Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Transportation Idle

TSA Has 95-Year-Old Remove Her Diaper For Screening 582

Posted by samzenpus
from the security-theater dept.
wjcofkc writes "The Transportation Security Administration stood by its security officers Sunday after a Florida woman complained that her cancer-stricken, 95-year-old mother was patted down and forced to remove her adult diaper while going through security. 'While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner,' the federal agency said. 'We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.'"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Has 95-Year-Old Remove Her Diaper For Screening

Comments Filter:
  • PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rainmouse (1784278) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:03AM (#36583116)
    Clearly she fits the terrorist criminal profile.
    • Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Funny)

      by RogueWarrior65 (678876) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:04AM (#36583122)

      Well, ya know, she might be trying to knit an Afghan. *rimshot*

    • Re:PROFILED (Score:4, Insightful)

      by michelcolman (1208008) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:10AM (#36583190)
      Obviously. Intelligence has determined that all the younger terrorists must have blown themselves up already. This means the likelihood of elderly suicide bombers has increased tremendously. It's only logical. Keep up the good work, TSA!
    • Re:PROFILED (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rob Kaper (5960) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:10AM (#36583200) Homepage

      Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types. Not to say I appreciate the security bloatfest of the past decade, absolutely not... but being old or disabled is not a "get out of security checkpoints free" card and never should be. Can't respond on the individual case, I wasn't there.

      • Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Volante3192 (953645) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:18AM (#36583314)

        And to that I say... 'so?'

        People die every day, and in the US it's more likely to be from bee stings than terrorist activity.
        Yet we've determined to spend billions to make that a zero percentage. What about those terrorist bees!?

        • I think Wanted takes the trophy for terrorist animals. Not bees as such, rats, but they do a whole lot more damage too...

        • Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hedwards (940851) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:26AM (#36583422)

          This.

          We shouldn't be granting exceptions we should be scrapping the program entirely. 9/11 would not have succeeded had the airline industry not been so cheap as to not pay for the kind of reinforced doors that had been in place in planes flown in other parts of the world. Additionally, had we not banned knives on planes, it's unlikely that the plot would have succeeded either as the terrorists would have been outnumbered.

          It's astonishing to me how many people think that another 9/11 style kamikaze jet liner attack could happen that way given the awareness that the hijacker hostage deal has changed and that being quiet no longer guarantees that the situation ends in the inconvenience of being flown to Libya or Cuba. At this point, they're going to just bomb the security check points like they do in other parts of the world, much easier to succeed doing that and definitely enough bloodshed to keep people terrorized for years to come.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by KermodeBear (738243)

            Bees also don't billions in economic damage.

            A single blown-up airplane would cause many people to cancel their flights, causing a lot of damage to the flight and travel industries. It would also scare the populace. A scared populace is less likely to spend money on anything. If the people aren't willing to spend money, then investors likewise will be tighter with their purse strings. The general populace and investors not spending money is bad for the economy.

            The security theater is about money and little e

            • Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)

              by fuzznutz (789413) on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:15AM (#36584130)
              I'm not sure if I would mod you funny or troll..

              The security theater is all about control. Do you think for one second that the administration could have gotten away clean with wireless wiretapping if not for the security theater drumbeats and foolish sycophants claiming they are doing a great job protecting us? We (the US citizenry) are being slowly inundated into total surveillance, control, and servitude by the minions of the government who just can't get enough of that security theater.
            • Re:PROFILED (Score:4, Insightful)

              by mcgrew (92797) * on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:32AM (#36584410) Homepage Journal

              I only have six points left so I think I'll respond (even though I wouldn't have moderated your comment either way and left it at 1).

              This is indeed a religious war. The US is fighting to protect its national religion -- the worship of money. Most "Christians" would probably denounce God and Christ if you offered them a hundred million bucks to do so, despite the fact that that's the worst sin a Christian could possibly commit (worse than mass murder). Most money worshiping Christians don't even realize that they love money more than they love Jesus.

