Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
somone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:06 PM
Original message
TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine
'I was absolutely humiliated,' said bladder cancer survivor
By Harriet Baskas

A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “I was absolutely humiliated, I couldn’t even speak,” said Thomas D. “Tom” Sawyer, 61, of Lansing, Mich.

Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor who now wears a urostomy bag, which collects his urine from a stoma, or opening in his stomach. “I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes.”

On Nov. 7, Sawyer said he went through the security scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “Evidently the scanner picked up on my urostomy bag, because I was chosen for a pat-down procedure.” Due to his medical condition, Sawyer asked to be screened in private. “One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes and said that they really didn’t have any place to take me,” said Sawyer. “After I said again that I’d like privacy, they took me to an office.”

Sawyer wears pants two sizes too large in order to accommodate the medical equipment he wears. He’d taken off his belt to go through the scanner and once in the office with security personnel, his pants fell down around his ankles. “I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sue them for everything they are worth. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarsInHerHair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. this just answered my question from a few days ago: colostomy
bags. We must shut down the TSA. & Oh yeah, & suggested using dogs more than a year ago. Also suggested using TRUTH SERUM INSTEAD OF TORTURE-but whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's frustrating, but necessary!
Or so we've been told by the POTUS...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. Our President says these experience are alright with him. Well it's not alright with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. may the entire tsa rot in hell. yesterday, KO told about a cancer survivor who had to remove her
prosthetic breast. there is NO excuse for these perverts (and contrary to the defenders of the tsa, it is clear that is what they ALL are) being allowed such power and control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. sickening... just like the woman cancer survivor who had to remove her prosthetic..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I was thinking the same thing...
First the woman having to remove her prosthetic, now this man and his urostomy bag...

And then these comments:
One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes...

The security officer finished the pat-down, tested the gloves for any trace of explosives and then, Sawyer said, “He told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn’t seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark.”


:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatsMyBarack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. How did the poor guy fly after THAT?
Or DID he? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. He'd probably be charged and fined a five-digit sum if he didn't. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. Yes, he had to get on the plane covered in urine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
43. And if he didn't want that to happen, well he had a choice to drive there instead, you know.
:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. But remember, we're supposed to pity the poor poor people who did that to him.
Oy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Yes...they find it "disgusting" and "morale breaking"
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. The ones that did this said that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Systematic Chaos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
9. One of these days this shit is going to kill someone.
Some ignorant, cocky-ass agent is going to yank someone's equipment straight out of their bodies or something, and even if it was "an accident" I could see some poor patient ending up dead from an infection or something.

I don't think it will take much longer, either.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Someone on another thread mentioned a chest catheter for dialysis, which are serious business
my son had one.

They kept wanting to touch it during the rub-down, even though she had a note from her doctor that it is ABSOLUTELY NOT TO BE TOUCHED.

Since my son had one, I knew all about it.

You absolutely cannot touch those catheters! They have to remain absolutely sterile, if not, it can cause death.

So, unfortunately, you may be predicting the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. Gosh, that must have been 'inconvenient' and 'frustrating'.
But ever so necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. I'm waiting for the first report of a dislodged catheter from an insulin pump
That can't be far off..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
14. Why aren't HIPPA privacy laws checking in on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. What does HIPAA have to do with this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. HIPAA has everything to do with this.
As I understand it, any entity that requests medical information must inform you as to how it will be used and who it will be given to and you must be provided with and sign a form that states these things.

So the question is, does TSA follow HIPAA regulations? If I'm not mistaken, individuals can be criminally liable if they do not follow proper HIPAA procedures when collecting medical information.

TSA personnel are collecting medical information in some instances. Are they following HIPAA when they do so. If not, are they being prosecuted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. This. Thank you for the clarification.
So why is HIPAA *not* all over this???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Because HIPAA is not a person or thing
that gets all over some other person or thing. It is simply a law.

I am not a lawyer or involved with lawyers in any way but I believe that some wronged individual would have to bring a HIPAA suit against the TSA, or perhaps an Attorney General or prosecutor could attempt to bring charges.

Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than I can post about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. That is a good question. I'd like to know what med info they are collecting and how they deal with
privacy stuff.
per wiki (I know, but linked source will be shown next)
These rules apply to "covered entities" as defined by HIPAA and the HHS. Covered entities include health plans, health care clearinghouses, such as billing services and community health information systems, and health care providers that transmit health care data in a way that is regulated by HIPAA.<8><9>


8. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TYPE=TEXT&YEAR=current&TITLE=45&PART=160&SECTION=103
9. http://hipaa.ohio.gov/tools/CEDefinition.pdf (copy/pasted below, trying to figure it out if TSA is covered entity)
I
Definitions of a Covered Entity
<45 C.F.R. 164.501>
Covered Entities include:
(1) Health plans
(2) Health care clearinghouses
(3) Health care providers who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a
transaction covered by this subchapter.
Covered Entity Definitions:
Health care clearinghouse means a public or private entity that does either of the following (Entities,
including but not limited to, billing services, repricing companies, community health management
information systems or community health information systems, and “value-added” networks and
switches are health care clearinghouses for purposes of this subchapter if they
perform these functions.):
(1) Processes or facilitates the processing of information received from another entity in a
nonstandard format or containing nonstandard data content into standard data elements or a standard
transaction.
(2) Receives a standard transaction from another entity and processes or facilitates the processing of
information into nonstandard format or nonstandard data content for a receiving entity.
Health care provider means a provider of services as defined in section 1861(u) of the Act, 42
U.S.C. 1395x(u), a provider of medical or other health services as defined in section 1861(s) of the
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395x(s), and any other person or organization who furnishes, bills, or is paid for health
care in the normal course of business.

