Travel: TSA unrepentant over groping passengers

The TSA admits that the "enhanced pat down" is far more than simple patting. Women's breasts are felt and their crotches rubbed, men's testes are cupped and rolled.

This author was almost arrested in London's Heathrow Airport some two years ago. A young man made no attempt to perform a proper pat-down: this is a procedure that the author is more familiar with than most having passed into many high-security buildings in areas where terrorist threats are certain, not hypothetical. A properly conducted pat-down by a soldier who knows what he is doing does not involve holding onto the subjects balls and rolling them around in the palm of his hands.

This author told the young man at Heathrow to "**** off." That resulted in a supervisor coming over and threatening to take him into custody on the basis that the staff are not there to be the subject of abuse. Challenged with "OK, go on then. And give me his name and full details: I will have him charged with sexual assault and as his employer, your company will be the subject of a civil assault claim."

That course of action, it is now clear, is not open to travellers in US airports.

Share your airport security stories at www.AirTravelReports.Com

The TSA says that the "enhanced pat down" is not a first response. It is conducted only if a person refuses to go through a "virtual strip" machine which sees through their clothes and reveals the naked body. The irony is that the machine does not detect many forms of explosives or poisons or, even, some kinds of weapon and it is next to useless anyway.

But that statement, made by TSA officials in response to questions from The Washington Post was given the lie by their boss in an interview with CNBC this weekend. John Pistole has been in the job for only a few weeks. And the new measures are his way of showing who's boss. He said that the "enhanced pat down" was for people who went through a scanner that raised an alarm.

Back to the experience of this author who travels a lot. A shoe repair turned a pair of loafers into a security risk: the new nails holding on the new rubber heels set off alarms at airport gates. Stop wearing the shoes, no more alarms. A buckle on a belt that has gone through countless gates sets off perhaps one in twenty alarms. This is not the fault of the belt, the buckle or the wearer. It is the fault of variable settings on machines.

It is outrageous that invalids are groped because their crutches set off alarms. It is outrageous that minors are touched in sexually aware places because someone thinks it's OK. It is outrageous that those with metal inserts due to accident or body repair should be fondled because they have had medical treatment.

The scanners do not identify e.g. drugs, money, explosives or other contraband carried by "stuffers." Nor does the fondling - at least not at present. But with the pace of intrusion into the personal space and now the person of travellers, the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument must raise questions as to how long it will be before we hear the snapping of rubber gloves as the gate.

It must be said that, done properly, there can be no objection to a pat-down.

What is not acceptable is when it moves from a pat-down to a feel-up.

And that is what the TSA has to come to grips with.

European airports - including, now, Heathrow - have already done so. The pat down is a fact of life for travellers all over the world and it's irritating but it's not offensive.

But grabbing the genitals or breasts is. And that must stop.

It would stop, soon, and very quickly if the people making the policies were subjected to them.

But Pistole and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who defended the policies last week telling CBS "I understand how difficult it is and how offensive it must be for the people who are going through it [ but terrorists are] getting more creative about what they do to hide explosives in, you know, crazy things like underwear. So, clearly, there is a need" ) are not subjected to any of the security measures. The don't go through full body scanners and they certainly do not get a full-body pat-down, much less the new "enhanced" fondling version.

Pistole issued a statement yesterday saying that the TSA wanted its screening methods to be "as minimally invasive as possible."

That Clinton also said that, if she were subject to screening, she would take the pat-down rather than the scanner, says much about the concern over the scanner.

The TSA version of the pat-down is so much more invasive than that used elsewhere in the world that there is the potential for massive disruption at US airports if many passengers made the same decision. Around the world, a pat-down takes about 20 seconds - that's the same time as the full-body scanner needs to take and process its image. But the TSA version of the pat-down can take up to two minutes, the TSA says.

With airport security queues already literally out of the door in some airports, the idea of lengthening the "clearing time" for each passenger by six times would mean airports grinding to a halt as passengers are unable to reach their flights even if they are in the airport in good time.

Republican Representative Ron Paul from Texas often puts up bills that stand no chance of success. It's political manoeuvring. But this time his "American Traveller Dignity Bill) (they call it an Act but it's not) stands a chance if sufficient numbers of the travelling public get behind it and demand their representatives support it. Launching his Bill he said it "establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any U.S. law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person..."

The fact is that there have been a number of ways to reduce the objections to the full-body scanners including making the images of body parts fuzzy so that there can be no titivation; things that should not be there - such as bags of cash strapped to the inner thigh - would remain clear and obvious. But the TSA and others have rejected this compromise.

But the TSA is subject to review and pressure: US Airline pilots (but not those from other airlines and not e.g. cabin crew), on duty and in uniform, are exempt the pat-down. The argument - raised by their unions and then in court action - said that they were already subject to high-level background checks.

Pistole's comment shot himself - and his policy - in the foot. "Allowing these uniformed pilots, whose identity has been verified, to go through expedited screening at the checkpoint just makes for smart security and an efficient use of our resources,"he said in a prepared statement.

So, then, it's not what the person is carrying but questions over their identity, that statement makes clear.

Also, there will, as of last week, be no more pat downs of children aged 12 or less.

The court case was launched by two veteran pilots and made the extent of the assault (if it is so viewd) clear: "among other things, the officer literally places his hands inside the traveller's pants," the writ says. Whether they meant "pants" or "trousers" is not clear but there may be a material difference.