UPDATE 2: Nic responds to the video by saying, "in the video, it looks as though my son is playing happily in his stroller while i am being searched with a wand. obviously this is the big discrepancy with my story, since he was not in my sight at that time, and one that i too am thoroughly looking into. neither of the two phone calls i placed while seated in security are in the video either. what is shown in the video is incomplete as it leaves out when the security agent took my son to a separate area and out of my sight. this matter is one that is being handled between my family and the TSA."

Mommyblogger Nic tells the horrifying story of how TSA agents took away her child because the clip on his pacifier set off the metal detector yesterday.

Nic writes:

Jackson was in my arms, and in the midst of getting all of our gear on the conveyor belt, my mistake was neglecting to take off my son's pacifier clip that hangs from his shirt, which is metal.

The instant I walked through the metal detector with Jackson in my arms, we beeped. I knew exactly why...

...The male TSA agent repeated, "I'm going to have to pick him up to inspect him."

I handed him my son.

I handed him my son and he walked away with my child.

My eyes welled up with tears, I stood up from my chair and I asked the female TSA agent, "Where is he going? Where is he taking my child? Why is he leaving?"

Jackson, while being whisked away looked at the male TSA agent awkwardly and repeated "no no no no."

I started crying.

The TSA eventually returned the child a few minutes later but the interim period was extremely stressful for the mother. According to the TSA website, "We will not ask you to do anything that will separate you from your child or children."

Looks like some agents need retraining.

TSA Agents Took My Son [My Bottle's Up] (Thanks to David!)

"Baby Soda Bottles" [CoolTools]

Ari writes:

I recently flew out of SFO with my girlfriend for a weeklong vacation. We had checked in one suitcase with a bunch of her clothes and a makeup case.

When we arrived at our destination, we found a notice from our TSA screener indicating they had opened the suitcase. The makeup case, which had been nicely packed before, was bulging at the seams, and when we opened it we were greeted with pieces of glass from the mirror which had been seemingly jammed down to close the makeup case.

My girlfriend was understandably a bit peeved at this, but we still had the receipts from the purchase of that case, so it didn't seem *too* bad. Later that evening she went to go take a shower and took out a bag from the suitcase containing her underwear/bras/socks. There was one problem... all the underwear was gone (8 nights)! (Including one pair of socks)

Looks like our vacation will include a trip to the local Walmart...

Are there any tips from Consumerist readers on how to make a claim for this? We've been calling Covenant Claims for the last couple of days, but no one has answered, and the website requires us to print out a form and mail/fax it in. Oh, that's not including the photographic evidence and receipts that they want us to mail in. (Who keeps receipts or takes photos of underwear they've purchased???)

The TSA has complaint forms for lost and damaged items, but they don't cover the ten airports using private security screeners. That doesn't mean you can't ask the TSA for help. The folks from the TSA Blog left a comment on a reader's website suggesting that they use the TSA's feedback system to reach the customer support manager at San Francisco International. Since Covenant has an abysmal record responding to complaints, it's certainly worth a shot.

Got Feedback? [Transportation Security Administration]
Claims Management Branch [Transportation Security Administration]
(Photo: kaibara87)

The duo then switched the luggage tags in order to throw others off the scent. The two geniuses can expect up 4 years in prison if convicted.

We're glad the TSA is busy humiliating itself for our benefit, but we'd also like to remind you not to check your valuables if at all possible. Keep sensitive items, particularly laptops, with you in the cabin.

Sting nabs sticky-fingered JFK airport workers going through luggage [Daily News via Gothamist] (Thanks, kg!)
(Photo:ellimac)

Apparently, the new streamlined "black diamond" security line for business travelers may have put Clear out of business.

[An Atlanta airport spokesperson] said the shutdown of Clear "will not impact our customers" because although Clear members had their own lines leading up to security screening, they used the same checkpoint lanes as other passengers to proceed through metal detectors and have luggage screened.

The airport also expanded its security checkpoints and launched streamlined, free security lanes for non-Clear members with designations such as black diamond for expert travelers. That, along with other factors, lessened the advantage Clear had to attract members.

"Since our security expansion last fall, security lines at Hartsfield have rarely exceeded 10 minutes," Kennedy said.

The company's website says that no refunds are to be issued "at the present time." Despite that unfortunate reality, when the potential for shenanigans is taken into account, the closing of this service seems like no great loss to planet Earth.

Clear shuts down paid airport security lines business [AJC] (Thanks, j!)

CNN notes that "there are no restrictions on carrying large sums of cash on flights within the United States," which is something the TSA agents surely should have known. Instead, they subjected Bierfeldt to exchanges like this:

Officer: Why do you have this money? That's the question, that's the major question.

Bierfeldt: Yes, sir, and I'm asking whether I'm legally required to answer that question.

Officer: Answer that question first, why do you have this money.

Bierfeldt: Am I legally required to answer that question?

Officer: So you refuse to answer that question?

Bierfeldt: No, sir, I am not refusing.

Officer: Well, you're not answering.

Bierfeldt: I'm simply asking my rights under the law.

The officers can be heard saying they will involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration, and appear to threaten arrest, saying they are going to transport Bierfeldt to the local police station, in handcuffs if necessary.

The TSA says passengers are required to answer questions about their property. Bierfeldt says he didn't refuse, he only asked for straight answers about his rights before providing any information.

