fly because it's convenient (but could choose not to fly) didn't purchase tickets, they would get the message!!!  I was furious when I saw this (and other!) accounts of what is happening to flight travel!  Instead of protecting US from the "terrorists" they have instead satisfied the terrorists need to stall our economy, our travel, our health etc..  It's such a reverse thought process!!!!!  Secure and guard the entry ports and eliminate SOME of the need to fondle us at the flight terminals, after all there are busses, trains, subways, waterways etc.. this is just being done to look politically correct - it accomplishes nothing else IMO.

MJLToday

I agree with this poster on a frequent flyer travel site, regarding the "right to fly."

We have the right, guaranteed by the US Constitution, to travel freely without unreasonable restrictions. Does this mean we have the right to travel any way we want? No. Does it mean we have the right to travel without any restrictions? No. Does it mean we have the right to fly? No. So what does it mean?

It means we have the right to fly (travel) without unreasonable restrictions. The problem with almost all arguments (especially on TV) is they drop the last half of the sentence. We don't have the right to fly. We have the right to travel (including flying) WITHOUT UNREASONABLE RESTRICTIONS. This same concept applies to all modes of transportation. You don't have the right to drive a car. You do have the right the drive a car (if you chose to do so) without having your Constitutional rights violated (e.g., being searched simply because you are driving).

Many people focus on the wrong thing. The debate should not be about the right to fly, but on whether or not what the government is doing to us (when we chose to fly) IS REASONABLE. In other words: Is the government violating our rights when we fly?

It is clear to me that the government has gone too far. They are violating our right to move freely. They are violating our right to be secure. They are violating our right to privacy. They are violating our right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. What they are doing is unreasonable. Even if I chose not to fly, they are still being unreasonable and therefore, IMO, are violating the Constition.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15208533-post47.html 

Joviangeldeb

Singletona80,

Hi. I have a question that maybe you can answer for me.  I have a gastric electrical stimulator implanted in my abdomen as well as a breast prosthesis.  I carry a card that states I cannot go through the tsa scanners or it will damage the gastric stimulator.  I would gladly go through a body search in order to prevent me from having to go through the scanners, which would lead to more surgery to replace the device.   What are the rules on that?  Would the agents allow me to be searched instead of going through the scanners?  I'm apprehensive about ever having to fly anywhere because of this issue.  Any thoughts would be helpful. 

Debbie