They were "suspicious as passengers" as soon as they bought a plane ticket; they became even more so because they were carrying sealed baby food. Is this a new incident or a rehash of an incident that occurred a couple of months ago?
Sounds like something I have heard or read about before. Of course with TSA repeats of idiocy is are to be expected.
Yep, we have seen this before, RB: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/chec...sealed-baby-formula-1-parents-gets-grope.html Perhaps the answer for those traveling with baby food is to bring along several jars and tell the screener to select one to open and test. His/her choice. Doing a grope because parents refuse to allow all jars of food to be open is just asinine, but, of course, this is the TSA.
Why think idiot will take one jar? TSO wanted jars opened. Explosive threat or uppity traveler? No ETD. You decide. As the Dad points out, in April 2013 incident retold in Consumerist; (don't read FT): One parent searched, and not on the hands. Contradictory, illogical *rules*, subject to interpretation. Liked story for TSA logic laid bare, and another confirmation of the punitive genital search.
I probably don't need to point this out, but in terms of tyranny creep, hassling people over their baby's food (or formula, or breastmilk for that matter) is not that far away from Sophie's Choice type stuff. The groundwork is laid. At least they got enough pushback to stop the child gropings.
Yes, I know they wanted all the jars opened and I am suggesting a "stand your ground" option: TSA chooses one jar to test. Testing one jar of their choice has a better chance of detecting any "contraband" than groping one parent only.
Oh, a traveler's alternative to patdown punishment for noncompliance. And providing a more logical out for TSA were they reading our suggestions for guidance. OK. Plainly this family was more *suspicious* after questioning the TSO. Good for the Dad wanting to teach his tot about living under such tyranny. What choice are we given but to accept questioning alone is sufficent reason to be treated as a threat? I think the punitive patdown is better called-out than accommodated. But the more choices for travelers the better. Once again, TSA shows patdowns should not be among their options.
I'd think that accepting their nonsense without question demonstrates that someone has ulterior motives in getting through security. After all - who's going to complain about the procedures and draw attention to themselves when they're sporting a suicide vest?
You know, this is a good point -- the TSA has brought patdowns into the spotlight to a degree that anybody intent on doing harm or smuggling contraband can figure out how to hide things in places where TSA can't find them. A procedure that once had some value is now pure theater. I would have NEVER thought to stick something where the sun don't shine to sneak it through, but their theatrics have given me such fodder for thought that I've now considered exactly how I would do it. It would be easy. Believe me -- do it right and nobody would have any way to know. I almost want to try next time I fly with something innocuous. Maybe even go through the scanner, just so I could be cool like Jon Corbett.
These TSA procedures place the public at great risk. A young child whose diet is from sterile jars of baby food will not be able to tolerate food poisoning and that is exactly what this TSA procedure would cause. This is more proof that TSA is not trying to protect the public, problem is I can't find anything TSA is doing for anyone's benefit except the 65,000 TSA Johnny Pistole perverts infesting our country and taking our tax dollars in order to abuse us.
Not to mention the fact that they wanted to test the baby food with their magic test strips, which can't possibly work the way they're using them, according to knowledgeable scientists over at the other place. Every which way you turn, it's pure theater.
That would because at the other place ... people actually have degrees and intelligence to tell its all bull . Sadly none of the smurfs will ever admit it or have the brain cells to rub together to"get a clue"
Smurfs and TSA apologists are forever claiming the TSA's nitrate detection systems magically distinguish between harmless nitrates and explosive compounds. The poor, silly dears never seem to realize that no one with a grain of sense can believe them. In the field the TSA's nitrate detection program has only detected FALSE positives. Obviously, their system can't tell the difference between hand lotion, soap, medications, lawn fertilizer and the scawy, scawy compounds they're intended to detect. They can't tell what's in the baby food jars, no matter how many magic swabs the contaminate the infant's food with. All they can do is perform security theater, and very few people are still amused by that show. It's time to dramatically downsize the entire police state, starting with the TSA.
One word that bothers me in this thread is "suspicion". Screeners are supposed to be checking for WEI. They are not cops, not trained in search & evidence procedures nor law, do not have the background to deal with reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc. If a screener feels that someone is remotely "suspicious", they should be referring that person to law enforcement, not taking it upon themselves to initiate a groping search based on "suspicion".
Another thing that smacks of smoke and mirrors here is the Bottle Liquid Scanner mentioned in TSA's response to the incident. Do we know how this thing supposedly works? Apparently they just stick the bottles in this special scanner and it can tell if the liquid is safe. But if there are labels covering the entire bottle, the machine doesn't work. Or, if the machine isn't present, it also doesn't work, says the TSA response. (Duh.) Is this some kind of x-ray technology, or what? Why would some thin paper or plastic labels interfere with something that can otherwise penetrate glass or plastic? Maybe there's a smart explanation to my query here, but somehow I doubt it. I can think of some fun things to call a "BLS", if you know what I'm saying. Big Load of... etc.