"I asked them, 'Am I required by law to tell you what you're asking me? Am I required to tell you where I am working? Am I required to tell you how I got the cash? Nothing I've done is suspicious. I'm not breaking any laws. I just want to go to my flight. Please advise me as to my rights.' And they didn't."

You can hear the entire recording here.

"Passenger says TSA agents harassed him" [CNN] (Thanks to Dooley!)

RELATED
"Audio Full Version: Campaign for Liberty's Steve Bierfeldt detained and questioned by St. Louis TSA" [Daily Newscaster]
(Photo: redjar)

How will the TSA enforce the new limits? The answer lies in subsection (e):

(e) Use of Template

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, TSA shall install and utilize a template with a maximum depth and width that will prevent the conveyor belt passage at each security checkpoint of carry-on baggage or a personal item that exceeds the dimensions set forth in subsection (a).

Otherwise, the bill would provide roomier new carry-on limits.

...the proposed bill would allow travelers who currently have bags at the limit to buy a new bag, or expand their current one, as the new limit would be 22 inches by 18 inches by 10 inches.

But many domestic carriers now require bags to be smaller than that. American Airlines requires bags to be a maximum of 45 inches (length plus width plus height.) Delta Airlines and United Airlines set the limit as 22 inches by 14 inches by 9 inches.

The bill sponsored by Rep. Dan Lipinksky (D-IL) has yet to attract any co-sponsors, but the three-term Congressman is a member of the Transportation Committee's Aviation Subcommittee.

We're fans of the larger carry-on limits, but we're told the TSA is there to keep us safe. Maybe we should let them focus on going through our bags instead of worrying how large they are.

Thanks, Uncle Sam! Carry-on baggage limits may increase by a few inches [Tripso]
H. R. 2870 - Securing Cabin Baggage Act [THOMAS]
(Photo: mil8)

According to the article, the employee's roommate was moving to Arizona, and did not understand the proper procedure for traveling with firearms. When he asked the US airways employee for help, the employee allegedly offered to smuggle the gun aboard.

The employee has a different story. He claims he accidentally grabbed the wrong bag from their home that morning and was switching it back.

The passenger has a license for the gun and a permit to carry it. For those of you thinking of traveling with firearms — be sure to read the TSA's rules. It's possible to travel with both guns and ammo if you plan ahead and check a bag. We hate US Airways baggage fees too — but we bet these two guys wish they'd just paid the extra money.

FBI: Airline worker helped roommate get gun on jet [USAToday]
(Photo:afagen)

The Philadelphia Inquirer says that Flight 1195 to Phoenix was delayed 4 hours due to the incident. The owner of the bag and the U.S. Airways worker are being questioned.

US Airways is, of course, taking it very seriously.

Safety and security is our first and foremost priority in everything we do," Morgan Durrant, senior manager of corporate communications for the airline, said in an e-mailed statement. "We are cooperating with investigators fully and take security considerations very seriously. Further comment right now is not appropriate out of respect to the ongoing investigation."

To see what else is being taken seriously, click here.

Police: Handgun handed off at airport, gets on plane [Philadelphia Inquirer]
(Photo:Flying Photog)

What's worse, TSA regulations Delta won't allow you to use the bathroom in a different section of the plane, so Correa was forbidden from going to the business class bathroom.

When the cart wasn't moved after a few minutes, Correa said, he ran for the business class lavatory. He said the flight attendant put up her arm to block him, and he grabbed it to keep his balance.

A Delta flight attendant said Correa grabbed her right arm, pulled it down and twisted it, according to authorities.

When the plane landed, Correa was arrested and spent two days in jail.

We're not sure what alternative Delta and the TSA left Correa. Had he followed their instructions, Delta would have had an entire flight full of angry, complaining, and sickened passengers, along with quite likely a lawsuit from the man they forced to shit himself because they were too busy passing out drinks. Instead, Delta loses nothing, the TSA continues to say this is in everyone's best interest, and Joao Correa is charged with a felony because he had diarrhea on an airplane.

"Bathroom emergency on flight prompts felony charge" [Associated Press]
(Thanks to Bryan!)
(Photo: eyeliam)

The Cincinnati Enquirer says the student is asking for $1,700 for the XBOX, and for "non-economic distress" of at least $25,000, but "in the maximum amount allowable by law or, in the alternative, in the sum of $1,000,000."

The suit also alleges that after the student noticed that his luggage was lighter than when he packed it, he reported the "theft" to US Airways, resulting in weeks of "an unconscionable 'run-around' " that is the basis of his lawsuit.

US Airways said they had no knowledge of the lawsuit, but did mention that the federal liability limit for lost luggage is $3,300 per bag.

"We haven't been apprised of any lawsuit yet, but regardless of the figure in the complaint, there are federal loss limits applicable to all airlines on their liability for lost luggage and belongings, which are currently set at $3,300 per bag," Valerie Wunder, a US Airways spokesperson, told the Enquirer. "Further, our publicly available baggage policies specifically exclude liability for electronics checked in luggage."

Anyway, for the rest of you, if something goes missing from your checked luggage it's the TSA that you should really be dealing with. They have a claims center set up to deal with the problem of "misplaced" property. You can find it here. And no, they probably won't give you a million dollars for your XBOX.

Student sues over missing Xbox [Cincinnati] (Thanks, chiieddy!)
(Photo:Flying Photog)

Here's what happened back in August 2006:

After passing through security... [TSA and JetBlue officials] came up to him and asked him to change his shirt as, "people are feeling offended."

Jaer replied, "Why do you want me to take off my t-shirt? Isn't it my constitutional right to express myself in this way?" Inspector Harris said, "people here in the US don't understand these things about constitutional rights."

He added, "You can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank."

When the settlement was announced, JetBlue took pains to make it clear that they're only settling to avoid a protracted legal battle, and that they don't think they did anything wrong, according to this email to the Washington Post:

"JetBlue continues to deny, outright, every critical aspect of Mr. Jarrar's version of events," airline spokeswoman Alison Croyle said in an e-mailed statement. Croyle added, "JetBlue believes diversity adds great strength to our company; diversity among our crewmembers as well as our customers."

Diversity, and silence! And obedience! Lower your heads, cattle passengers of all colors, and submit to the skittish herd!

Anyway, we're happy for Jaer. We're also trying to come up with a good pseudo-terroristy tshirt design so we can try this ourselves.

"JetBlue, TSA Workers Settle in T-Shirt Case" [Washington Post]

RELATED
"JetBlue Makes Passenger Change 'Offensive' Arabic Tshirt"

In the interview, which is posted at BoingBoing's gadget blog, Chertoff claims that before 9/12/01, hijacking an airplane or, indeed, blowing one up— was a "regular, routine" issue.

From BoingBoing:

[Chertoff:] What I can tell you is that in the period prior to September 12, 2001, it was a regular, routine issue to have American aircraft hijacked or blown up from time to time, whether it was Lockerbie or TSA or TWA 857 [I believe he meant TWA 847 – Joel] or 9/11 itself. And we haven't had even a serious attempt at a hijacking or bombing on an American plane since then.

[According to Airsafe.com, the last flight previous to 9/11 to be hijacked with fatalities from an American destination was a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight on December 7th, 1987. "Lockerbie" refers to Pan Am Flight 103 which was destroyed by a bomb over Scotland after departing from London Heathrow International Airport on its way to JFK, with screening done — as now — by an organization other than the TSA. TWA Flight 847 departed from Athens (Ellinikon) International Airport, also not under TSA oversight.

While Wikipedia's list of aircraft hijackings may not be comprehensive — I cannot find a complete list from the FAA, which does not seem to list hijackings, including 9/11, in its Accidents & Incidents Data — the last incident of an American flight being hijacked was in 1994, when FedEx Flight 705 was hijacked by a disgruntled employee.

The implication that hijacking or bombing of American airline flights is a regular occurrence is not borne out by history, nor does it follow that increased screening by the TSA at airports has prevented more attacks since 9/11.]

Good stuff.

Michael Chertoff on the TSA and "Security Theater" [BoingBoing]

Woman Claims Pasco Airport Security Agent Hurt Her Foot [KERPTV] (Thanks to Matt!)

As you can see from the above screen grab, Mr. Brown, like so many other eBay thieves, practiced excellent customer service. His customers claimed to be "in love" with him, thanks to his prompt delivery and "good communication." One customer remarked that the camera he bought was missing its instructions. Guess the owner didn't pack them.

Mr. Brown's bail has been set at $100,000. He faces 10 years in prison if convicted. The TSA is reportedly taking the matter "seriously."

Bail set at $100,000 for airport baggage screener [Newsday]
TSA agent helped himself to a $47,900 camera (and more!) [Gadling] (Thanks, Geoffrey!)

TSA Likely to Relax Restrictions on Liquids in 2009 [The Middle Seat] (Photo: AP)

Try to read the first sentence below and not turn "wanded" into a euphemism, we dare ya.

Kates said that although she flies about once a month, the only other time her bra has set off alarms in an airport was while she was being "wanded" in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. When she explained to the security agent that the wand was picking up the metal in her bra, she said, that was the end of the matter and she was allowed to go on her way.

The TSA says they have to check for bombs:

TSA spokesman Nico Melendez said Monday that he wasn't familiar with the incident. But he said in all circumstances, "we have to resolve an alarm."

That's the case for bras, artificial hips or anything with metal that sets off an alarm, he said. "Unfortunately, we can't take a passenger's word for it."

If you're a large-breasted woman, when you reach the TSA checkpoint you might want to yank your bra off and toss it in a tray. Not because TSA is demanding it, but because we'd just love to see that start happening a lot.

"Delayed by her bra, air passenger is indignant" [SFGate] (Thanks to Scott!)
(Photo: Getty)

"There is a sign that clearly says, 'Don't step,'" American spokeswoman Mary Frances Fagan told the Chicago Tribune.

The Transportation Security Administration officer was conducting routine checks to make sure that planes parked at the airport overnight were secure from tampering, according to the federal security agency and American Airlines, which owns and operates American Eagle.

But while ensuring that aircraft doors were locked properly, the inspector either stepped onto or grabbed sensitive avionics probes mounted on the fuselage of nine American Eagle planes, officials said.

The TSA defended the officer's actions.

"Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the aircraft that were on the tarmac," a Chicago based TSA official told ABCNews.com.

TSA Snafu Grounds Nine Planes at O'Hare Field [ABCNews] (Thanks, Shawn!)
Aviation inspector's action raises more questions at O'Hare [Chicago Tribune]

First, I am active duty military and I only get so many days of leave; when extenuating circumstances happen to delay travel - I still get charged for the leave.

So there I was on Monday, 11 Aug in the Detroit Metro Airport which happens to be NWAs worldwide hub. I am there a little more than an hour and a half prior to my flight. I was scheduled to leave around 130p on a Monday.

When I checked in at the E-ticket console a message flashed stating that the flight was overbooked and that I was being offered a voucher. I arrived with the intention of checking my only bag because I needed to check a firearm - something that I have done several times. Current TSA policy on firearms is that they need to be in a hard-sided case and locked (my case was a standard manufacturer's case that is completely hard-sided and has been through airlines checks numerous times).

I usually have a lock, but TSA always ends up taking it off and telling me I don't need it. Of course this time I didn't take a lock. The NWA agent told me, after I informed her of my firearm, that TSA wouldn't check it because it didn't have a lock, I told her I would talk to them and see what they would say.

The TSA agent told me that she wouldn't take it without a lock. Trying to minimize time-damage, I asked her if a zip tie would do - logicizing (that absolutely has to be a word) that since law enforcement and military use zip ties in lieu of steel handcuffs to detain people, a zip tie should work instead of a mini lock that I could bend with my bare hands.

She said, mockingly, that I could not use a zip tie. I asked, "what constitutes a lock?" She replied, "A lock." I politely thanked her for clearing that up for me. The NWA agent, who was trying to be friendly and helpful at a very busy point in the day, actually left the desk to go look for a padlock that they could sell me.

Okay, fair enough, rules is rules—get your OP-blaming out of the way now, because this is where it gets very silly.

While [the NWA agent] was gone, the TSA agent told me that she "can't let this through, even if it has a lock on it it's still accessible".

I was confused and said that I did not understand what she meant. She again stated that the case was accessible even if it had a lock. I explained that I did not know what she meant but that TSA's policy and website state the only two requirements (ammo notwithstanding) are a hard-sided case and a lock. She said, "Even if this has a lock on it, I'm not letting it through."

I pulled out my 3g iPhone, pulled up TSA's website and found the firearm policy and showed it to her. She said, "TSA sometimes gives us different policies than they give you."

I responded, "Are you kidding me? I don't think when it comes to firearms TSA is going to surprise passengers with some magical policy to prevent them from checking firearms they're allowed to check." She responded with, "I'm not letting it through."

I asked, "Who do I talk to about getting this through?; she replied, "A supervisor." I asked if I could please speak with a supervisor and she said, no kidding, "I am a supervisor." Does anyone really believe that a supervisor of any kind is actually going to be on shift at the ticketing counter inspecting baggage and tossing it onto the belt?

I asked to speak to a supervisor, [and was told] iit would be 30 minutes before he arrived. Foreseeing a possible "late arrival" and subsequent loss of seat, I asked the same NWA agent if the vouchers were still being offered, she said yes and I asked if I could sell my seat back for one and she said, "No, you have to be at the gate."

This I know to be untrue for two reasons: I've done it before and it's a ticketing counter and I was asking for help with ticketing. I didn't contest; I waited a few minutes and then went back to her and asked if I could call the gate from the counter and try to do it over the phone; she said "No, you have to be at the gate."

Again, I know this to be untrue because I had just done it with NWA a few weeks prior, not even for me but on behalf of my fiancee. Regardless, I dropped it. The TSA supervisor was great: I gave him a quick explanation, asked him if my case was within policy, he said "Yes, what's the problem?" To which I responded, "Your agent doesn't know your policy and is trying to tell me that you guys have secret policies."

He essentially ignored that, [but] he actually went and got me a TSA lock and gave it to me for free, inspected my bag on the spot and checked it through. After asking, he agreed to escort me to the front of security so I wouldn't miss my flight.

Hooray! Through security! But of course they delay set up a chain reaction.

I asked the NWA agent for my boarding pass (she had taken it earlier when I'd asked for the voucher) - she told me I wouldn't make the flight - it was about 15-20 minutes prior to takeoff, she had told me that at 10 minutes you are checked as late and the seat is given away.

I told her I would still like to try because I still want to try for the voucher, I explained TSA was going to escort me right through security and that I thought I could make it. She said, again, "You won't make it," and she took it upon herself to cancel me off of my scheduled flight and put me on the 730pm flight.

So after I got through security, I went to the NWA customer service center, picked up a "reservation" phone that automatically dials a reservations rep and after a couple minutes of explanation to her she gave me the number of the NWA Detroit Director of Operations (I don't think she realized whose number she'd given me - especially considering the NWA agent at a desk didn't know the guys name when I told her I needed to call him). This guy didn't answer, I left him a message, I never got a call back.

I also called - because the TSA supervisor told me I might be able to get reimbursement - the Detroit TSA customer support manager. He called me back within an hour. I explained to him what'd happened. He stated that he would do an investigation and talk to his people to see what they say happened; gee, I wonder what they're going to say. I asked him what their reimbursement policy was, should he conclude that I was right, he said "we don't have one." He went on to say that his agents err on the side of security. I said, this is absolutely not a case of someone erring on the side of security, she flat out told me hat she didn't know the policy. He then changed his statement to "well, she erred on the side of safety." I laughed and told him it was still the same, that she essentially told me she didn't know the policy - not safety, not security. He said he'd do an investigation and get back to me, that was over a week ago.