Health plan means an individual or group plan that provides, or pays the cost of, medical care (as
defined in section 2791(a)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg- 91(a)(2)).
(1) Health plan includes the following, singly or in combination:
II
(i) A group health plan, as defined in this section.
(ii) A health insurance issuer, as defined in this section.
(iii) An HMO, as defined in this section.
(iv) Part A or Part B of the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act.
(v) The Medicaid program under title XIX of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq.
(vi) An issuer of a Medicare supplemental policy (as defined in section 1882(g)(1) of the Act, 42
U.S.C. 1395ss(g)(1)).
(vii) An issuer of a long-term care policy, excluding a nursing home fixed- indemnity policy.
(viii) An employee welfare benefit plan or any other arrangement that is established or maintained for
the purpose of offering or providing health benefits to the employees of two or more employers.
(ix) The health care program for active military personnel under title 10 of the United States Code.
(x) The veterans health care program under 38 U.S.C. chapter 17.
(xi) The Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)(as defined in
10 U.S.C. 1072(4)).
(xii) The Indian Health Service program under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 25 U.S.C.
1601, et seq.
(xiii) The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program under 5 U.S.C. 8902, et seq.
(xiv) An approved State child health plan under title XXI of the Act, providing benefits for child health
assistance that meet the requirements of section 2103 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1397, et seq.
(xv) The Medicare + Choice program under Part C of title XVIII of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-21
through 1395w-28.
(xvi) A high risk pool that is a mechanism established under State law to provide health insurance
coverage or comparable coverage to eligible individuals.
(xvii) Any other individual or group plan, or combination of individual or group plans, that provides or
pays for the cost of medical care (as defined in section 2791(a)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300ggIII
91(a)(2)).
(2) Health plan excludes:
(i) Any policy, plan, or program to the extent that it provides, or pays for the cost of, excepted benefits
that are listed in section 2791(c)(1) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(c)(1); and
(ii) A government-funded program (other than one listed in paragraph (1)(i)- (xvi)of this definition):
(A) Whose principal purpose is other than providing, or paying the cost of, health care; or
(B) Whose principal activity is:
(1) The direct provision of health care to persons; or
(2) The making of grants to fund the direct provision of health care to persons.
=====================================================================
42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(a)(2)
(2) Medical Care
The term “medical care” means amounts paid for -
(A) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or amounts paid
for the purpose of affecting any structure of function of the body,
(B) amounts paid for transportation primarily for and essential to medical care referred
to in subparagraph (A), and
(C) amounts paid for insurance covering medical care referred to in subparagraphs (A)
and (B).
IV
APPENDIX A
Code Provisions Referred to in Definition of Covered Provider
42 U.S.C. 1395x Subsection (u) and (s)
(u) Provider of services
The term ''provider of services'' means a hospital, critical access hospital,
skilled nursing facility, comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility, home
health agency, hospice program, or, for purposes of section 1395f(g) and
section 1395n(e) of this title, a fund.
--------------
(s) Medical and other health services
The term ''medical and other health services'' means any of the
following items or services:
(1) physicians' services;
(2)
(A) services and supplies (including drugs and
biologicals which cannot, as determined in accordance with
regulations, be self-administered) furnished as an incident to a
physician's professional service, of kinds which are commonly
furnished in physicians' offices and are commonly either rendered
without charge or included in the physicians' bills;
(B) hospital services (including drugs and biologicals which cannot, as
determined in accordance with regulations, be self-administered) incident to
physicians' services rendered to outpatients and partial hospitalization services
incident to such services;
(C) diagnostic services which are -
(i) furnished to an individual as an outpatient by a hospital or by others
under arrangements with them made by a hospital,
and
(ii) ordinarily furnished by such hospital (or by others under such
arrangements) to its outpatients for the purpose of diagnostic study;
(D) outpatient physical therapy services and outpatient occupational therapy
services;
(E) rural health clinic services and Federally qualified health center services;
(F) home dialysis supplies and equipment, self-care home dialysis support
services, and institutional dialysis services and supplies;
V
(G) antigens (subject to quantity limitations prescribed in regulations by the
Secretary) prepared by a physician, as defined in subsection (r)(1) of this
section, for a particular patient, including antigens so prepared which are
forwarded to another qualified person (including a rural health clinic) for
administration to such patient, from time to time, by or under the supervision of
another such physician;
(H) (i) services furnished pursuant to a contract under section 1395mm of
this title to a member of an eligible organization by a physician assistant
or by a nurse practitioner (as defined in subsection (aa)(5) of this
section) and such services and supplies furnished as an incident to his
service to such a member as would otherwise be covered under this part
if furnished by a physician or as an incident to a physician's service; and
(ii) services furnished pursuant to a risk-sharing contract under section
1395mm(g) of this title to a member of an eligible organization by a
clinical psychologist (as defined by the Secretary) or by a clinical social
worker (as defined in subsection (hh)(2) of this section), and such
services and supplies furnished as an incident to such clinical
psychologist's services or clinical social worker's services to such a
member as would otherwise be covered under this part if furnished by a
physician or as an incident to a physician's service;
(I) blood clotting factors, for hemophilia patients competent to use such
factors to control bleeding without medical or other supervision, and
items related to the administration of such factors, subject to utilization
controls deemed necessary by the Secretary for the efficient use of such
factors;
(J) prescription drugs used in immunosuppressive therapy furnished, to an
individual who receives an organ transplant for which payment is made
under this subchapter, but only in the case of drugs furnished -
(i) before 1995, within 12 months after the date of the transplant
procedure,
(ii) during 1995, within 18 months after the date of the transplant
procedure,
(iii) during 1996, within 24 months after the date of the transplant
procedure,
(iv) during 1997, within 30 months after the date of the transplant
procedure, and
(v) during any year after 1997, within 36 months after the date of
the transplant procedure;
(K) (i) services which would be physicians' services if furnished by a
physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1) of this section) and which are
performed by a physician assistant (as defined in subsection (aa)(5) of
VI
this section) under the supervision of a physician (as so defined) and
which the physician assistant is legally authorized to perform by the State
in which the services are performed, and such services and supplies