              Hypocrites. How many of these so-called "Christians" call for the death penalty, when the man they call their lord and savior said to love those that hate you, do good to those who harm you, and forgive your enemies? No wonder there are so many athiests, considering how hypocritical most "religious" people are (that includes Muslims and Jews as well as Christians).

              The TSA is about instilling fear among the populace so the government can take away what few rights you still have. It should never have been started, and neither should DHS have been. Homeland security should be the military's job. If there is a TSA their job should be to make sure our deteriorating bridges don't collapse and the airliners don't have mechanical defects or drunken pilots.

              • Re:PROFILED (Score:4, Informative)

                by eleuthero (812560) on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:51AM (#36584724)
                As a Christian, I would agree that we are unfortunately hypocrites in the sense that we do not live up to a model of perfection that we claim is the standard--and I include myself in that. We are imperfect. Our claim is that because of that imperfection, Christ took our punishment on himself. We don't instantly become perfect after this, though we are called to look for ways to change thereafter. This quickly brings up the issue of justice (how could one man be killed on behalf of others?)--but Christianity affirms that the guy that made the rules took on the punishment. It would be kind of like if I were working with a friend with a torch and my child came out running under our legs towards the pretty light after having been told to remain inside. I would be responsible for the rule, for the scenario behind the rule, etc. Breaking the rule could cost him big (life, use of a limb... sight, at the least, a trip to the hospital for burns). If the timing were such that either he took the fall or I did, it would be an easy decision--I would step between my child and the flame... even if it caused fatal damage. Christianity claims that this is what God did for man through Jesus.
              • by AJH16 (940784)

                While I agree with you that there are many individuals who call themselves Christian that are not in the US, I would challenge some of your examples. I'm not sure why you brought the death penalty thing in to the discussion, but I do not believe it to be inconsistent. Jesus' teachings were fairly clear that there was a difference between personal justice and governance. If someone was to murder my loved ones, I would forgive them, but unless they were to be repentant of what they did, I would not want th

            • Do you think TSA actually helps the economy? After finding out about TSA's grope/nudie scan policies last fall, I took exactly one airline flight, an already scheduled business trip, and that only after verifying that there were no x-ray scanners at either airport I was flying to. My wife and I planned to take a trip to Hawaii this year, but it's not gonna happen until the TSA backs off a bit on their policies. I know I'm not alone, because I've heard similar comments from many, many people in various on
          • by autocracy (192714)

            Hell, I miss the days when the pilots would sometimes just leave the door open, and I'm a pretty young guy. It weirds me out whenever I get on a bus service that has the driver behind a plexiglass cage. I won't say the cockpit door isn't a reasonable security measure, but the bus thing is asinine.

            I don't think box cutters were ever a credible threat. The thing we had all learned is that unless John McClane is involved, you'll be a few days late getting home and see another country should your plane get hija

            • Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:24AM (#36584274) Homepage Journal

              Boxcutters are only a credible threat in a population of thoroughly cowed citizens. A nation that teaches children that "it is never right to fight" can expect their children to grow into pansies who are bullied by anyone, and everyone who grows up fighting.

              Boxcutters. Yes, of course, in the hands of a trained killer, ANYTHING will become a weapon. But, that boxcutter is simply not a weapon of choice among killers, because it's so easy to defend against. Presuming, of course, that the target has a mindset which permits him to think in terms of defense and offense.

              • by IICV (652597)

                Well, not really.

                If the passengers on the planes had known that the hijackers were suicidal and were going to kill them all, they would have acted.

                In fact, we know this is true because besides the planes that hit the Twin Towers and the plane that missed the Pentagon, a fourth plane was hijacked; the passengers on that plane had news of what happened to the other three planes, and knew that the terrorists were going to kill them all. It ended up crashing in the middle of Pennsylvania after the passengers at

          • Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)

            by wile_e8 (958263) on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:13AM (#36584098)

            This.