I ended up volunteering for a voucher and was put up in a hotel overnight. I asked where my bag would be and was told it would be waiting for me in San Antonio. When I got to San Antonio, the NWA agent first told me it was on the carousel; the same agent, after the carousel was empty, told me she probably had it at the counter. When she finally met me at the counter, she told me she didn't have the keys to the room and I had to do a claim.

After all of that, there's a happy ending, but only because Matt wouldn't let the matter drop. Here's a good example of how persistence can pay off.

Later in the week I spent approx. an hour dialing various numbers and holding and pushing buttons until I finally got through to a person. At first, this woman was surprisingly friendly; she listened to my tale and told me that absolutely I should have been able to do the voucher at the ticketing counter; she told me she'd never heard a case like this, wanted to give me a voucher, but she said she had to go check with her "Sup"[ervisor] first.

When she came back, the warmth was gone and all I got was, "You were made late because of TSA, there's nothing I can do for you."

I told her I was delayed, but not made late and the NWA agent didn't give me a chance to get the offered voucher. She responded, "Yeah, you didn't get to the gate so it wasn't NWAs fault," to which I responded, "It was NWAs fault that I didn't get to the gate." I had to repeat that a couple time. She eventually said she would put down "rude behavior/treatment" by an agent and offered me a $75 voucher.

I said that I wasn't treated rudely, and that I should be getting the flight voucher. She repeated the usual, I said "I don't accept your premise" and she just stated that there was nothing she could do for me. I asked to speak to a supervisor - you know, the "Sup" she just talked to 5 minutes ago - and she said, I thought it was deja vu, "I am a supervisor." I almost laughed; confused by her short memory I asked if I could speak to her supervisor; she said she could do an "escalation," I said that would be fine; she took down my phone number and a good time to call and said that I would receive a call within 24 hours. I never received that call.

I waited a few days and then wrote an email to Kristen Shovlin (from your website) and Beth Reed (from some other website) - both listed as executive types. When I clicked on the "Beth" email link on the other site, Kristen's email address came up; I manually typed in Beth's. Within 3 hours I got a response from Jodee with the usual humminah humminah and I got the voucher.

Thanks for everything you do; hope this is helpful.

Matt

We won't reprint Matt's entire email, because we're running out of space on the web for this story, but basically it was a slightly shorter version of what you just read with the TSA part reduced to "TSA delayed me." At the end of the email, Matt states clearly,

I am sorry for my verbosity, but I feel strongly that I should receive a flight voucher. I tried all of the proper channels first and received essentially no resolution.

(Photo: Getty)

Later that day Hawley called back and said that the TSA had changed its policy and would no longer be adding forgetful fliers to the database if they could prove their identity.

Later Tuesday, Hawley called the newspaper to say the agency is changing its policy effective today and will stop keeping records of people who don't have ID if a screener can determine their identity. Hawley said he had been considering the change for a month. The names of people who did not have identification will soon be expunged, he said.

USAToday says the database contains the following information:

TSA can keep records for 15 years of someone's name, address, Social Security number, nationality, race and physical features, as well as identifying information about a traveling companion, according to a report by the Homeland Security Department privacy office.

Fliers without ID placed on TSA list [USAToday]

"Now, those who left their license at home or had it stolen have to answer a series of questions relayed to the screener by employees in TSA's operations center in Virginia, where employees have access to databases of public records, including those compiled by data giant Lexis Nexis," according to Wired.

If you have to fly without identification, memorize any old addresses, the date of your wedding anniversary and your children's addresses. The correct answer to questions like these may determine whether TSA lets you on your flight. Of course, you'd better hope that the answers that the TSA has are correct also.

One traveler who had her tax returns with her, says that TSA agents actually looked them over. TSA spokesman Christopher White said, "If a passenger has any type of documents, they can present them to assist in verifying identification. If she presented the officer with her tax return, we don't care how much money she makes—we just care about her identity."

We have already spoken to one reader who says that they were asked about their political party affiliation. Wired says,

The process of comparing answers to public records already caused a flare-up after one traveler was asked whether he was registered as a Democrat or a Republican, which TSA spokesman Christopher White called a "day one mistake," where a TSA employee looked at the available public records and asked a question off of the information in the files compiled by Lexis Nexis and others.

Are we to infer that this question is no longer being asked? Well, at least the answer isn't difficult to memorize. Certainly, some Consumerists have been through this process by now. What questions were you asked that weren't mentioned in this article?

Flying Without ID? Know What's in Your Files [Wired]
(Photo: Getty)

The TSA says the program has been a big success and has expanded it to 21 airports. They claim the expert lanes move faster and families are receiving more assistance and sounding fewer alarms. There's even a "casual" lane for travelers who know the rules but don't like feeling rushed by those pushy "black diamond" people.

Since it appears to be here to stay, If you'd like to strap on your bureaucracy skis and give the "black diamond" line a shot, the TSA offers these helpful tips:

• DO: Wear slip-on shoes. Laces and zippers will slow you down.
• DO: empty your pockets and put loose items in your purse, jacket pockets, or carry-on bag while before you get to the checkpoint.
• DO: place magazines, snacks or souvenirs purchased in the airport in a carry-on bag or purse before you get to the checkpoint. Consolidating your items before they go in the bins will help you recompose quickly and clear the checkpoint exit area.
• DO: have your liquids baggie out of your carry-on, and make sure you don't have any loose liquid items in your purse or carry-on bag. Notify a security officer if you have any exempt liquids so an officer can provide additional screening if necessary.
• DO: put your shoes and coat in the first bin and any carry-on bags in other bins. Then after your bins go through the x-ray, you can slip your shoes and coat on while waiting for your other items to come out.
• DO: put your laptop bag in the bin before your laptop. Then as the bins come out of the x-ray, just slip it back in, zip and go.
• DO: put your bins on the belt for the x-ray machine vertically versus horizontally. This allows the security officers to view more than one image at a time, and helps speed up the process.
• DON'T: try to put shoes or boots with zippers or laces on right when you take them out of the bins. Move to the side to let other passengers take their items and go.

Black Diamond Self Select Lanes [TSA]
PREVIOUSLY: TSA Brings All The Signage Of Skiing To Security Lines, None Of The Fun

The new regulation doesn't apply to those passengers who claim to have forgotten their ID— so essentially you are barred from claiming that you have a constitutional right to refuse to show ID to get on a plane. Here's how the TSA explains it:

Beginning Saturday, June 21, 2008 passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint will be denied access to the secure area of airports. This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification or assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity."

This new procedure will not affect passengers that may have misplaced, lost or otherwise do not have ID but are cooperative with officers. Cooperative passengers without ID may be subjected to additional screening protocols, including enhanced physical screening, enhanced carry-on and/or checked baggage screening, interviews with behavior detection or law enforcement officers and other measures.

It turns out that "and other measures" include questions about political party affiliation and other questionable invasions of privacy, according to David:

So you know how the new TSA regulations went into effect yesterday, where you can only fly without ID if you "cooperate" with the TSA? Well, it turns out you also have to take a test about your personal life. They call up a service to administer it, and the last question they asked was which political party am I registered under (I correctly answered "democrat" and they still let me on board).

Anyway the full story is that I had to go Florida for a funeral, and accidentally left my driver's license in my apartment in Manhattan. I made it through LaGuardia on Thursday the 19th in about 3 minutes, but when I tried to fly back through Fort Lauderdale Airport yesterday, it took about 45.

When I first approached security, I told the initial guard screening all passengers for ID that I had none. Instead of immediately calling the supervisor over like at LaGuardia, he paused and asked if I was sure I didn't have any ID on me, like a social security card or something. I said I only had a credit card, so he then radioed for the area supervisor. She arrived in just a few seconds. Her name was Brenda, and she very politely and apologetically informed me that things had changed, and that the TSA supervisor for the whole airport needed to handle this situation because of the new regulations.

Luckily I had arrived an hour early so had plenty of time. I chatted with Brenda while we waited for the main supervisor to arrive. I started to get a little nervous that I wouldn't be allowed on board, and Brenda repeatedly assured me it wouldn't be a problem — they just had a few additional steps to go through.

After about 15 minutes, the main supervisor, Laurie, arrived. Again, Laurie was exceedingly nice and professional, but seemed a little more concerned than Brenda. She asked if I was sure I didn't have photo ID, like a credit card with my picture on it, or even a CostCo card. I wound up going through my wallet in front of her to show that I didn't, and she pointed to various cards and receipts in it to ask if they were IDs. I wound up showing her everything to prove I was telling the truth. She repeatedly said they had no way of "verifying" that I was who I said I was, and that someone could have stolen my credit card and traveled under my name. I didn't want to mention that they shouldn't need to verify who I am, because I was afraid they could then say I wasn't cooperating and deny travel on that ground. In fact, I even mentioned several times that I wanted to fully cooperate with them because I was aware that was a component of the new regulation, and they assured me that I was.

Finally satisfied that I didn't have ID, Laurie took my boarding pass and went away. She came back a few minutes later having photocopied it, and also had an affidavit that she requested I sign. It asked for my name and address, and stated in small print at the bottom that I did not have to fill it out, but if I didn't I couldn't fly. It also said that if I choose to fill it out and then provided false info, I would be in violation of federal law.

After filling out the affidavit, Laurie called a service to verify my address. The service needed me to then correctly answer three questions about myself, which Laurie relayed to me. The first was my date of birth, the second was a previous address (which I only got right on my second try), and the third was "You are registered to vote. Which political party have you registered with?" I got all three right, and only then did Laurie clear me to go through security.

Of course, I still had to submit to secondary screening, including a full-body pat-down and total luggage search. Brenda and Laurie stayed with me to make sure the process went as quickly as possible, and were again incredibly helpful and nice. They kept explaining over and over how necessary it was to "verify" who I was, and how times have changed, and how these new regulations must have been as a result of someone trying to get away with something, because there's always a reason for these thing but they don't always know what those reasons are. They were so nice and considerate that I waited until the very end before I finally said that I do not agree with the new regulations, but that I was thankful that the two of them acted so professionally and considerately to me. Laurie actually seemed a little dejected when I said this, because I had been playing along the entire time out of fear that I would not appear cooperative otherwise.

But I made it onboard my flight, and am back in Manhattan. I have flown without ID in the past, a couple years ago, and it was no problem. I almost preferred it because I got to skip the line. This time around though, it was incredibly burdensome, and involved the full attention of two high-level local TSA employees for a considerable period of time. I kept wondering if Laurie and Brenda were so busy with me for so long, what if someone really bad was doing something in another terminal or area? So even though I cannot say enough good things about how these particular TSA employees handled it, I still feel the new regulation is entirely inappropriate and unnecessary. Why do you need to provide a home address to fly? And what if I refused to answer the question about my political party allegiances? Luckily I kept my cool and even befriended the screeners just so they couldn't resort to the subjective lack-of-cooperation carve-out, but 45 minutes of standing at security not knowing if you'll make your flight seems specifically designed to test people's mettle and upset them. The TSA has turned flying without ID into an overly cumbersome and almost unmanageable chore.

We agree with CNet's Chris Soghoian when he says that this new rule is just more security theater— at the cost of your privacy.

While TSA's announcement stated that the goal of the change was to "increase safety," this blogger disagrees. The change of rules seems to be a pretty obvious case of security theater. Real terrorists do not refuse to show ID. They claim to have lost their ID, or they use a fake.

TSA's new rules only protect us from a non-existent breed of terrorists who are unable to lie.

Your papers please: TSA bans ID-less flight [CNet]
(Photo: Kevin Dean )

The article says,

While it allows the security screeners — looking at the images in a separate room — to clearly see the passenger's sexual organs as well as other details of their bodies, the passenger's face is blurred, TSA said in a statement on its website.

The scan only takes seconds and is to replace the physical pat-downs of people that is currently widespread in airports.

TSA began introducing the body scanners in airports in April, first in the Phoenix, Arizona terminal.

The installation is picking up this month, with machines in place or planned for airports in Washington (Reagan National and Baltimore-Washington International), Dallas, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Miami and Detroit.

But the new machines have provoked worries among passengers and rights activists.

"People have no idea how graphic the images are," Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union, told AFP.

The ACLU said in a statement that passengers expecting privacy underneath their clothing "should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane."

Besides masking their faces, the TSA says on its website, the images made "will not be printed stored or transmitted."

"Once the transportation security officer has viewed the image and resolved anomalies, the image is erased from the screen permanently. The officer is unable to print, export, store or transmit the image."

Lara Uselding, a TSA spokeswoman, added that passengers are not obliged to accept the new machines.

"The passengers can choose between the body imaging and the pat-down," she told AFP.

Even if we trust the TSA to blur the faces of travelers and properly dispose of the naked images, and we don't, we believe the TSA has reached yet another milestone in violating our privacy. We appreciate the fact that the TSA is allowing us to choose between the full-body-scan and a pat-down, as if giving us some choice absolves them from any criticism. So which would you prefer, being groped by the TSA or letting them take your naked picture?

Scanners that see through clothing installed in US airports [AFP] (Thanks to Bladefist!)
(Photo: Getty)

Currently, laptops must be removed from their cases so that security screeners can search for weapons or explosives, a delay responsible for significant slowdowns at airport security checkpoints. The TSA is currently testing several laptop case prototypes that when unopened would allow screeners to get clear look at the laptop without the clutter of cords and accessories that typically disturb an x-ray image. The new cases employ a clamshell design which travelers would unfold and lay flat on the conveyor belt, thus separating the laptop from cables and accessories.

Targus and Skooba will be the first two companies to offer the new design. Targus has designed 4 prototypes thus far. "Heavy travelers will be the first adopters of this," said Al Giazzon, Targus' marketing chief. Michael Hess of Skooba said, "Anything that speeds up the process and reduces the burden on travelers and screeners will improve the deteriorating travel situation."

We're pleased to see that efforts are being made to reduce security delays. To us, these new cases make sense. Not having to remove the laptop from the case means less chance for accidental damage and tampering, an added benefit.

Have laptop, will breeze through security? [USA Today]
(Photo: Getty)

Until recently, the law said that unwarranted computer searches constituted an "intrusion of the mind", but those days are now over in light of the new rulings. The latest rulings stem from a case where airline passenger, Timothy Arnold, was pulled aside for secondary questioning upon his arrival into LAX from The Philippines in July, 2005. Customs agents searched his laptop and found images depicting child pornography. Initially, it was ruled that agents didn't have reasonable suspicion to search his laptop, however, that ruling was overturned. Arnold was later charged with possessing and transporting child porn and with traveling to a foreign country with the intention of having sex with children.

U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien praised the decision, "The government needs to have the ability to restrict harmful material from entering the country, whether that be weapons used by terrorists, dangerous narcotics or child pornography." However, many disagree.

Travelers now have new concerns about the security of their private and corporate data. Some fear that poorly trained officers could accidentally corrupt or erase data during such searches. Also unknown, is where and how long data will be stored, perhaps making it vulnerable to theft or breaches. As it stands, all retrieved data can be kept indefinitely.

Despite the governments' new far-reaching power into your privacy there are a few things you can do to help secure your data when you travel. CNET offers a handy article that outlines different types of encryption and other techniques that can help keep your data secure.

The added delays and headaches seem almost insignificant when considering how much our personal liberties are being systematically revoked. We can understand the need to search for weapons and contraband but suspicionless searches of data is a bold new level of privacy invasion. Our laptops and personal information, once considered an extension of the mind, are now considered luggage. We wonder how long it will be until our minds are also considered luggage and subject to search without suspicion.

Border Agents Can Search Laptops Without Cause, Court Rules [Information Week]
9th Circuit OKs Border Guards' Search of Traveler's Laptop [Law.com]
Security guide to customs-proofing your laptop [CNET news]
(Photo: Getty)

The TSA is a complete joke...and not a funny one [thank gilligan it's safe for work] (Thanks to Chris!)

TSA Responds to Nipple Ring Complaint [AP] (Thanks to Louis!)
PREVIOUSLY: TSA Forces Woman To Remove Nipple Piercings

"Taking it seriously" is a phrase companies use over and over again in public statements whenever they have bad PR. Our series of posts on occurrences of the phrase is our attempt to question how seriously companies are really taking these matters if every time they trot out this phrase by rote. To see more examples of how companies are "taking it seriously" click here.

(Photo:Flying Photog)

Over on Venture Chronicles, some Clear customers have left feedback, calling it "security theatre" and saying it "can cut 15 minutes out of the process"—which we're not sure is worth $100 bucks a year. Some were upset by the idea of retinal scanning and fingerprinting—all of Clear's data is routed through the TSA, so the government gets access to that data, if you worry about that sort of thing. One commenter named Celeste notes that Clear doesn't let you bypass some of the more onerous security activities:

I signed up as well and realize that, for now, I'll be at the front of the line. My two questions are, since I still have to go through all the security checks (i.e., shoes, laptops, bag screening, etc., as I understand it), why do they need a retina scan and thumbprint? Basically, I've paid $100 to bypass 150 people but I've still got to take off my shoes. Also, at $100 a year, won't the FlyClear line be as long as the regular security line in a year, once more airports become available? They haven't reduced the actual screening time. In fact, it's been increased by going through the retina and print scan, haven't they? We'll see if it's a benefit next year before I decide to renew.

I did find myself thinking "crikey I hope they have some killer data security with everything I am giving them".

I guess it's a Faustian bargain at it's heart, paying $100 because our government can't figure out how to have effective AND efficient airport security pisses me off, but I won't be thinking about that as I breeze through the Clear security lane while everyone else is waiting 100 people deep.

I'm less concerned about the prospect that my civil liberties will be infringed because at some point in the future they may share it with some agency, maybe I should be but I just don't get worked up about it for whatever reason.

Leaving San Jose on a flight last week, there was a short line to go through security — but long enough to make trying CLEAR worthwhile. I walked up and handed my card over — strike one, since after scanning my eyes and fingerprints, why do I need a card?

Next, I had to put my right ring finger down. Hard. Like really hard, to the degree it physically hurt, in order to get a good images. Yeah, I'm a big baby. C'mon — it wasn't comfortable. And then the finger wouldn't work.

Next to my "backup" finger, my left index. Again, a hard pressing down that hurt, but eventually an image was captured, and I was me.

So why then was I next asked for picture ID? All these biometrics, and they want my driver's license? Apparently, the CLEAR folks are different from TSA — and TSA wants the picture ID checked.

RELATED
"FlyClear" [Venture Chronicles]
"Using CLEAR To Clear Airport Security — This Is Efficient?" [Daggle]

(Photo: nedrichards)

From the TSA blog, where every TSA employee suspiciously writes in the same perfectly-punctuated, on-message style (this quote is from the man who heads TSA security operations in Salt Lake City, and clearly not from a PR flack):

The Green lanes are used primarily by families, who often feel stressed in the traditional lane trying to get through with their kids, strollers and other stuff. Often these folks haven't gotten the proper level of attention they deserve. People who don't travel much and groups also select this lane. We've dedicated more resources to get people through this lane quickly without making them feel pushed. The Blue lanes are for casual travelers who understand TSA procedures to a degree but may not travel all that frequently so they take a little more time. The black diamond lanes are for expert travelers who understand the system by the nature of traveling a lot and are totally prepared for the checkpoint.

Halfway down a Denver Post story about the experiment is one of the saddest things we've read all week. Here's a glimpse of the future of America—children indoctrinated from their earliest memories to accept The Way Things Are.

In the stroller were her sons, Christian, 4, and Wyatt, 2.

Wyatt was crying up a storm.

Asked if she thought the new system might benefit her and her kids, Clatterbuck said, "I hope so," as the two well-trained little boys took off their shoes even though they were seated in the stroller.

RELATED
"Color-coded screening takes off at DIA" [Denver Post]
"DIA security lines: Pick 'em" [Rocky Mountain News]
(Image: Jeff R.) (Thanks, Jeff!)

Dr. Soni said he was raising the objection publicly because "I feel the message needs to be put across. I don't think the T.S.A. has the training to exert judgment on what the nutritional needs of a baby are" for a 2 ½ hour flight, not to mention a possible long delay.

Dr. Soni stressed that he and his wife have no quarrel with the T.S.A. officers, but would like to see a rule allowing parents more discretion. He also suggested that airport shops inside the security zones consider selling baby food.

"Bringing Along Baby Food? Not Too Much, Rules Say" [New York Times]