furnished as incident to such services as would be covered under
subparagraph (A) if furnished incident to a physician's professional
service; and <1> but only if no facility or other provider charges or is paid
any amounts with respect to the furnishing of such services, <2> (ii)
services which would be physicians' services if furnished by a physician
(as defined in subsection (r)(1) of this section) and which are performed
by a nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist (as defined in
subsection (aa)(5) of this section) working in collaboration (as defined in
subsection (aa)(6) of this section) with a physician (as defined in
subsection (r)(1) of this section) which the nurse practitioner or clinical
nurse specialist is legally authorized to perform by the State in which the
services are performed, and such services and supplies furnished as an
incident to such services as would be covered under subparagraph
(A) if furnished incident to a physician's professional service, but only if
no facility or other provider charges or is paid any amounts with respect
to the furnishing of such services;
(L) certified nurse-midwife services;
(M) qualified psychologist services;
(N) clinical social worker services (as defined in subsection (hh)(2) of this
section);
(O) erythropoietin for dialysis patients competent to use such drug without
medical or other supervision with respect to the administration of such
drug, subject to methods and standards established by the Secretary by
regulation for the safe and effective use of such drug, and items related
to the administration of such drug;
(P) prostate cancer screening tests (as defined in subsection (oo) of this
section);
(Q) an oral drug (which is approved by the Federal Food and Drug
Administration) prescribed for use as an anticancer chemotherapeutic
agent for a given indication, and containing an active ingredient (or
ingredients), which is the same indication and active ingredient (or
ingredients) as a drug which the carrier determines would be covered
pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) if the drug could not be
self-administered;
(R) colorectal cancer screening tests (as defined in subsection (pp) of this
section); and <1>
(S) diabetes outpatient self-management training services (as defined in
subsection (qq) of this section); and
VII
(T) an oral drug (which is approved by the Federal Food and Drug
Administration) prescribed for use as an acute anti-emetic used as part
of an anticancer chemotherapeutic regimen if the drug is administered by
a physician (or as prescribed by a physician) -
(i) for use immediately before, at, or within 48 hours after the time of the
administration of the anticancer chemotherapeutic agent; and
(ii) as a full replacement for the anti-emetic therapy which would
otherwise be administered intravenously. <3>
(3) diagnostic X-ray tests (including tests under the supervision of a physician, furnished
in a place of residence used as the patient's home, if the performance of such tests
meets such conditions relating to health and safety as the Secretary may find necessary
and including diagnostic mammography if conducted by a facility that has a certificate
(or provisional certificate) issued under section 354 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 263b)), diagnostic laboratory tests, and other diagnostic tests;
(4) X-ray, radium, and radioactive isotope therapy, including materials and services of
technicians;
(5) surgical dressings, and splints, casts, and other devices used for reduction of
fractures and dislocations;
(6) durable medical equipment;
(7) ambulance service where the use of other methods of transportation is
contraindicated by the individual's condition, but only to the extent provided in
regulations;
(8) prosthetic devices (other than dental) which replace all or part of an internal body
organ (including colostomy bags and supplies directly related to colostomy care),
including replacement of such devices, and including one pair of conventional
eyeglasses or contact lenses furnished subsequent to each cataract surgery with
insertion of an intraocular lens;
(9) leg, arm, back, and neck braces, and artificial legs, arms, and eyes, including
replacements if required because of a change in the patient's physical condition;
(10) (A) pneumococcal vaccine and its administration and, subject to section 4071(b)
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, influenza vaccine and its
administration; and (B) hepatitis B vaccine and its administration, furnished to an
individual who is at high or intermediate risk of contracting hepatitis B (as
determined by the Secretary under regulations);
(11) services of a certified registered nurse anesthetist (as defined in subsection (bb) of
this section);
(12) subject to section 4072(e) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987,
extra-depth shoes with inserts or custom molded shoes with inserts for an individual
with diabetes, if -
(A) the physician who is managing the individual's diabetic condition (i)
documents that the individual has peripheral neuropathy with evidence of callus
VIII
formation, a history of pre-ulcerative calluses, a history of previous ulceration,
foot deformity, or previous amputation, or poor circulation, and
(ii) certifies that the individual needs such shoes under a comprehensive plan of
care related to the individual's diabetic condition;
(B) the particular type of shoes are prescribed by a podiatrist or other qualified
physician (as established by the Secretary); and
(C) the shoes are fitted and furnished by a podiatrist or other qualified individual
(such as a pedorthist or orthotist, as established by the Secretary) who is not
the physician described in subparagraph (A) (unless the Secretary finds that the
physician is the only such qualified individual in the area);
(13) screening mammography (as defined in subsection (jj) of this section);
(14) screening pap smear and screening pelvic exam; and
(15) bone mass measurement (as defined in subsection (rr) of this section). No
diagnostic tests performed in any laboratory, including a laboratory that is part of a rural
health clinic, or a hospital (which, for purposes of this sentence, means an institution
considered a hospital for purposes of section 1395f(d) of this title) shall be included
within paragraph (3) unless such laboratory -
(16) if situated in any State in which State or applicable local law provides for licensing
of establishments of this nature, (A) is licensed pursuant to such law, or (B) is
approved, by the agency of such State or locality responsible for licensing
establishments of this nature, as meeting the standards established for such licensing;
and
(17)(A) meets the certification requirements under section 353 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263a); and (B) meets such other conditions relating to the
health and safety of individuals with respect to whom such tests are performed as the
Secretary may find necessary. There shall be excluded from the diagnostic services
specified in paragraph (2)(C) any item or service (except services referred to in
paragraph (1)) which would not be included under subsection (b) of this section if it
were furnished to an inpatient of a hospital. None of the items and services referred to
in the preceding paragraphs (other than paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)) of this subsection
which are furnished to a patient of an institution which meets the definition of a hospital
for purposes of section 1395f(d) of this title shall be included unless such other
conditions are met as the Secretary may find necessary relating to health and safety of
individuals with respect to whom such items and services are furnished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. Looking through this I think they are exempt under "many law enforcement agencies"
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.html
Who Is Not Required to Follow These Laws

Many organizations that have health information about you do not have to follow these laws.

Examples of organizations that do not have to follow the Privacy and Security Rules include:

life insurers,
employers,
workers compensation carriers,
many schools and school districts,
many state agencies like child protective service agencies,
many law enforcement agencies,
many municipal offices.


http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/
Covered entities
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/index.html
How to file a complaint
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/complaints/index.html
Special topics (includes emergency preparedness and research)
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/index.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
16. tsa -- protecting the american way of life!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. Have you noticed that often what the machines pick up
Edited on Sat Nov-20-10 07:29 PM by tblue37
on is an anomaly associated with the special needs of a person who has a medical condition? Then that person gets the enhanced grope because of the anomaly, and often the groping leads to something that is harmful or particularly humiliating to the victim because of the medical condition--like this man, or the breast cancer survivor who was forced to remove and show her prosthetic breast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarsInHerHair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. I'm expecting the Americans With Disabilities lawyers to stand
up to this soon. It IS a violation to pick on those with medical devices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
33. Yes! I've been posting about that very aspect of the issue for a week now
Their screening is only 100% with respect to those with medical conditions.

Everyone else, hit and miss and best --if you can get through the metal detectors, almost anything goes as far as what you have on you, unless you are rarely/randomly selected.

It's so easy to outsmart this system that only people with medical conditions who have no choice are stopped by it.

It's securing for the wrong thing!

Got explosive on you but no metal? Fine, we probably won't catch it!

In a metal wheelchair? Oh you have metal, we have to test you for explosives.

This is the stupidest thing we've ever paid too much for! :rant:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
18. Paging TSA Defenders
We Need Rationalization and Message Control PRONTO!

Come on now, Perception of The Police State is going to get DANGEROUSLY out hand here without your soothing, loving guidance!

Code Red! Code Red!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Well Winston, how many fingers do you see
four or five? It is all perception, you see. And we control your perceptions.

Signed...

O'Brian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. This just makes me FURIOUS!
Won't go into the details why, but there is absolutely no reason to humiliate another human being in this way.

:grr: :grr: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
21. There should be a system in place
where Americans can go to get ID's that would have biometrics as part of a card that would allow them to travel within their own country without being treated like criminal suspects.

Maybe if we all muttered to the TSA "You're a pervert, you're a Nazi," over and over again, enough of them would quit, and their uberfuhrer bosses would relent on treating us all like terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. You know Americans will SCREAM over a national ID as well
Edited on Sat Nov-20-10 06:58 PM by nadinbrzezinski
never mind biometrics are coming to drivers licences.

Oh and no I am in no way defending these tactics. Even if I do understand the need for RATIONAL security, for the record this is not it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. If it's voluntary
Especially if I'm willing to fork over $50-100 for the background check, then it won't be controversial. Frequent travelers would jump on that so fast it would make TSA jackboot heads spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Ah something equivalent to the Global Entry program
that would be less controversial.

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Even unfrequent travelers.
Edited on Sat Nov-20-10 07:19 PM by LisaL
I much rather have a background check then be subjected to pat downs and x-rays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. I'm a natural born US citizen, eligible to be President.
I'm an infinitely low threat to blowing myself up on a plane and that applies to all that share such designation.

We are totally spinning wheels with this nonsense, if you have a legitimate reason to search me then get a fucking warrant as the law dictates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
47. the Constitution already is that magic card
to travel within your own country without being treated like a criminal!!! Lord have mercy how the hell did people here on DU of all places manage to forget that we aren't suposed to be the old Soviet Union???


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. As I said earlier
the importance of having three female Supreme Court Justices is about to be made known.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
24. They "didn't need to know about that." In other words, they refuse to
listen to any information that could enable them to make the screening process slightly less traumatic for the passenger with specific medical problems. And since specific medical problems that require various devices or prosthetics end up triggering the machines because they are "anomalies," that means that many such people will end up being treated badly over their medical issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaJudy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
34. Who *trains* these people? Dr. Mengele?
This was obviously done by some low-level employee who hadn't a clue about how to deal with a common medical issue. The procedures are humiliating enough for the hale: for those with a prosthesis or a medical device they can be psychologically devastating.

I have a back problem that sometimes requires me to walk with a cane. The other day the metal detector at my Credit Union decided it was a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and stopped me in the "airlock". Fortunately, the teller recognized a frequent customer with a mobility problem and buzzed me through. I doubt TSA would do that, though I have to ask just how many terrorists or bank robbers are older women with canes. That would be a first, I think.

I can hardly wait until some poorly trained schmuck gets himself begrimed with feces from messing with a colostomy bag! The people who sit in offices and make up these bloody rules should be required to enforce them for a week or two. They'd quickly find a more dignified alternative.

Next up: some suicidal nut will take to body-packing, like a drug mule. What on earth will TSA do then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. TSA will try to make you walk without it, or they will extensively test you for explosives
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
38. The war on terror is lost. We're a country of scared, small minded, assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-10 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Looks like the guy with bomb in his underpants succeeded beyond
his wildest dreams even if he didn't manage to blow up the plane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:20 AM
Response to Original message
44. Where does it say Obama says it is necessary?
TSA is saying it is necessary. Obama never said that. Obama ask TSA if this is necessary. Quit spinning this like Fox News.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. HE SAID IT
Edited on Sun Nov-21-10 09:55 AM by saigon68
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4623005

President Barack Obama on Saturday acknowledged some travelers' "frustrations" with having to go through full-body pat-downs and scans at airports, but he said the enhanced security measures are necessary to keep America safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Is he planning on throwing the next election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
verdalaven Donating Member (495 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
45. Without knowing for sure
But I would bet there are more deaths from drunk drivers per day than those killed in terrorist attacks, world wide.

Are patrons of bars issued a breathalyzer test before they leave a bar and get into a car?

Maybe I am confusing apples with oranges.....but this really is overkill, if we consider the number of terror related instances on planes (successful AND foiled) in relation to the number of people who fly, and the number of planes in the sky at any given moment. Percentage wise, terror in the skies doesn't seem all that threatening to me. Not as threatening as our limitations to personal freedom the new rules represent.

I have to fly out to see my parents this coming spring, and I am not looking forward to the experience.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. at least bar patrons would be reasonable suspicion
It is reasonable suspicion that patrons in a bar may have had too much to drink. It is NOT reasonable suspicion that because you want to fly on an airplane you may have a bomb in your underwear. A more equivalent comparison is a breathalizer for every person wanting to drive a car whether they were in a bar or not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
verdalaven Donating Member (495 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-23-10 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #48
53. My point was -
Life is full of risk. That really was my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
49. 95% of Americans love these 'pat-downs'
you didn't see the poll?

Deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-10 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
52. If I had a nickel..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC