This is exacltly why I'll keep to the rails thank you

[dlagrua]

Some poeple wonder why I'm done flying. This article says it all for a government out of control.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100818_Daniel_Rubin__An_infuriating_search_at_Philadelphia_International_Airport.html

 

[OTownDog]

This article has me speechless. I'll be traveling by air twice next month (and thankfully twice by rail as well) and am sickened that This type of treatment is a possibility. Oddly, I can't seem to remember the last time a blonde haired middle aged woman was responsible for any real or imagined threat to the safety of the airlines. This is just appalling.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Some poeple wonder why I'm done flying. This article says it all for a government out of control.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100818_Daniel_Rubin__An_infuriating_search_at_Philadelphia_International_Airport.html

1984 is truely here and BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING! :angry: This is appaling and a reminder of why Security Theater should be kept out of train stations! Everyone, no matter what your political beliefs should understand how abusive and illegal this is! Where are the public interest lawyers?? :help: :help: :help:

 

[PRR 60]

It amuses me how we always point out the inaccuracies and unfairness of mass media reporting of rail, particularly when that reporting is negative, and then accept the very same reporting of non-rail issues as 100% fair and accurate. Suffice it to say that this story has two sides, and the Inqy is reporting only the side fed to them by the woman's attorney - ten days after the fact, by the way.

I have no idea if this is the case here, but a suburban princess wronged is not a pretty sight.

 

[LA Resident]

It amuses me how we always point out the inaccuracies and unfairness of mass media reporting of rail, particularly when that reporting is negative, and then accept the very same reporting of non-rail issues as 100% fair and accurate. Suffice it to say that this story has two sides, and the Inqy is reporting only the side fed to them by the woman's attorney - ten days after the fact, by the way.

I have no idea if this is the case here, but a suburban princess wronged is not a pretty sight.

I'm glad you're amused. I venture that most people on this forum are not. There are enough examples from history of police authorities given authority and/or power who abuse their privilege to be highly skeptical of their defense.

In the specific instance of TSA, there is the additional fact that people who complain publicly often end up somehow being pulled into secondary inspection over and over and over, and denied reasons why.

One little police potentate acting illegally is one too many. I hope the experience never happens to you. But if it does, tell us all about it on this forum and we'll be amused.

 

[Edgefan]

Some poeple wonder why I'm done flying. This article says it all for a government out of control.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100818_Daniel_Rubin__An_infuriating_search_at_Philadelphia_International_Airport.html

One of many reasons I will no longer get inside a pressurized aluminum tube and go shooting through the atmosphere. <_< I forwarded the link to my wife as reinforcement of my stance.

 

[the_traveler]

I do not understand this statement in the story:

one of the Philadelphia officers told her he was there because her checks were numbered sequentially

I do not often write checks, but I've always found that the checks in my checkbook are numbered #127, 128, 129, 130, 131, etc... - not #127, 146, 138, 150, 134, etc...

So why would they not be numbered sequentially?

 

[PRR 60]

I do not understand this statement in the story:

one of the Philadelphia officers told her he was there because her checks were numbered sequentially

I do not often write checks, but I've always found that the checks in my checkbook are numbered #127, 128, 129, 130, 131, etc... - not #127, 146, 138, 150, 134, etc...

So why would they not be numbered sequentially?

These were not checks written by this person to others. These were checks written by a third party to this person. Multiple checks, same payer, (almost) sequential, about $8000 total, payee her and her husband, and she's flying out of town with them. Hmm.

I dare say that you do not often write four or five checks all to the same person at the same time with (almost) sequential numbering.

 

[RRrich]

I dare say that you do not often write four or five checks all to the same person at the same time with (almost) sequential numbering.

I do not understand why she would have several sequential checks made out to her (and her husband) BUT my lack of understanding does NOT give me or a officer cause to question her unless the law gives us that right.

People are NOT subject to an officer's whims but to the stipulations of the law!

 

[caravanman]

Hi,

I think this is an interesting story, mostly for the fact that the TSA was a behaviour expert, on the lookout for "unusual behaviour".

I have a retail and hire business here in the UK, for many years, and I think it is fair to say that I do get a "sixth sense" about some customers. Dunno what it is, but something out of the ordinary gets my attention each time.. Sometimes I am wrong, and a normal transaction follows, sometimes not.

This incident seems to just have escalated out of proportion.. maybe a stressed passenger and a stressed TSA creating a perfect storm?

I can't see that it is "a government out of control", seems more like an over zealous security official. After all, would anyone feel happy to board a plane these days without thorough security checks? not me!

Eddie

 

[rrdude]

I do not understand this statement in the story:

one of the Philadelphia officers told her he was there because her checks were numbered sequentially

I do not often write checks, but I've always found that the checks in my checkbook are numbered #127, 128, 129, 130, 131, etc... - not #127, 146, 138, 150, 134, etc...

So why would they not be numbered sequentially?

These were not checks written by this person to others. These were checks written by a third party to this person. Multiple checks, same payer, (almost) sequential, about $8000 total, payee her and her husband, and she's flying out of town with them. Hmm.

I dare say that you do not often write four or five checks all to the same person at the same time with (almost) sequential numbering.

None of the GD TSA's business if you do tho, is it?

I pray for the asshat TSA who treats me like that. Miss my flight? I could care less. If I am treated like that, they will not forget the day. Two can play that game. Just because you wear a uniform, does not give you carte blanche.

I hate it when people go running to attorneys to try and file a lawsuit against someone for false reasons, but this women SHOULD be talking to an attorney.

 

[PRR 60]

It amuses me how we always point out the inaccuracies and unfairness of mass media reporting of rail, particularly when that reporting is negative, and then accept the very same reporting of non-rail issues as 100% fair and accurate. Suffice it to say that this story has two sides, and the Inqy is reporting only the side fed to them by the woman's attorney - ten days after the fact, by the way.

I have no idea if this is the case here, but a suburban princess wronged is not a pretty sight.

I'm glad you're amused. I venture that most people on this forum are not. There are enough examples from history of police authorities given authority and/or power who abuse their privilege to be highly skeptical of their defense.

In the specific instance of TSA, there is the additional fact that people who complain publicly often end up somehow being pulled into secondary inspection over and over and over, and denied reasons why.

One little police potentate acting illegally is one too many. I hope the experience never happens to you. But if it does, tell us all about it on this forum and we'll be amused.

And you'd have a right to be amused.

And for the record, I'm amused with the response here. The responders here are the same people who are rightly indignant when the media blames Amtrak for grade crossing fatalities and quotes witnesses who swear the crossing lights were not working. We know that's crap and say so. But, in this case, we take an equally implausible story and elevate it to fact simply because the Philadelphia Inquirer says it is. In this case, my experience and the facts suggest the story is far more complicated then the Inquirer alleges. The TSA and Philadelphia Police are 100% wrong and this woman is 100% right? I don't think so.

I frequent PHL TSO all the time. I have never had an issue. That is never as in never. The only time I ever got the SSSS treatment was at SEA, and ironically that was Amtrak's fault. Even that was not a big deal. It took ten minutes. I'm polite and treat the TSA officers with respect. It is amazing how well that works.

I don't know what happened at PHL with this woman. I wasn't there and did not see it. It may be exactly as described. But, if that's true, it is a rare and illogical aberration - kind of like crossing signals not working. About 15,000 passengers pass through PHL TSO every day. If this kind of behavior were SOP, wouldn't we be hearing of dozens such incidents like this a day: hundreds a month: thousands a year? Plus, the Philadelphia Police got involved. The police would not have been called in unless the PHL TSO Station Chief or supervisor had called them in. The station chief or supervisor, not some rogue agent, thought there was an issue and was willing to back that with police involvement.

My guess is that this woman pulled the DYKWIA card, told the agents in no uncertain terms that she was superior to them, that they have no right to question her, she would sue if they did, she refused to cooperate, and things went downhill from there. I think that is every bit as likely as the story she told to the Inquirer.

 

[the_traveler]

I dare say that you do not often write four or five checks all to the same person at the same time with (almost) sequential numbering.

I do not understand why she would have several sequential checks made out to her (and her husband)

I agree. I have never seen where one company issues multiple checks sequentially to the same person - especially made out to 2 people! And if she was in fact "clearing out the account prior to a divorce", do you really thing she would ask to receive checks made out with BOTH names?

 

[rrdude]

Agree, but even if she did pull out the DYKWIA card, unless they thought she was a threat to safe transport of that

plane, wouldn't it have been better to just suck it up, and recall at the end of the day when off duty "What a royal B I T C * * this lady was earlier today?" Or something like that..........

 

[alanh]

That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?

 

[the_traveler]

The only time I ever got the SSSS treatment was at SEA, and ironically that was Amtrak's fault.

Do you mean SEA as in Sea-Tac airport or King Street Station?

If Sea-Tac, how could it be Amtrak's fault? And if it's King Street Station, there is no TSA there! So color me confused!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Some poeple wonder why I'm done flying. This article says it all for a government out of control.

I don't wonder why you're done flying. Believe me, I get it. What I do wonder though is why you're not interested in trying to actually fix the problem instead of just running away from it on a train.

I can't seem to remember the last time a blonde haired middle aged woman was responsible for any real or imagined threat to the safety of the airlines. This is just appalling.

I don't know what's more bizarre. The the assumption of guilt based on check numbers or the assumption of innocence based on age and hair color.

Where are the public interest lawyers??

The article already mentions the work of the ACLU in trying to combat this continued invasion of privacy. Have you donated to them recently? What we're also missing these days are the public interest voters.

It amuses me how we...accept...reporting of non-rail issues as 100% fair and accurate. Suffice it to say that this story has two sides, and the Inqy is reporting only the side fed to them by the woman's attorney - ten days after the fact, by the way.

If you read the actual article you'd see they included comments from both the accuser and the TSA administration. Not to mention that the attitude problems and unwarranted secondary searching is something I run into all the time with the TSA. The bulk of this story rings true to me. Then again I've never met this woman and don't know her as well as you apparently do. <_<

 

[jmbgeg]

I do not understand this statement in the story:

one of the Philadelphia officers told her he was there because her checks were numbered sequentially

I do not often write checks, but I've always found that the checks in my checkbook are numbered #127, 128, 129, 130, 131, etc... - not #127, 146, 138, 150, 134, etc...

So why would they not be numbered sequentially?

These were not checks written by this person to others. These were checks written by a third party to this person. Multiple checks, same payer, (almost) sequential, about $8000 total, payee her and her husband, and she's flying out of town with them. Hmm.

I dare say that you do not often write four or five checks all to the same person at the same time with (almost) sequential numbering.

It is totally understandable if they were business checks and each was tied to a separate transaction (e.g. stock sale, real estate transaction, etc.)

 

[PRR 60]

That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?

It's not quite that simple. If, in the course of security inspections, the TSA finds evidence of a crime not connected with security, they are authorized to detain that person and involve the local police. If, for example, they search a carry on and find a pound of cocaine, that person will not be cleared. The cocaine would not endanger the flight, but that would not matter. The police would be called to the screening area, and they would handle it from there. That, by the way, is one reason that Amtrak is so popular for moving drugs and why DEA agents sometimes show up on Amtrak. Taking cocaine or other illegal drugs on flights is not a wise thing to do.

Now, is having sequential checks written to two payees with one payee heading out of town with them sufficiently suspicious to have the TSA involve the police? I have no idea. Add in possible behavior issues. Add in lack of cooperation. Maybe then? I still don't know. But, is it absolutely not probable cause for police involvement? I can't say that either.

I am always skeptical of any "good vs. bad" articles like this, particularly when the article presents one side extensively and the other side minimally. I have had first-hand involvement with situations like this and with this particular newspaper. You can give the newspaper tons of information, lots of facts, and if it doesn't fit the point they are trying to make, your side is reduced to a sentence or two, and the readers think you did not offer any information and conclude that you had nothing to offer. You're lucky if they even spell your name correctly.

Knowing what I know about TSA and TSA procedures, I am skeptical about this tale of woe.

