The sad thing is you are probably right. TSA are goons, especially in major airports. I abhor them and the culture of fear they represent.

I think, though, that their abuse of power will never end if nobody calls their bluff. The article indicates the kid had a choice: a contaminated back-up tube, or no flight. Given that choice, I would head for the bus terminal.

Even if the TSA goon then tried to detain the kid, chances are a supervisor gets involved, since TSA is all about escalation. You might be able to reason with the supervisor. The trick would be remaining calm, of course.

Having said that, however, the ‘TSA’ is out of control. Why do you yanks put up with the fascists stealing your freedom in the name of “security” and “safety”? It’s amazing to watch from outside your country. You used to be a shining light to the rest of the world representing freedom and democracy and now you just represent a bunch of mindless, frightened children. Take your country back! The fact that you’re willing to lie around waiting for your freedoms to return is baffling, when you consider your forefathers killed and died for the rights you’re losing. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Get off ur asses, yanks!

Terrorist attacks are low probability but high impact. There’s a lot of psychological research on biases in human reasoning that show that thinking about events like these is especially prone to error, because of the strong emotions invoked by the imagination of catastrophic events. This is why the issue is so contentious. It’s extremely difficult to offer an accurate assessment of what the real risks are and of what measures will be effective in decreasing those risks.

I think the reasonable response, though, is to recognize that no terrorism-prevention strategy is fool-proof. Instead of letting someone’s wildest imaginations dictate what we do or not allow, we should use reason and scientific investigation to assess the effectiveness of policies, to the best of our ability. (That is to say, while assessing risks accurately is difficult, we can still achieve some degree of success.)

Consistency, to ensure fairness, and flexibility, to accommodate the unforeseeable details of specific cases, must be balanced. Perhaps experimentation on a local basis is worthwhile: if a trial provision eliminates a certain risk without constituting too much of a hassle, it might be adopted on a larger scale. Similarly, certain existing regulations might be suspended temporarily and the effects assessed.

It’s difficult to think reasonably about these things because of how great the potential costs are, but it is the best chance we have for making things tolerable, both for would-be victims of terrorists and of TSA agents. No one wants to live in a police state, but neither do we want to have to fear for our lives due to inadequate security measures.

To give just one concrete example, let’s take the ban on liquids. First, we might ask what are the specific liquids which pose risks, and what are those risks? From what I recall hearing, the supposed liquid explosive which prompted this policy was one that was all but impossible to mix undetected on a plane (it required mixing chemicals which had to be controlled at certain temperatures, which would be next to impossible without the right equipment, equipment which would be easily detected in carry-on baggage).

Now, maybe there are other risks that liquids pose, but if investigation reveals no significant ones, the liquid ban should be eliminated. (Perhaps some new threat will emerge in the future that would justify a ban, but this could be said about just about anything; we should deal with such threats if and when they are discovered; again, you can’t prevent everything potentially disastrous.)

We desire certainty when our lives are at stake, but this is never achievable. We need to learn to live with a degree of risk that is reasonably mitigated by soundly-established regulations. I think this is the only way to reach a compromise that will actually address the concerns of everyone involved.

First you blame the kid for not being responsible. Then, when someone points out that it was a kid, you’re jumping on the parents. Where were they?

Sometimes kids fly without their parents. It happens. Sometimes they are visiting family or there is split custody or who knows, they could be going someplace for some kind of medical treatment and the family can only afford a ticket for one.

But you’re talking the talk of someone who is pretty convinced the system as it stands will protect them over other troublemakers (poor people, people with accents, people with health issues, people who resent the way the USA is rolling over on its back and letting a police state come in to being…).

You side with the guys in the jackboots. I side with this kid and all the other folks.

Just don’t be too terribly surprised when someday the TSA or some other arm of the new Amerika takes a dislikin’ to the way you look and marches you off to the body-cavity search cubical, despite your protests and your being a white Christian male.

Just don’t holler too loud and disturb the law-abiding folks waiting on line. Maybe if you remember to bring clearly-labeled lube in a 2 oz container in a sealed transparent plastic bag, they’ll let you use it.

I think Ken Hansen may be a pseudonym for one of the bloggers on the TSA’s blog. Only way it makes sense.

Thanks, Teresa!

On my way BACK from New Mexico to Louisiana, the TSA tard questioned my unopened 3oz bottle of Benadryl.

I have a deadly allergy to nuts (sometimes served on planes), and an epi-pen is useless because my allergic reaction lasts for 10 hours when exposed.

Anyway, he told me I could not take the Benadryl with me because it was not in a baggie.

I couldn’t believe my ears. HOW ON EARTH could placing the bottle in a baggie make it safer?

So I did what any non-tard would do. I started making fun of him LOUDLY.

One of his co-workers let me through with the Benadryl and snickered at his tard co-worker.

Some TSA personnel are not worth the air they breathe and probably will never make any meaningful contribution to society.

I mean, besides wind.

TSA wasn’t forcing the kid to get on the plane.

To the Honorable Buddy Dyer,

I am writing to ask you to investigate the recent incident at the Orlando airport where a TSA employee contaminated sterile medical equipment that a 14-year-old child was carrying. A news story about the incident is at:
http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/15511359/detail.html

My family and I have greatly enjoyed our vacations in Orlando, most recently in January. Reading of this incident, however, has us extremely concerned that we will not be safe flying in and out of Orlando airport in the future. A member of my family also depends on sterile medical equipment, and we are unwilling to risk our health by flying through an airport where this sort of behavior
by TSA employees is tolerated.

Orlando’s airport has EMTs available, and ready access to people with medical training. When there is a medical or health concern raised by a passenger, personnel at the airport must be taught to call in people with medical training. If a passenger appears unable to breathe, people with medical training should be called. If a passenger says that his health will be endangered by the
actions of an airport worker, people with medical training should be called.

The news story about this reckless TSA employee at the Orlando airport is spreading, as it should. While you do not have direct authority over the TSA employees at the airport, you do have the
political power to ensure a reasonable conclusion to this news story: first, the reckless employee should be located and fired, and second, all airport workers should be taught to call in people with medical training to respond to medical and health concerns.

These two steps would go a long way to restoring our willingness to travel to Orlando, and would protect the safety of the millions of people who travel through Orlando’s airport. If done publicly
and assertively, these two steps would allow Orlando to serve as a model to other cities. Thank you for your time and attention to this very serious issue.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=39456

These are prescription devices that you can’t just buy at any old pharmacy. They typically have to be ordered through the mail. So if you don’t have a backup with you, and your equipment goes bad… you say hello to our wonderful hospital system.

@Ken Hansen:

The article doesn’t mention parents. In fact, it says *the child* pleaded with the TSA. I hardly think the parents were there.

That being said, do you think the kid, who is 14 years old, is so wise and experienced that he’d know not getting on the plane, going back home, and not getting to his destination was an option?

I think you’re ascribing way too much savvy to a 14 year old.

There are a lot of those, all of them backed up by heavily armed police officers. If we held some of the worst offenders accountable, the rest of the TSA agents would get better informed and the traveling public would have better protection.

Isolated incident or not, that TSA guy needs his ass kicked for doing that to a sick kid.

Teresa? {{{{{{SMOOCH!!!}}}}}}

Oh, I’m sorry, please forgive my “hyperbole”!

It’s people like you that allow this sh|t to go on. Since when did America become the land of making up excuses for abusers of power? It’s amazing and sad how easy it is to use the language of “choice” to actually disempower individuals. (Of course, this is what corporate America has been doing for decades…)

Does the status quo really treat you so well that you must defend it at all costs? Shame on you. I expect better from people on the Internet (heh).

Of course, many people pointed various things out to Ken, and his next post asked the same questions, and otherwise behaved as if no one had said anything to answer his points. He appears to be an output-only device.

But any rate, now we rare commenters know who he is and what he’s about. Where’s the Ignore This User button on his profile page?

We just don’t know, it happened two weeks ago.

dvdmon
Is that kind of hyperbole really necessary?

It isn’t hyperbole or do you know his medical condition? The screener open a sterile backup the boy needed and contaminated it rendering it useless. So yes it was potentially life threatening.

Ken Hansen
Had they arranged for “medical transport” for the child, this all could have been avoided

We’ve already seen how well that works out. The TSA would have killed him for sure in that case.

I can’t find the “wonderfulness” of such postings

Would you like your money back?

Blog – “A shared on-line journal where people can post diary entries about their personal experiences and hobbies.”

Is there something about that definition that has you confused?