            We shouldn't be granting exceptions we should be scrapping the program entirely. 9/11 would not have succeeded had the airline industry not been so cheap as to not pay for the kind of reinforced doors that had been in place in planes flown in other parts of the world. Additionally, had we not banned knives on planes, it's unlikely that the plot would have succeeded either as the terrorists would have been outnumbered.

            It's simpler than that. 9/11 succeeded more due to the mindset at the time than anything that wasn't allowed on planes. Ten years ago, the standard operating procedure for a hijacking was to give in and deal with it on the ground. The 9/11 attackers went after the flaw in this plan, which assumed the hijackers weren't suicidal. Today, even if we didn't have reinforced doors and still banned knives on planes, any would be hijackers with box cutters wouldn't make it two steps up the aisle before half the passengers would take them down.

        • Want to live? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:28AM (#36583456)

          Don't diss bees. They work very hard and then we steal their honey. Also, they don't sting unless they are in mortal peril, or if their hive is threatened. Bees are very docile. Appreciate them, they deserve it.

          Obligatory car analogy: people die in car crashes every day. Most of them could have easily been avoided. We don't try to do that, because we feel we have the right to behave how we want in our car. Freedom and all that. Drunk drivers think it is ok to drive when intoxicated, even if they are told it has a higher risk. We still use our mobile phone in the car, even if study after study proves it is rather dangerous. Some cars aren't really fit to be on the road, but does that stop us?

          But somehow we feel we should have our genitals groped on the off chance there might be a non-savoury passenger aboard. Even when the drive to the airport is several orders of magnitude more dangerous.

          We are a stupid lot, really.

        • People do not like the reality that all this "security" has no benefit. Were already allowing the things that were used to hijack planes on-board (razors and lighters/matches classic jail house weapon and they can not stop them there either). Security was improved the moment that the passengers figured out it was in there own interest to stop the terrorists and not wait to be rescued. Governments hate an empowered populace it reduces there control.

          Want to stop terrorism, eradicate the potential threat, i

          • Give repercussions to people willing to kill themselves for there cause, group punishments again rather nasty business to punish the people that the terrorists cared for.

            Just like it worked for Germans in every country they occupied during the WWII.
            Killing civilians also does wonders for the morale of "our boys" out there.

            In fact, why even bother with recruiting and training anymore?
            Simply scour the prisons for rapists, murderers and other sociopaths, give them guns and flamethrowers and parachute them into civilian settlements.
            That should fix that pesky terrorist problem by Christmas or so. What could possibly go wrong, right?

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          <advocacy=devil>Bees provide a service necessary to life as we love it. What service do terrorists provide?</advocacy>

      • by TheCarp (96830)

        Armed criminals often conceal weapons under clothing, precisely because their weapons would otherwise be obvious.

        Clearly the only way we could ever feel safe enough to walk down the street is to outlaw all clothing. Makes sense to me. Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

        • Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

          Every time I look in the mirror, pal!

        • by Combatso (1793216)

          Armed criminals often conceal weapons under clothing, precisely because their weapons would otherwise be obvious.

          Clearly the only way we could ever feel safe enough to walk down the street is to outlaw all clothing. Makes sense to me. Do you see a flaw in this thinking?

          I see a flaw, anyone with a concealed weapons permit would have to insert the weapon into an orifice.. If all guns are inserted in to assholes, only assholes will have guns.

      • Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rubycodez (864176) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:37AM (#36583580)
        Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives

        Your basis for this is that airplanes are falling out of the sky like hail from children rigged to explode? or that the TSA catches all kinds of children wired to blow? Or, are you a coward living in fear, willing to give up your rights to not be molested and humiliated by TSA who have never, ever caught a terrorist?
      • by Wovel (964431)

        A lot has been said in reply to your post, but one word in one post sums it ip nicely:

        So

      • Can somebody show me where these campaigns of harassment have actually worked? Seriously... It seems like every plot that's been thwarted has been through better intelligence (or a lack of intelligence on the part of the would-be terrorist), not random gropedowns or pornoscans. And each silly new piece of security theater comes AFTER the horse is out of the barn (e.g. post-shoe bomber, post-idiotic liquid explosive plot, etc.).

        Am I suffering from selective memory here or are these just impotent attemp
      • by N0Man74 (1620447)

        Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types.

        Can you cite one example of the TSA catching a child being used by terrorists? One old woman? Hell, How many Muslims extremist with evidence of terrorist intentions have been caught by the TSA?

        What is the TSA actually accomplishing, aside from trying to justify the loss of our privacy, convenience, and freedom in exchange for false security?

        Are the terrorists, who are willing to die in order to cause mayhem and terror, suddenly afraid they might get caught?

        The threat of terrorism is wasting our money and

    • by drolli (522659)

      The profile of an intelligent, dangerous, hidden sleeper terrorist waiting for a long time for a chance, using her age as a disguise.

    • Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:16AM (#36583278)

      Clearly she fits the terrorist criminal profile.

      Terrorists aren't complete morons.

      A white, pregnant Catholic Irishwoman doesn't fit the terrorist profile either.

      And yet, there was a bomb in her luggage, placed by her Jordanian fiancee:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair [wikipedia.org]

      • Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:24AM (#36583390)

        So you saying someone would hide a bomb in this woman's DIAPER without her knowing it? :)

      • Re:PROFILED (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Mr. Foogle (253554) <brian,dunbar&gmail,com> on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:31AM (#36583500) Homepage

        Terrorists aren't complete morons.

        This is true. Which is why TSA has never caught one.

        Perhaps we should re-think this whole airport security thing.

      • by TheCarp (96830)

        And it got a Wikipedia page called the "Hindawi Affair". Hmm a few nights ago someone had a car crash, I wonder what the wikipedia page for that car crash is called..... oh right.... they only do that for events that are incredibly rare. So rare as to... not be worth talking about. Seriously, if this is what airport security is supposed to protect us from, then we can fire them all....totally unneeded.

    • by erroneus (253617)

      If they were [allowed to use] profiling we wouldn't have these sad incidents.

      • Yeah you'd have planes blown up my non-brown people instead.

        Well, OK, so terrorists very rarely try to get bombs on planes, and if they did, the passengers would probably stop them from setting it off, but you'd be creating a huge vulnerability by focusing on a certain profile. Same reason security software doesn't only scan files handled by Java, Flash, IE and Autorun.

        • by erroneus (253617)

          You're preaching to the choir, but there has to be a balance and trade-off in there somewhere. It's very much like security on business networks. There are always "more secure ways" but we reject them because they represent too much complication and too much inconvenience. All the warm-fuzzies generated by a feeling of being secure is over-ridden by dank-nasties of annoying inconveniences. And that's pretty much what we are seeing here.

          However, if there were profiling, there would still be a high percen

          • The problem is the false-positive and good catch rates would quickly reverse themselves. Terrorists would soon get recruits that don't match the high-security profile, reducing the number picked up by the profile. The overall false positive rate might be lower in this case since the group you're profiling is relatively small, but the false negative rate would definitely increase as the low-security profile is exploited.

            And none of this touches on the social issues.

        • by bberens (965711)
          Not all profiling is based on skin color. The Israelis, for example, deal with a LOT more terrorism than we do and they profile based on where you have traveled previously. So, for example, if a country like Jordan is flagged as a "terrorist training" country then you will be more highly scrutinized if you've traveled to Jordan recently. While I agree with you that color-based profiling would ultimately be fruitless, I do think there's a place in "the system" for some types of effective profiling.
  • by Zerth (26112) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:05AM (#36583130)

    At least they didn't break a colostomy bag seal.

    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/TSA_chief_apologizes_to_traveler_with_ostomy-109990494.html [nbclosangeles.com]

  • by RogueWarrior65 (678876) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:08AM (#36583174)

    I love how the TSA says that they reviewed the case and gave a pass to their own people. IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this. That aside, I think the woman should have put a plastic turd in there just to piss them off (you know, because a real one would be gross).

    • by TC Wilcox (954812)

      I love how the TSA says that they reviewed the case and gave a pass to their own people. IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this. That aside, I think the woman should have put a plastic turd in there just to piss them off (you know, because a real one would be gross).

      There were actually real turds in her diaper. That is why the TSA clerks wanted her to change it in the first place. I guess even though they don't mind feeling up everyone walking through the line they do mind poo.

    • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:43AM (#36583654)

      IMHO, there needs to be an independent review board for bullsh*t like this.

      In my opinion, the TSA needs to be eliminated completely. They don't appear to be doing much good, violate peoples' privacy, and even if they capture a few 'terrorists', I don't believe that forcing innocent people to be searched is worth it (especially considering the low chances of terrorist attacks in the first place). More security on the planes themselves (such as reinforced doors) is better, in my opinion.

  • ...from who are the TSA protecting me when they scan me or pat me down?

    • by mark-t (151149)

      According to them, these processes are preventative measures to keep somebody from smuggling a weapon onto the plane, thereby allegedly protecting *all* of the passengers, even though you are definitely correct in pointing out that what is done to any given individual does not protect them at all, personally... the TSA's response would likely be that putting you personally through such processes protects others... and putting others through it, in turn, protects you individually.

      Of course, the above shou

      • by Wovel (964431)

        Since the formation of the TSA, every attempted terrorist attack has been stopped by passengers or intelligence agencies. The TSA fails at here job 100% of the time. They talk about all the weapons they have confiscated..Mostly pocketknives and an ocassioal handgun forgotten about in a bag. The guns would have been found by the old system and the pocket knifed don't matter anymore.

        I am sure theynare counting globes too.

    • From yourself, of course. Imagine how chaotic it would be if everyone suddenly claimed their dignity!
    • This is what happens when America elects morons to do their thinking for them. Americans need to start thinking for themselves instead of pushing the job off on others. I saw a bumper sticker the other day, "America: Now outsourcing thinking!"
  • by bigjocker (113512) * on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:10AM (#36583192) Homepage

    According to some sources, they didn't find no shit

  • "Roigl" is probably the acronym.

  • Couldn't care less (Score:5, Interesting)

    by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:39AM (#36583614)
    America is on my No-Fly List, and has been for a good long while.

    I can simulate the air travel experience in my own room by pushing my desk chair all the way up to my desk, putting a couple of boxes in front of my legs, and watching DVDs from 8 years ago on repeat. For that added authentic experience, i'll invite two fat sweaty nerds to sit either side of me and flick peanuts at each other. The icing on the cake really is the 45 year old balding rent-a-cop sexually assaulting me at my bedroom door.

    Seriously. Never going to America again.
    • by wvmarle (1070040) on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:46AM (#36584664)

      I'm with you.

      I've never been to the US, I'd love to see the place, but this whole flying nonsense is keeping me away from it. Having go through a watered-down version that's in place in the rest of the world (though EU is following the US closely) is bad enough. No interest to visit the source of that.

      It's a pity, really, that it has to be like that.

  • by buravirgil (137856) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:41AM (#36583622)
    Can stink. While the War on Drugs (patent pending) is being comically questioned in Congress, the TSA has always, and continues, to countenance its spirit as 'terror'. Drug interdiction is the concern and naked ambition pursued by "securing" airports with the Patriot Act. Termed "controversial invocations" by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act [wikipedia.org] What this incident revealed is an established "thinking" of TSA agents, akin to police popularizing incidents of mothers hiding crack in a baby's diaper, and that no one is above suspicion. And extreme acts are how agents of power assert policy. Should there be a "rule"? In what regard? Ages 55-100? People in a wheel-chair? This action is a form of active propaganda-- because if we can all condemn this action as too extreme, actions upon everybody else is all the more normalized.
  • by BetterSense (1398915) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:43AM (#36583662)
    If they really thought she had explosives...would they have let her on the plane? Of course not.

    A lot of people seem to miss this simple point through, I guess, conditioning.

    By letting the old lady get on the plane, they admit that they are extremely confident that she is NOT a terrorist and whatever was in her pants is completely harmless. Otherwise they would never let her on the plane. And this goes for all the people who have their play-doh, baby bottles, cheese, etc confiscated. If TSA had even a small reason to believe those things were actual explosives, you would not be flying that day, no fucking way. I mean, what do they do with the supposed possible-explosives they confiscate? If they are possibly explosives, shouldn't they put them in some explosion-safe location and have a bomb expert examine them to determine the danger? They don't do any of that, because they known goddam well that the baby bottles and cheese they confiscate is perfectly harmless. They just confiscate it anyway, because they are thugs and they can.

    If I try to get on a plane and they honest-to-god find explosives on me, and honest-to-god think that I'm going to blow up the fucking plane, do they just let me leave the line, dispose of my explosives, and then get back on the plane? Of course not. They would never do that. Honestly, I don't know what they would do--I don't think they would know what to do with a real bomb or a terrorist if they actually caught one--but they would probably shut the whole terminal down, call the bomb squad, and arrest me. The fact that they do none of those things when the confiscate my cheese is proof that they know I'm harmless, but they steal my shit anyway. In this case, they knew that this old lady was harmless--you know this--but they just bullied her anyway, because they are thugs and they can.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Adam Appel (1991764)
      And that's why I quit after 4 months. A few things tipped me off. This was before the shoe and liquid BS. 1) I stopped a kid with a small chain with a weight on each end (also called a manriki-gusari). The security "manager" over ruled that and let him on the plane with it. Then I went though a checkpoint with and IED (inert C4) without alarming in any way. Then another screener failed to find a firearm in a XRAY then hand search during testing. then during training about terminal evacuation for bomb threat
  • by Cro Magnon (467622) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:44AM (#36583666) Homepage Journal

    They were afraid she'd do a boom-boom.

  • "You don't like it when we check an infant's diaper, you don't like it when we check a 95 year old's diaper. Well, smartarse American public, who's diaper can we check?

    "Wait...why are we checking diapers again?"

  • I doubt they enjoying checking adult diapers. Did the granny set off some sensor?
  • . . . so we can all see her giant schlong.
  • by Dan667 (564390) on Monday June 27, 2011 @10:58AM (#36583862)
    the tsa is hugely expensive and provide no actual security that is going to stop a terrorist act. Those funds should be put towards agencies like the CIA and FBI to actually put people out in the field to infiltrate and disrupt these networks like they use to do back in the day when they were effective.
  • by h1q (2042122) <dragon@gmail.com> on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:05AM (#36583972) Journal

    When I read 1984 as a youngster I was shocked at the telescreen, the minutes of hate, the ever-shifting language and designated terrorists, and the frightful Room 101 ways of dealing with questionable comrades.

    At some point with water-boarding, elimination of due process and habeas corpus for designated humans and spying without warrants, we have now fulfilled Orwell's nightmare of a despotic totalitarian system of politic and thought. And we aspire to further degradation of the human spirit.

  • by retroworks (652802) on Monday June 27, 2011 @11:38AM (#36584540) Homepage Journal
    Slow news day. Mainstream media cannot seem to resist publicizing "shark attacks", even if bee stings and railroad crossing deaths outnumber shark bites and terrorist attacks exponentially. Having created a disproportionate reaction to the statistical risk of terrorist attack (resulting in TSA), they are now doing the same thing to TSA, leading us all to believe that a significant number of TSA screenings are spent on 95 year old diaper-wearers.

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...