 

[MattW]

There's a real easy test to determine if the tsa should step in: does this pose a danger to the aircraft? If no, then BUT THE HECK OUT!

 

[PetalumaLoco]

That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?

It's not quite that simple. If, in the course of security inspections, the TSA finds evidence of a crime not connected with security, they are authorized to detain that person and involve the local police. If, for example, they search a carry on and find a pound of cocaine, that person will not be cleared. The cocaine would not endanger the flight, but that would not matter. The police would be called to the screening area, and they would handle it from there. That, by the way, is one reason that Amtrak is so popular for moving drugs and why DEA agents sometimes show up on Amtrak. Taking cocaine or other illegal drugs on flights is not a wise thing to do.

Now, is having sequential checks written to two payees with one payee heading out of town with them sufficiently suspicious to have the TSA involve the police? I have no idea. Add in possible behavior issues. Add in lack of cooperation. Maybe then? I still don't know. But, is it absolutely not probable cause for police involvement? I can't say that either.

I am always skeptical of any "good vs. bad" articles like this, particularly when the article presents one side extensively and the other side minimally. I have had first-hand involvement with situations like this and with this particular newspaper. You can give the newspaper tons of information, lots of facts, and if it doesn't fit the point they are trying to make, your side is reduced to a sentence or two, and the readers think you did not offer any information and conclude that you had nothing to offer. You're lucky if they even spell your name correctly.

Knowing what I know about TSA and TSA procedures, I am skeptical about this tale of woe.

Totally agree. Also keep in mind this was written by a columnist, yet is presented as news.

 

[amamba]

I do not understand this statement in the story:

one of the Philadelphia officers told her he was there because her checks were numbered sequentially

I do not often write checks, but I've always found that the checks in my checkbook are numbered #127, 128, 129, 130, 131, etc... - not #127, 146, 138, 150, 134, etc...

So why would they not be numbered sequentially?

These were not checks written by this person to others. These were checks written by a third party to this person. Multiple checks, same payer, (almost) sequential, about $8000 total, payee her and her husband, and she's flying out of town with them. Hmm.

I dare say that you do not often write four or five checks all to the same person at the same time with (almost) sequential numbering.

The only person I ever write checks to is my dog walker, and I pay her on a weekly basis. She sometimes keeps the checks for a while, not in the thousands category but definitely in the hundreds and they would absolutely be sequential.

 

[spacecadet]

It's not quite that simple. If, in the course of security inspections, the TSA finds evidence of a crime not connected with security, they are authorized to detain that person and involve the local police. If, for example, they search a carry on and find a pound of cocaine, that person will not be cleared.

That's not the same thing at all. Cocaine is in itself illegal to possess. Sequential checks are not. Of course any law enforcement agency has to stop someone who is clearly in the process of committing a crime in plain sight of that law enforcement agency.

Sequential checks may be "suspicious" to certain people, but they are not criminal in themselves. The TSA is not authorized to check for anything other than a danger to the flight. Even if the TSA had suspicions, they had no right to continue this line of investigation. All they have a right to do is check if she's a danger to the flight. By their own admission, nothing about their suspicions had anything to do with danger; they suspected she was embezzling money from her husband. This is why they detained her. That is flat-out illegal.

 

[the_traveler]

The only person I ever write checks to is my dog walker, and I pay her on a weekly basis. She sometimes keeps the checks for a while, not in the thousands category but definitely in the hundreds and they would absolutely be sequential.

Can I be your dog walker?

I need hundreds of dollars - and I won't keep them for so long!

But you'll probably make me do some work - maybe even like walk a dog!

 

[amamba]

The only person I ever write checks to is my dog walker, and I pay her on a weekly basis. She sometimes keeps the checks for a while, not in the thousands category but definitely in the hundreds and they would absolutely be sequential.

Can I be your dog walker?

I need hundreds of dollars - and I won't keep them for so long!

But you'll probably make me do some work - maybe even like walk a dog!

Well you would have to come to PVD everyday, maybe not so convenient for you And its not just dogwalking, she also lets my dog stay with her when I go out of town. Corky even sleeps in her bed with her when I am away :lol: