TSA and Piercings
Your questions and comments on the incident in Lubbock, Texas have not gone unnoticed. Yesterday, as soon as TSA became aware of the situation, people in our Security Operations office looked into it. They interviewed the four Security Officers who at one point or another, screened or spoke to the passenger - two men and two women (if a passenger requests private screening, they must get an officer of the same sex to screen them there). TSA has also been in touch with the passenger’s lawyer on several occasions.
The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong. But, after looking at the procedure the officers followed, it was determined that the procedures should be modified. An official statement has been posted on our website here.
Lynn
TSA EoS Blog Team
posted by Lynn at
5:37 PM
332 Comments:
When will the officers involved be fired for mistreating and humiliating this poor woman?
How many TSOs have EVER been fired for mistreating citizens?
March 28, 2008 5:42 PM
Any while you geniuses are at it, how about explaining how ANY object small enough to be contained in a NIPPLE PIERCING could possibly be a danger to a plane -- not that you'll do this, because you're all a pack of liars and cowards.
March 28, 2008 5:49 PM
Hopefully, Lynn, It won't continue to take a CNN news report to get you to address issues. At least you are responding, however. That, IMHO is a positive sign.
March 28, 2008 5:53 PM
How many times has a retailer fired some one for mistreating or humiliating some one? Understand that they were following the procedures.
March 28, 2008 5:55 PM
The procedures are idiotic. Piercings can't hurt anybody, and anyone who's not an idiot knows that.
March 28, 2008 5:58 PM
anonymous @ 5:55 PM
How many times has a retailer fired someone for mistreating or humiliating someone? Having worked in retail in the past, including in a management capacity, I can tell you it happens every day. That's because retailers are accountable to their customers. The TSA is accountable to nobody, and it shows in their behavior.
March 28, 2008 6:00 PM
It's good that at least there's an acknowledgement that the rule, as-is, should be change. The obvious question comes to mind, of course, does this apply only to women? There's men and women walking around with piercings in their genitalia and other tissues where impromptu removal might be painful and/or humiliating. Will the revision cover these folks too?
March 28, 2008 6:03 PM
"How many times has a retailer fired some one for mistreating or humiliating some one? Understand that they were following the procedures."
Sexual harassment is certainly grounds for termination at a large number of companies. I guess we will find out when all the negotiations are concluded. Certainly it won't play out in this blog.
March 28, 2008 6:08 PM
If it has been me...
First, I have approximately 10 piercings, including nipple and navel. I have never had the walk-through magnetometer complain about them. I have had a couple of wands pick them up, maybe 30%*. At those times, the TSO/screener took a look and properly determined that they are not a threat. The confirmed fact that a TSO could even consider such a small piece of metal to be a threat suggests that the TSOs present and their supervisor really don't understand how to evaluate threat levels. If the jewelry would have been allowed in a carry-on bag, it certainly should be allowed to be on a person.
*this makes me mistrust the calibration of wands in general.
Second, for a TSO to even suggest that the passenger remove a body piercing says that the do not understand the methods and requirements to do so. In many cases, the wearer can't remove the jewelry themselves, due to the lack of proper tools and conditions or the need for another party to perform the task (most head piercings are in this category). What the TSO effectively did was to require the passenger to open a wound in their body under completely non-sterile conditions. That in itself should be cause for severe discipline.
Third...
In the future TSA will inform passengers that they have the option to resolve the alarm through a visual inspection of the article in lieu of removing the item in question.
Why wasn't this done directly and why wasn't this seemingly obvious policy already in place (to visually inspect)?
Given that many TSOs may not have been exposed to "alternative lifestyles" and that the traveling population, perforce, is mobile, suggests that the TSA needs to be much better in educating TSOs in professionally dealing with unfamiliar conditions, such as a pierced nipple.
March 28, 2008 6:24 PM
This is what happens when you give people authority they aren't worth of.
March 28, 2008 6:28 PM
That is just disgusting. I could understand having a female TSO verify that they were just piercings but making her remove them??? Why??? I hope she sues and wins. It's time for TSA to stop trampling on our civil rights. I actually spoke with a TSA employee today about this issue and they said if you want to fly, take the piercing out. What's next, take off the underwire bra or you can't get on the plane? Where does it stop?
March 28, 2008 6:37 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it is completely ridiculous that the TSA is going to do visual inspections of peoples nipples? What about genital piercings? What if the metal were under the skin?
I gotta tell ya, there is no way in hell I'm gonna show you guys my nipples. It just isn't going to happen. At least, not unless you buy me a drink first ...
March 28, 2008 6:41 PM
Screeners on this blog often express their tremendous commitment to keeping people safe from terrorists. What I haven't seen is the same commitment to respecting people's dignity, property, and time.
You say you want to keep me from dying but then you yell at me, humiliate me, and leave my bags unlocked.
How can you possibly care about my life if you don't care about me?
March 28, 2008 6:42 PM
In this case, I blame the screeners.
Screeners need to be people capable and empowered to make common sense decisions and be held responsible for them. Anybody can blindly follow rules.
March 28, 2008 6:45 PM
"The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong."
Except that the naval ring was allowed to pass because they saw it. Is it "following procedure" to just decide what is and is not allowed on a whim?
Did someone get rid of common sense? Do any of the idiots that caused this problem honestly believe that a nipple ring (that requires pliers to remove) is ANY kind of security risk?
"following procedure" my ass. Those people are supposed to be ensuring my security, not harassing people because they can.
March 28, 2008 6:46 PM
When will the officers involved be fired for mistreating and humiliating this poor woman?
Good question. What action is being taken against these screeners?
March 28, 2008 6:46 PM
Have you considered the possibility that there are just too many rules and too many passengers to execute effectively at checkpoints?
It's basically a McDonald's burger assembly line at this point.
It's time to rethink the process.
March 28, 2008 6:49 PM
Please do not take the traveling public and professionals as idiots and give us a bogus nondescript excuse. There are forks and knives on aircraft that serve meals if only on international flights and in First Class cabins. And these screeners were worried about nipple piercings? Oh! Did I mention sissors are allowed on planes? What is it that the TSOs do not understand about the rules and procedures they must operate under? How many screeners can reply to items found in the TSA Regulations Part 1500? When I travel, I carry a copy.
While we are at it. Please answer the question as the why TSOs are rarely terminated, if at all, if they are found to be mistreating citizens? These screeners involved in the incident should be terminated. If I acted similarly in my capacity, I would be told to pack my belongings and be terminated on the spot.
By the way, the TSA's "Official Statement" is a copout, because they had to change their stance concerning the matter. Moreover, it suggests the procedures need to be changed? Obsolutely! How much more clearer can it be to realize that many TSA regulations and rules are disrespectful.
Maybe one of these days things will change and there will be a new TSA director who actually knows something and how to treat people with respect and dignity.
March 28, 2008 7:03 PM
What if she had blasting caps in her bra? What if she was part of a covert test at the airport and they just took her word they were piercings? They would have failed another one of those tests you guys like to bash them for failing.
Would you rather have the option of removing your stuff in private or would you like to have to bare your body to strangers?
I guess I am the smart one. I take my peircings off beofre I fly.
March 28, 2008 7:04 PM
Well I would love to believe every women or man who claims to have body piercings in a sensitive area, however as a traveler and someone who has worked with people her whole life I can tell you that I could fill a few books with the bizarre things I have seen removed from bra's. How about liquid make up (witnessed by my husband at a checkpoint - she held up the lane for 20 minutes), money, knives, cigarettes (hidden from her husband), drugs, food, an orchid (oh yes) just to name a few. I say cudo's to Lubbock for doing an outstanding job. Let's face it, women are mules and their undergarments a fortress for any item they feel they have a need to conceal. As far as humiliation, she wasn't too humiliated when she got the piercings, why should she be humiliated to remove them "in private". I firmly believe she would have been just as humiliated to show them to the officers.
As for items small enough to do harm, well guns and knives aren't the big threat anymore, just watch the news. CNN does report on other weapons, or query the internet, it will tell you everything you never needed to know. As for me I prefer to fly safe in the knowledge that someone chose to ask that one extra question, took that additional step in the process (however wrong you may feel it is), and didn't take for granted that she was telling the truth. Also, I believe this same issue has been addressed in the past and TSA was told not to touch or look in those areas. How then do you resolve this? Just take everyone at their word?
Good job Lubbock
March 28, 2008 7:06 PM
The piercing incident unfortunately exemplifies two persistent problems that are at the core of what's fundamentally wrong with the TSA.
The first problem is inconsistency and arbitrariness. To their credit, the TSA's management apparently already had a published policy in place allowing for pat-downs or private inspection of "sensitive" piercings. And the woman apparently had repeatedly passed through security checkpoints with the piercings and never "alarmed" or encountered any difficulty. But the TSOs in Lubbock apparently took it upon themselves to "interpret" the published policy in their own arbitrary fashion, to insist on removal of the piercings when the TSA imposes no such requirement.
The second problem is contempt and insensitivity to the public they're supposed to be serving-- a complaint frequently levied on the TSA. In this case, I would probably add layers of ignorance and prejudice. Texas being "the buckle of the Bible Belt," the Lubbock TSOs perhaps asserted their personal beliefs that someone with a nipple piercing is "perverted" or "sinful" and therefore deserves to be publicly humiliated. I don't know if that was actually the case, but whatever the actual reason the TSOs were certainly unprofessional in their behavior and abusive of their authority.
It is significant that the carefully-crafted TSA statement defends the officers and even commends them as "acting to protect the passengers and crews of the flights departing Lubbock that day." It was indeed entirely justified and proper in the name of Security. Yes, you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie! The procedures just need a little tweaking, and all will be well.
I think we can be certain that the Officers will not be disciplined in any way for their unprofessional arrogance, and definitely not for their arbitrary "interpretation" of TSA policy. The tone of the release almost suggests that the whole thing is really the passenger's fault for wearing those nasty piercings in the first place. And it's certainly her fault for all that unwarranted whining and complaining about it that unfairly puts the TSA in a bad light. It's always the passenger's fault.
March 28, 2008 7:12 PM
One of the most bone-headed acts of all time! TSA must be very proud of those alert screeners. They obviously neede 121 hours training instead of just 120.
March 28, 2008 7:13 PM
"The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong."
If nothing was done wrong, why are they reviewing and revising procedures? Don't these screeners have any common sense? But lets face it, this incident took place to humiliate the individual. For that matter and that condition alone, these screeners should be terminated immediately.
Then again, when screeners are hired with dreadlock hair and an unprofessional appearance....
I will leave it at that.
March 28, 2008 7:14 PM
At this point, I think the fact that no one has blown up a plane in America lately is due to sheer dumb luck. The idiocy displayed by your organization is staggering.
In the private sector, a company that operated like you guys would be eliminated by natural selection in no time.
The bad PR, test failures, employee mistakes, cost overruns, ridiculously complicated procedures, and lack of evidence of success would sink you so fast.
Thank goodness for a bureaucracy willing to overlook it all. Bless you lads for saving me from the nipple rings!
March 28, 2008 7:15 PM
"The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong."
Here's *our* bottom line (us, the American people): We don't buy these cop-outs anymore. They were just following the procedure? Come on, pull the other one.
I really had high hopes that this blog would be something other than spin control. So far, no such luck.
March 28, 2008 7:18 PM
What a shame. Your organization responded with corporate speak. What 'procedures' were properly followed. Seriously. Spell them out. What IS the procedure for body jewelry? My guess is that there is NOT one. My guess is that the rule is that the item which causes the alarm must be removed. THAT is likely the 'procedure' that was followed.
TSA has removed any and all humanity from your screners. Do you REALLY think, as an organization, you 'did the right thing' here? If you don't then SAY SO. Don't give us the typical lawyer driven inanity. You'd generate ALOT more respect if you'd call a spade a spade, when its a spade right in front of you. And I refer to the garden tool here in case you feel the need to reject the post.
You REPRESENT THE US GOVERNMENT. That is ME, along wit 299,999,999 other people who find this type of action despicable.
March 28, 2008 7:21 PM
The male officers sniggering outside the curtain amply reflects the seriousness with which they take protecting the travelling public from harm.
Shameful behaviour, and the "They were following the rules" excuse given on this site is an excuse not considered worthy since the Nuremberg Trials.
March 28, 2008 7:22 PM
"Have you considered the possibility that there are just too many rules and too many passengers to execute effectively at checkpoints?
It's basically a McDonald's burger assembly line at this point."
Don't tell my Field Spaniel that. He starts barking as soon as we get to the drive through order point. But I digress.
I make jewelry for a living. Until there are confirmed reports of exploding piercing jewelry that could damage an aircraft, I really have to agree that this was totally off base. Humiliating, totally uncalled for, and with the male TSO's present and laughing, justifiably sexual harassment. These are metal objects that in no way have a volume of 100 ml, the only threat they pose is to the TSA's image.
March 28, 2008 7:24 PM
I can see it now -- someone has a titanium knee and TSA saws off their leg before allowing them to fly.
Bunch of rent-a-cops is all you are.
March 28, 2008 7:25 PM
Are you telling us that none of your four highly trained, dedicated screeners had either the common sense or the discretion to simply LOOK at the source of the alarm on the woman's chest, even after she offered, to determine it wasn't a weapon? What kind of idiot show are running? Trust you? Oh,yeah!
March 28, 2008 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...
Any while you geniuses are at it, how about explaining how ANY object small enough to be contained in a NIPPLE PIERCING could possibly be a danger to a plane -- not that you'll do this, because you're all a pack of liars and cowards.
Here you go Swiss Mini Revolver comes in at a hefty 2.2 inches. Photo
Now do I really have to explain how a live fire revolver could be harmful?
Anonymous said...
When will the officers involved be fired for mistreating and humiliating this poor woman?
Poor woman my Aunt Fanny. How was this woman mistreated? The woman TOLD the TSO the alarm was caused by a nipple ring. So what.
Should the TSOs just believe that is the truth? Of course they can't, so they told her to remove the jewelry so they could wand her again.
I am sorry that the woman left her jewelry in for so long that it adhered to her skin. That is not the TSO's problem.
The only other alternatives are to be felt up, and we see all the people bitching about that on this blog, or to have the woman flash her boobs like she is at Mardi Gras instead of the airport. Do the TSOs need to keep a box of beads handy now?
Anonymous said...
The procedures are idiotic. Piercings can't hurt anybody, and anyone who's not an idiot knows that.
Now you expect the TSOs to have x-ray vision? Until she removed the piercing the TSOs could not be certain what it was.
It just blows me away that people are bitching that the TSA did not fondle or make a woman flash her boobs.
March 28, 2008 7:29 PM
Anonymous said...
When will the officers involved be fired for mistreating and humiliating this poor woman?
Good question. What action is being taken against these screeners?
None because the screeners did their job in the manner they were trained.
I have seen no evidence the screeners acted unprofessional.
March 28, 2008 7:31 PM
Another home run, eh guys? You are a tragic combination of tyranny and incompetence.
The funny thing is, people are predisposed to respect those who keep us safe (firemen, soldiers, etc...) I wonder why it is that no one respects the TSA?
March 28, 2008 7:33 PM
I find it unconscionable that not one of these four screeners had the capacity to stop for one second and think to themselves, "hey, this is obviously a woman with piercings...is this REALLY what I am supposed to be on the alert for?"
Should any employee of the TSA demand to see or touch my wife's breasts, I'll be turning around on the spot, and going straight to my lawyer's office to begin lawsuit proceedings.
And further, what possible good was removing the rings themselves? What if it was a surgical implant? Are you going to ask me to remove the screws from my collar bone?
It's time this farce was ended. We need accountable, intelligent, thinking human beings manning these checkpoints, or we should just scrap the whole process and start over. Security Theatre has one-upped itself, if it wasn't so disgusting, it would be amusing.
March 28, 2008 7:38 PM
Please consider adding some wording to your policy regarding use of common sense and individual judgment. The problem the TSA has at this level is that every rule is treated as if written in stone. Incidents like this regularly occur which defy the written letter of the regulations, so that the intent of each rule is no longer even considered.
In a court of law, intent is always considered paramount. Why cannot TSA employees treat it with the same level of respect?
March 28, 2008 7:48 PM
Having experienced a frighting and humilitating episode with Denver TSA agent , I'm not surprised by the actions in Lubbock.
After finishing a work assignment early, I switched my flight to a different airline so that I had a one way ticket and no checked baggage which singled me out for special screening. My husband and boss went through security ahead me. My husband was treated rudely by the female agent at the station but was brusquely allowed to proceed.
I was subjected to the male agent handling my dirty laundry and making vaguely lewd comments. I was too frightened to object since he held my immediate travel future solely in his power and my husband was on the other side of the metal detectors and out of sight.
A little power can be a scary thing in ignorant hands. I sincerely hope Ms. Hamlin is given her apology and somebody is punished in a way that sinks in for humiliating someone who is in fact, their customer.
March 28, 2008 7:49 PM
You know, I'm no fan of the ACLU, but I do hope this woman uses them, to sue the crap out you guys.
This, indeed proves my point, that Federalizing Airport Security, was the WORST thing that happened after 9/11. I can take the Patriot Act (as long as it has a sunset on it) and all the rest of the crap these morons (both sides of the isle) did, but this takes the cake.
I am soooo happy to be a tax payer, when I read stories like this. Great Job.God I looooooooooooove Beaurocrats.
March 28, 2008 7:50 PM
And Kelly B. "accountable, intelligent, thinking human beings" doesn't jive with Government Bureaucrats.
As President Reagan said..."The ten most terrifying words in the English language are, 'Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Think TSA next time you think of these great words.
March 28, 2008 7:56 PM
The problem with the TSA being a government agency is that there is inherently a CYA that will encompass all of your activities. God knows a TSA employee wouldn't want to be the one who let someone through who ultimately became the next 9/11 hijacker. These are real issues, and we all understand that you're dealing with this pressure.
However, there really has to be some leeway to deal with the typical outliers that occur everyday. There has to be some lesson in reasonableness given to TSA screeners. Why, for example, couldn't a supervisor get called over, who could have made a judgement call? We need to give TSA screeners and supervisors the leeway to make judgement calls on the field.
Truly, stopping someone for a nipple piercing is just terrible and sad.
Think of how ludicrous this whole thing is. It makes a mockery out of what is really important, stopping bad guys, i.e. people with guns, knives, bombs.
I urge you to reconsider your training regimen -- give field employees some ability to make reasonable judgement calls. There is absolutely no reason, none at all, that this woman should have been put through what she went through.
March 28, 2008 8:06 PM
When will the officers involved be fired for mistreating and humiliating this poor woman?
Good question. What action is being taken against these screeners?
None because the screeners did their job in the manner they were trained.
I have seen no evidence the screeners acted unprofessional.
Ah, the good old "I was only following orders" defense.
March 28, 2008 8:14 PM
How was the officer supposed to know exactly what the metal detector was alarming on? Was she supposed to take the word of the passenger? Like someone wouldn't lie about what they may be hiding. Its not about whether a nipple piercing could be dangerous, there was an alarm in an area that there shouldn't have been and the officer did her job to ensure, by TSA's procedure, that it wasn't something hidden that could cause harm to the other passengers on the flight.
March 28, 2008 8:22 PM
It all sounds OUTRAGEOUS! Stop and think about security for a minute.
The security peeps have to verify what in fact caused the alarm.
People use decoys all the time....oh officer it's just my nipple rings...she then shows that she is wearing nipple rings, and the officer lets her through.
So what happens when, in addition to the nipple rings, she also has other things stuffed in her bra?
People don't get upset when they have to remove a watch and then go through the metal detector a second time.
This is the same kind of scenario. Remove the suspected item and check for an alarm a second time. If no alarm then it was in fact the nipple rings that caused the alarm.
I'm not saying that they handled this situation professionally. I'm just saying that there is sound reasoning behind making a person remove a suspect item and then re-screening.
Plain and simple they can't just take her word for it that it was only her nipple rings that caused the alarm. They have to ensure that it was not something else that she could be concealing.
March 28, 2008 8:24 PM
If you cannot even teach your officers common sense, how are they supposed to protect us from the adaptive, evolving terrorist threat that your website says it is the TSA's mission to guard against?
March 28, 2008 8:26 PM
OBVIOUSLY the screeners did, in fact do something horribly, stupidly, wrong. But it says something about the core problems at TSA. TSA administrators seem to think that the rules are what will keep us safe, not the people on the ground. Granted, its easier to pass a bunch of mindless rules in response to the threat du jour, but what will actually keep us safe is a force of intelligent, vigilant screeners looking out for our safety, not a bunch of mindless automatons playing a game of "gotcha" with passengers over perfume, toothpaste and nipple rings.
The screeners in this instance obviously had a number of options for determining whether the woman was carrying a handgrenade or a small piercing in her bra. Excercising even a little common sense would have resolved the matter in under a minute. I am concerned that such a dismal display of competence means we are not safe in these poeple's hands.
And the fact that TSA defends incompetence as "the right thing to do" gives us little hope for any real change.
March 28, 2008 8:28 PM
And the face-saving P.R. from the TSA continues.
March 28, 2008 8:29 PM
Trollkiller, When you find a 2.2" mini pistol in a bra or pushed through a nipple, then confiscate it and charge the wearer, but when you are told that what is causing an alarm is a piercing, you should just have a person of the appropriate sex LOOK at it to verify the truth. Wand her without the bra, perhaps,to also verify the source of the alarm. The fact that neither of these non-painful and non-threatening procedures occurred to your bullying screeners is the reason we are so disgusted and angry about this incident. Why don't you get it?
March 28, 2008 8:32 PM
Anonymous said...
"The bottom line: the security officers followed the procedures for when someone alarms the metal detector and did nothing wrong."
If nothing was done wrong, why are they reviewing and revising procedures? Don't these screeners have any common sense? But lets face it, this incident took place to humiliate the individual. For that matter and that condition alone, these screeners should be terminated immediately.
Then again, when screeners are hired with dreadlock hair and an unprofessional appearance....
I will leave it at that.
Just because nothing was done wrong does not mean there is not room for improvement. Damn we bitch if the TSA doesn't take a concern seriously and then we bitch when they do.
The screeners may have common sense. The common sense to know that asking a passenger or allowing a passenger to show them her nipples would get them FIRED. Following procedure as it is laid out by the higher ups won't.
People pull your head out of your collective asses before you suffocate. The screeners followed the procedure for resolving an alarm with an UNKOWN cause. I am sure that no one at the TSA thinks you can hijack a plane with nipple rings.
Damn it, you guys are making me defend the beast.
If you or Gloria Allnoise want to "defend the civil rights" of Americans subject to the TSA, then start harping about old people that are made to stand while their wheel chairs are screened. Start harping about children being frisked out of the view of their parents. Start harping about the preferential treatment some religious sects are given at the screening.
But damn it stop harping because someone did not want to see this broad's boobs.
March 28, 2008 8:37 PM
Will the nipple ring be included in the weekly list of dangerous items TSA has "saved" us from?
March 28, 2008 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...
Ah, the good old "I was only following orders" defense.
The only time a "I was only following orders" defense is a problem is when you are doing something that is morally wrong or illegal. These screeners did neither.
If they had smacked this woman around or yanked her jewelry out by force, you would have a point. As it is you have no point.
March 28, 2008 8:41 PM
Trollkiller, The defense also applies when you've done something really stupid, as in this instance.
March 28, 2008 8:53 PM
The security officers did nothing wrong?! Making a woman remove a nipple ring with a pair of pliers while male officers snicker in the background is OK with the TSA?! How horrific!! I hope Mandi Hamlin sues the TSA and wins big! She has been humiliated, mistreated, and sexually harassed by an out- of-control government agency, and I hope a court will put the TSA in its proper place. The lack of sensitivity, intelligence, and good judgment shown by TSA staff is a crime; if an employee in any other industry treated people like the TSA folks do, they would be fired instantly.
March 28, 2008 8:57 PM
The TSA needs to seriously evaluate the situation that's been created at these security checkpoints.
It is well known that even good people put in a position of significant power over others will, without sufficient accountability, abuse that power. (See The Standford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib. Now obviously, this situation is not the same, but the parallels are worth considering.)
1. Screeners are given significant power over passengers.
a. The ability to invade someones personal space and even touch them without that persons consent, even in places only a spouse would normal touch
b. The ability to confiscate a persons property without explanation and without recourse
c. The ability to detain and question someone for any amount of time for any reason
d. The ability to order someone to do something without explanation
That's a lot of power. Think about it. Only police officers have as much power. Now, I'm not saying that the screeners are stupid or evil. Even the best of people can't handle unfettered power.
2. Insufficient accountability for bad behavior
the security officers followed the procedures...and did nothing wrong
As much as I loath litigation in general, I think that it may be inevitable in this case. The supervision vacuum created by the TSA's reluctance to discipline screeners will be filled by something.
Surely one concern of the TSA is that the screeners not be afraid to do their jobs for fear of retaliation. It's a delicate balance, but if screeners know they will be sued if they mistreat passengers they are more likely to behave themselves. However, it would probably be more effective to have internal accountability.
- What does the TSA consider to be mistreatment of a passenger?
- Is yelling at a passenger considered mistreatment?
- Is threatening a passenger with detainment or delay (in order to cause that passenger to miss their flight) considered mistreatment?
- How much patting down is too much?
- If a passenger is combative or belligerent is it acceptable for a screener to become combative?
- Is causing a wheelchair bound person to stand in order for their chair to be screened considered mistreatment?
- What recourse to passengers have who feel they have been mistreated?
- Are screeners evaluated on their treatment of passengers?
- Most importantly, what are the consequences for screeners who mistreat passengers?
March 28, 2008 8:59 PM
Just another example of petty bureaucrats abusing their power over others.
If the "security" person was an employee of the airline, they would be directly responsible to that airline for their abuse of a passenger.
Or, the airline could differentiate itself in its stringency of security measures, maybe to sell premium tickets to those who abhor physical mutilation.
As it is, only the most awful and publicly known of the abuses have even the slightest chance of getting the perpetrator a repremand. The daily arrogance of the petty officials, humiliation of thousands of defenseless passengers disarmed both figuratively and literally by law, this becomes the normal operating procedure.
Only the most astounding of abuses has any chance of standing out to be noticed above the noise.
Abolish the TSA right now, before anyone else gets hurt.
March 28, 2008 9:01 PM
From the TSA Website:
-"Hidden items such as body piercings may result in your being directed to additional screening for a pat-down inspection. If selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to the pat-down search. "
-"You may be additionally screened because of hidden items such as body piercings, which alarmed the metal detector. If you are selected for additional screening, you may ask to remove your body piercing in private as an alternative to a pat-down search."
Prior to this incident, the TSA had a policy that was clearly not followed. There is no mention of any exceptions to the pat-down, such as pat-downs not being done on breasts or genitals. If it said that, the TSA would have a leg to stand on here. As it, it is ridiculous. It really makes me wonder if a man had his nipples or privates pierced if he would have been subjected to this. Or would he just be hurried through? As a traveler, if I had body piercings and read the website, I would be prepared for a pat-down and as a good traveler would comply. This woman specifically asked for a pat-down and they said no. And then they didn’t make her remove her belly button piercing. The contradictions in the “logic” the agents applied is appalling.
The TSA website says that the policy for screening disabled persons were created after “we established a coalition of over 70 disability-related groups and organizations to help us understand the concerns of persons with disabilities.” That’s great, but why don’t they have coalitions of people helping identify real-life situations that screeners will encounter and the appropriate responses those? Clearly there not a diversity of people at the TSA involved in crafting these policies. Other high-profile examples include the gel bra/breast prosthesis issue…how could such an obvious issue not been addressed in the initial regulations? And where does it say that the three once bottles in your quart-sized bag have to have commercial labels on them, rather than unlabeled travel bottles? This "policy" is arbitrarily enforced from airport to airport as well. Notice a pattern here? These issues have more impact on women. How obvious is it to intentionally include people tasked specifically with looking out for issues related to the female gender? I’m sure there are people looking out for disability issues, religious issues, etc.
Anyone creating a product or service has to think like this…what will real people, real customers, do that with our product? How will it react, will it cause injury, are my people trained to react with tact, etc.
March 28, 2008 9:04 PM
When the TSA modified its procedures to require the removal of piercings, many TSOs pointed out that this type of scenario was a likely result. We were thanked for our input, but the policy remained.
Those of you demanding the jobs of those involved should understand that the officers involved were following procedure.
Many of us TSOs work in an environment in which our jobs are threatened on an hourly basis for not following procedures. For me losing my job would mean losing my health insurance. I think this policy is dumb. However I won't risk losing my job over it.
SLC Screener
March 28, 2008 9:06 PM
trollkiller said...
The only time a "I was only following orders" defense is a problem is when you are doing something that is morally wrong or illegal. These screeners did neither.
from the yahoo article on this -
Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent.
from the front page article on this very blog -
if a passenger requests private screening, they must get an officer of the same sex to screen them there
So how can you sit there and say the TSO didn't do anything wrong?
March 28, 2008 9:15 PM
"I was only following orders" is a positive defense.
...when the orders come from the government presently in power, who also run the courts.
IRS, TSA, BATFE. Really, people, how can anarchy be any worse? Time to reaffirm both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
Re-elect Martin Van Buren! (really, look it up!)
March 28, 2008 9:20 PM
Bottom line: Better safe than sorry. Maybe the screeners at Lubbock haven't been exposed to very much in the way of genital piercings, so cut them some slack.
Last week it was MacBook Airs that were giving screeners problems, and we got cool video from Bob on the topic. Let's hope Bob does another video on TSA's new nipple ring policy.
Personally, I find this latest news to be titillating; those of you who are upset need to keep your shirt on.
March 28, 2008 9:36 PM
But damn it stop harping because someone did not want to see this broad's boobs.
I am sure that this "broad" would have found it preferable to have someone stare at her "boobs" than to have to yank her jewelry out with a pair of pliers.
But she's just a "broad" with "boobs," so she probably counts for just a little bit less.
March 28, 2008 9:44 PM
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller, The defense also applies when you've done something really stupid, as in this instance.
Not when you have no control over the stupid.
Think about how many stupid things you have done in your life because that was the policy or rule in place. And you knew that breaking that stupid rule would get you fired.
Case in point. Texas has a law that requires you to ID anyone between 18 and 27 if they wish to purchase cigarettes. If you do not ID that person EVERY time they buy smokes, you have broken the law and will be fined for it. Pretty stupid right? The person is old enough to buy and if I carded them yesterday or even 10 minutes earlier should I have to card them again? Of course not, they did not get any younger. But if I don't card them it is my butt in the sling.
If you want to scream about the TSA's rule that did not allow the screeners to think on their feet, feel free. But to crash some poor slob that is doing their job by the rules they have to abide by to keep their job is just not right or fair.
March 28, 2008 9:48 PM
Piercings are a "threat"? How ridiculous are we going to get? This is nothing more than police-state tactics in control and harassment.
March 28, 2008 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...
Trollkiller, When you find a 2.2" mini pistol in a bra or pushed through a nipple, then confiscate it and charge the wearer, but when you are told that what is causing an alarm is a piercing, you should just have a person of the appropriate sex LOOK at it to verify the truth. Wand her without the bra, perhaps,to also verify the source of the alarm. The fact that neither of these non-painful and non-threatening procedures occurred to your bullying screeners is the reason we are so disgusted and angry about this incident. Why don't you get it?
First I do not work for the TSA or any Govt. agency, if you take the time to check more than this one thread you will see I crash the TSA and TSOs as hard as anyone. WHEN they screw up.
They did not screw up in this case.
I read the accounts written by different news agencies. In NONE of the accounts have I seen ANY bullying. The woman was told she had to remove the jewelry to be wanded again. They led her to a PRIVATE area to remove the jewelry. They gave her pliers to aid in the removal of the jewelry. She was ALONE while she was removing the jewelry.
She claims she heard a male TSO snicker while she was removing the jewelry. Of course she was in a private area and did not see who snickered or WHY they snickered. It may have had nothing to do with her at all or it may have been
“hey Joe what do you have here?”
“This lady has nipple rings and she thought we should take a look”
“ha ha and get fired… no way”
I have a question for you. What is the appropriate sex? Most would assume it would be the same sex as the person being screened so no one can claim there was a sexual thrill involved. What about the homosexuals? What if the TSO picked to check out this lady’s boobs was a lesbian? What if the TSO picked to check out a Prince Albert is gay? Does that still make them the “appropriate” sex? Are we now to ask applicants of the TSA what their sexual orientation is? What about the bisexuals, do they get to screen both sexes or none?
The facts are this. The TSOs acted within their rules. Looking at this woman’s boobs would have gotten them FIRED.
The TSOs did NOTHING wrong.
March 28, 2008 10:04 PM
OK, so the TSA has yet again reacted to a failure (and a PR fiasco) by changing its "procedures." But what happens when some TSO either hasn't been properly trained on the "procedures," or chooses to "interpret" them by denying the "visual inspection" option insisting on removing the piercings? If the passenger dares to complain about not following the "procedure," the TSO will shout (in as intimidating a voice as possible) "If you want to fly you'll take those things out NOW!"
That's a major problem with the TSA. No matter what "procedures" the officials in Washington might have in place, for passengers the TSA's rules and "procedures" are no more and no less what the TSO who happens to be processing them decides they are at that moment. If the TSO (or the local airport manager) decides that all piercings must be removed, that's the rule. If the TSO (or the local airport manager) decides that all electronics must be removed from carry-ons and neatly arrayed to give thieves the best view, that's the rule. If you don't obey immediately, the TSO will threaten you with not allowing you to fly. The officials in Washington can tweak the procedures all they want. Ultimately, the rules in effect for passengers are purely at the "interpretation" (i.e., the whim) of the individual TSOs.
And if someone complains to the media loudly enough to embarrass the TSA, the PR flaks and the lawyers will draft a weasel-worded press release insisting that the TSOs did nothing wrong, and perhaps even commending them for acting so diligently to protect passengers from unspeakable evil. Unfortunately, such a response only reinforces the impression that the TSA is an utterly inept bureaucracy that holds the public in utter contempt.
As far as the TSA officials are concerned, the only real offense that occurred in Lubbock was that some perverted woman with pierced nipples whined and moaned about "mistreatment" to the liberal media, which yet again took the opportunity to make the dedicated, highly competent, and much misunderstood TSA look bad. That's how I read the official responses.
You're doing a heck of a job, Kippie!
March 28, 2008 10:05 PM
I hope Mandi Hamlin sues the TSA and wins big! She has been humiliated, mistreated, and sexually harassed by an out- of-control government agency, and I hope a court will put the TSA in its proper place.
Not to worry. At the first hearing for the suit, the government attorney will utter the magic words: "This suit cannot proceed because it would reveal state secrets that cause grave damage to national security." As the final syllable emerges, the loyal patriotic judge will reflexively slam down the gavel and correctly respond "Case dismissed." We should all no by now that there is no recourse for anyone aggrieved by any agency that is involved in the Global War On Terror. So Mandi Hamlin would be best advised to forget about what happened in Lubbock and get on with her life.
March 28, 2008 10:13 PM
I'm going to say it.
All involved need fired, publically.
As someone who has been victimized in the past by corrupt Govnt Employees..and I do know because I was an HONEST Govnt employee.
All of your actions and power trips disgust and insult us.
My case of victimization cost them millions, I feel this one will cost you about the same.
Have a happy and corrupt day.
March 28, 2008 10:19 PM
Anonymous said "What's next, take off the underwire bra or you can't get on the plane?"
That basically happened to me at the Tampa airport in 2006. A TSA screener suspected that my underwire bra had set off the metal detector, and had me stand with my arms out -- in full view of everyone waiting to get through security -- ran her metal detector wand over my chest and then used her hands to feel under my breasts to determine whether or not I was wearing an underwire bra while some teenage boys stared and snickered. I've never been so humiliated in my life. The TSA agent then loudly suggested that the next time I fly, I shouldn't wear a bra.
March 28, 2008 10:27 PM
I have five fairly heavy 12-gauge piercings and fly several times a year. My piercing jewelry has never set off a metal detector. I wonder why?
If I was told to remove my piercings in a situation like that, I'm honestly not certain I could without help, and I certainly wouldn't trust a TSA agent to help me.
March 28, 2008 10:30 PM
It should be really simple: if the wand goes off, a TSO of the same gender as the passenger should take a look behind a screen. It ought to be easy to see if that's a micro-sized gun or knife. Once the TSO sees that it's only piercing jewelry, send the passenger on their way. It would be nice if the TSOs were civil to the passenger when they're told that it's jewelry and they find out it is.
Or... if the TSA really wants, I'll strip down right out in the open. But I'd better get a most humble apology from every TSO present when they see that the only metal is my piercing jewelry, which at least today is not on the prohibited list.
(I realize that not all passengers are nice to the TSOs, that's no excuse for the TSOs hassle back. There's something in there about good customer service and "turn the other cheek".)
March 28, 2008 10:36 PM
Anonymous said...
This woman specifically asked for a pat-down and they said no.
All the reports I have read said she specifically asked for them to LOOK at her breasts, not pat them down.
March 28, 2008 10:37 PM
Anonymous said...
from the front page article on this very blog -
if a passenger requests private screening, they must get an officer of the same sex to screen them there
So how can you sit there and say the TSO didn't do anything wrong?
Because a private screening does not or did not include LOOKING at bare breasts. It is one thing to frisk with the back of the hand it is another to look at someone's "privates".
From tha AP article.
"The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin's chest, the Dallas-area resident said.
Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.
Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said."
So she was dealing with a FEMALE agent. The male agent (most likely a superior or more experienced officer) told her that the TSO could not LOOK at her breasts.
March 28, 2008 10:49 PM
Anonymous said...
Not to worry. At the first hearing for the suit, the government attorney will utter the magic words: "This suit cannot proceed because it would reveal state secrets that cause grave damage to national security." As the final syllable emerges, the loyal patriotic judge will reflexively slam down the gavel and correctly respond "Case dismissed." We should all no by now that there is no recourse for anyone aggrieved by any agency that is involved in the Global War On Terror. So Mandi Hamlin would be best advised to forget about what happened in Lubbock and get on with her life.
I hope you are wrong. While I don't think the TSOs did anything wrong in this case, if it were tossed because of the reasons you speculated above, I would be highly upset.
This is what I think will happen. Gloria Allnoise will raise a stink but it won't go to trial because Gloria knows she has no case. The excuse will be that a trial would just cause further damage to that poor woman and it is not worth it.
Anybody want to take bets?
March 28, 2008 11:03 PM
Nohwhere Man said...
It should be really simple: if the wand goes off, a TSO of the same gender as the passenger should take a look behind a screen. It ought to be easy to see if that's a micro-sized gun or knife. Once the TSO sees that it's only piercing jewelry, send the passenger on their way. It would be nice if the TSOs were civil to the passenger when they're told that it's jewelry and they find out it is.
You are right it should be that simple, and hopefully the TSA's rule change will make it that simple. But what do we do with the shy people? Would they still be required to remove the jewelry?
March 28, 2008 11:06 PM
re: Anonymous said...
How was the officer supposed to know exactly what the metal detector was alarming on? Was she supposed to take the word of the passenger?
So the TSA believes that every person to pass the checkpoint is not truthful?
March 28, 2008 11:17 PM
Trollkiller,
If you can show me a standard body piercing that is as large as a 2.2 inch swiss mini-revolver, I'll personally give you $500.
And I'm not even going to demand that you give me $500 when you can't. This is a no-risk bet.
The question was if anything as small as a piercing could be dangerous, not if something many times bigger than a piercing, such as a 2.2 inch swiss mini-revolver, could be dangerous.
March 28, 2008 11:35 PM