A 27-year-old Ph.D. student says a TSA agent touched her vaginal area during a pat-down at a California airport; however, a representative told The Huffington Post the agents followed procedure.

Ashley Jessica, a psychology student from Toronto who has recently campaigned to raise awareness about invasive TSA practices, told HuffPost that she and her mother chose to opt out of a full-body scan at San Diego International Airport on May 23.

Because they opted out, TSA agents said they had to give her an "extensive pat-down." Jessica and her mother filmed the whole thing, and video of the pat-down has gone viral since being posted online Sunday.

About halfway into the procedure, a TSA agent feels the area between Jessica's breasts, and Jessica puts up her hands as if to protect herself from further touching.

Less than two minutes later, the agent appears to run her hands all the way up the inside of Jessica's leg. Jessica pulls away and becomes visibly uncomfortable.

"OK, you need to hold still for this process," says another TSA agent, who is off-screen.

"She just touched my vagina!" Jessica replies. "Seriously! That was not my upper thigh." (Jessica eventually submitted to the pat-down and was cleared to fly to Toronto.)

In a emailed statement obtained by HuffPost, a TSA representative said the officers followed procedure.

In review of the closed-circuit video, it is abundantly clear that the two TSA officers conducting the pat-down carried out their responsibilities in a professional and polite manner and according to procedure, offering the passengers the opportunity to have the pat-down conducted in a private setting and taking time to explain each step along the way.

After the incident, Jessica posted the video to her Twitter account:

Was violated pretty badly by TSA at San Diego International Airport yesterday. Video will be on my YouTube channel Missashleyjessica

— Ashley Jessica (@ashleyjessica) May 25, 2013

In the fall of 2012 Jessica partnered with conspiracy-theory site InfoWars to run an awareness campaign called "Opt Out And Film," which encourages people to videotape the full-body pat-downs they get from TSA agents.

Jessica told HuffPost she started the campaign after an awkward incident at an airport in Norfolk, Va., where a TSA agent told her she wouldn't be allowed to fly unless she submitted to having her private areas touched.

(h/t LA Weekly)

Maryland Transportation Authority Police cited a Frederick man Wednesday for having a stun gun at BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport.

Transportation Security Administration officers noticed the weapon, a stun gun and flashlight combination, in Sean A. Cash's carry-on bag.

Cash told TSA officers that he did not realize the tool was also a stun gun, according to spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein.

First Sgt. Jonathan Green, an MTA Police spokesman, said Cash was stopped at 3:25 p.m. at Pier A.

The TSA called the Maryland Transportation Authority Police to the checkpoint, where they confiscated the stun gun. Cash was cited for interfering with security procedures, an offense that carries a penalty of up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine, Green said.

Cash was then released and permitted to catch his flight to Jackson Hole, Wyo.

Weapons of any type are not permitted in carry-on baggage and passengers are held responsible for the contents of bags they bring to the security checkpoint, the TSA said in a news release.

The TSA recommends going through bags before coming to the airport to make sure no illegal or prohibited items are accidentally packed inside.

Travelers can be fined up to $11,000 if they are caught with prohibited items at the airport, according to TSA.

Last year, the TSA discovered guns that led to more than $1.8 million in fines for the passengers carrying them.

TSA found two guns in carry-ons at BWI between January and April, Farbstein said.

Nationally, the agency stopped 505 firearms from going through security checkpoints, which is about five to seven a day.

Follow Kelsi Loos on Twitter: @KelsiFNP.

Review items prohibited on flights at http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/prohibited-items, or download the free MyTSA app. ___

PORTLAND, Ore. -- John Brennan, who stripped naked last year to protest a security check at Portland's airport, said he expects to lose the first round of his legal fight against a $1,000 fine.

Still, he plans to press his free-speech argument in an appeal and push for effective security checks that aren't as invasive.

"I totally support airport screening," Brennan told The Oregonian (http://bit.ly/10xrXBK) newspaper in a story Thursday. "I just don't want it to be at the expense of my constitutional rights."

Brennan has a court date on Tuesday before an administrative law judge. His attorney, Robert Callahan, said the free-speech argument won't be allowed as Brennan fights the fine, but an appeal in the federal court system would present an opportunity to make it.

A call to the TSA for comment wasn't immediately returned.

In April 2012, as Brennan started a business trip to California, he declined to step into a Transportation Security Administration body scanner.

He was asked to walk through a metal detector and submit to a pat-down. A screener said traces of nitrates, which could indicate an explosive, were detected.

Brennan took off his clothes to show he wasn't carrying anything explosive and to get the security check over quickly, he said.

Video broadcast Friday on KATU-TV (http://bit.ly/17QSQRL) shows TSA workers building a screen of plastic bins around him.

In July, a judge in Multnomah County found Brennan not guilty of violating a Portland ordinance that forbids exposing genitals in public and in the presence of the opposite sex.

The judge said Brennan was acting in protest and his strip was protected speech.

A few weeks later, Brennan said, he was told he'd be fined for violating a rule that forbids passengers to interfere with, assault, threaten or intimidate the screeners.

Click for PHOTO of Brennan at the airport. WARNING: NUDITY

Airport security agents made a macabre discovery Wednesday after they examined the contents of a broken pot in a carry-on bag: shards of a possible human skull and teeth.

They may have been good luck charms unwittingly purchased in Cuba.

The bones were found about 3 p.m. at a security checkpoint at Terminal 1 in Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, said Mike Jachles, spokesman for the Broward Sheriff's Office. Officials could not confirm whether the bones were actually human.

"We have to wait and see what the medical examiner says," Jachles said.

Two sealed pots were in carry-on baggage with two women who were headed to Baltimore on an AirTran flight. One pot broke open during the inspection process, and Transportation Security Administration officials found it contained dirt, rocks and what appeared to be pieces of a human skull and teeth, Jachles said.

"It's very likely they had no knowledge of what was in the pot," the spokesman said of the travelers.

The second pot remained intact. Both pots were taken for evaluation by the Medical Examiner's Office, and the Department of Homeland Security was set to handle the investigation.

The women, whose names haven't been released, said they bought the pots at a religious shop in Cuba earlier in the week. "They were told it would ward off evil spirits," Jachles said.

Officials would not speculate whether the bones were part of any specific religious ritual.

Late Wednesday, BSO homicide detectives interviewed the women, who stayed at the airport to answer detectives' questions.

"They're cooperating," Jachles said. "They're voluntarily staying behind to speak with the detectives."

Jachles indicated charges against the women may be unlikely. "They're not even suspects," he said. "They're not even being detained."

It wasn't the first bones case at Fort Lauderdale's airport.

In February 2006, a Miramar woman who was a Vodou priestess was arrested after a skull was found in her carry-on while she went through customs upon her return from Haiti.

The skull, about a year old, belonged to a male and was to have been used in religious rituals to repel evil spirits, federal authorities said.

Federal law makes it a crime to import human remains for medical or educational purposes without a death certificate.

Body parts used for religious purposes are restricted under federal law and seized.

The woman, Myrlene Sevre, was originally charged with smuggling a human head without proper documentation, failing to declare the skull to customs, and transporting hazardous materials.

Initially facing up to 15 years in prison, Sevre was sentenced to two years' probation and a $1,000 fine.

Jachles said Wednesday's find didn't appear to be linked to any religious ceremony.

rnolin@tribune.com or 954-356-4525 ___

It's every parent's worst nightmare. You arrive at the airport to fly home from your family vacation, and something goes wrong -- terribly wrong -- at the TSA screening area.

It happened to Susan Bruce recently when she flew from Phoenix to Dallas with her husband, teenage son and daughter.

"When we got to security, my son went first in line through the X-ray machine and TSA flagged him for the hand swab test," she remembers. "While the rest of the family was stuck on the other side of the X-ray machine, my son was pulled aside for supposedly having a positive result for explosives."

Bruce, who lives in Dallas and is a mathematician by training and a homemaker, is certain it was a misunderstanding. Her son is no terrorist, she says. He's a clean-cut honor student.

"The air in Phoenix is very dry and we all had put some lotion on our hands that morning -- maybe the cause of the result," she speculates. "Or it may have been fertilizer from the grass he touched. After all, he's 15."

But the TSA treated him like Richard Reid's son.

"All eyes were focused on my son as the rude agents threw accusations at him," she recalls. "One agent asked him if there was anything sharp in the luggage. His response was, 'What?' Keep in mind he is 15, so his Mom packed the luggage. He had no idea what was in each bag."

The agents were impolite and accusatory. They ordered him to stay away from the luggage while they tested it. He felt as if he'd failed some kind of test.

"He just stood there in shock," says Bruce.

And that wasn't the worst of it.

The TSA's teen problem

The TSA may have figured out what to do with kids under 12 and passengers over 75, allowing those low-risk passengers to go through the screening area without removing their jackets or shoes. But something happens when that 12-year-old turns 13. He or she becomes a high-risk air traveler who's scanned, prodded and interrogated at the checkpoint. His only crime is coming of age, and from one day to the next becoming part of the feared "terrorist" demographic.

Bruce's incident is hardly an isolated one. The TSA reportedly botched the pat-down of a 17-year-old girl in 2010, who also happened to be the niece of a U.S. congressman. During the exam, the girl's sundress slipped, revealing her breasts in public. An internal investigation released late last year concluded the whole thing was an "unfortunate" accident.

Agents also recently gave another girl such a rigorous once-over that they broke her insulin pump. Savannah Barry claims TSA agents in Salt Lake City were rude and abrupt, even though she tried to warn them that she was wearing the pump. Clearly, the agents thought she was up to no good. Diabetics are such a menace.

Some of the worst stories are the ones that don't make the news. One concerned mother contacted me a few weeks ago after the entire family flew out of Washington's Dulles airport. The rest of her family walked through the metal detectors and full-body scanners without incident, but when it was her teenage daughter's turn, the male screener asked her to back up and walk through again. He said the scanner "needed to get a better look" at her.

Yeah, I bet it did.

Is my son a terrorist?

While most of the incidents that capture the public's attention involve teenage girls, probably because the cliche of the lecherous male screener preying on an innocent virgin is just too irresistible, the boys may have it worse. Bear in mind that young men do indeed fit the terrorist profile; all of the 9/11 bombers were young men, which means any TSA agent worth his training will be extra vigilant when it comes to anything young and male.

"It took every fiber in my son not to burst into tears," remembers Bruce. "The agent continued to badger him until they whisked him away for a private pat-down, where they brought my husband to witness them groping him, including his genitals."

Nearly half an hour after they approached the security screening area in Phoenix, it was all over. The Bruce family had been cleared for takeoff.

"We led our shaken son and sobbing daughter to the gate where boarding was already under way," she says.

Bruce blames herself for allowing this to happen.

"I'm so upset," she says. "I'm mad at myself because I feel like I failed my son by not protecting him. But I was totally unprepared for this."

We are all unprepared for this. My oldest son turns 11 this year, but he's taller than many 13-year-olds. What will the TSA do to him the next time we go through security? What will they do to your son or daughter?

Do we really have to trade our dignity for security? I don't think so. The agents who barked orders at the Bruce family, who disrobed the congressman's niece and broke Barry's insulin pump would have benefitted from some basic customer-service training. Instead, they're traumatizing an entire generation of air travelers.

We deserve better.

By the way, after you've left a comment here, let's continue the discussion on my consumer advocacy site or on Twitter, Facebook and Google. I also have a free newsletter. Here's the signup form.

WASHINGTON — Airline passengers will have to leave their knives at home after all. And their bats and golf clubs.

A policy change scheduled to go into effect this week that would have allowed passengers to carry small knives, bats and other sports equipment onto airliners will be delayed, federal officials said Monday.

We read about it regularly, a company has a data breach and loses millions of client or patient records, because their server is hacked, a laptop lost, or a usb stick stolen. The list goes on and on. There are so many ways data goes missing which may constitute a breach. And that's the purpose of this piece - to provide food for thought on the different ways which your data can "go missing."

Lost Items: What do people lose? CD, DVD, USB, MemoryCard, Computer, Smartphone, Tape backup, Disk drives, Laptop, paper files are all items which contain data which can and do go missing. It has been reported that the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) recovers between 900-1200 laptops left at checkpoints monthly. Add to that the ease at which a USB stick, MemoryCard or smartphone is misplaced and you can see how the number of items lost grows. It happens every day, as evidenced by the five memory sticks which are currently residing in San Diego's International Airport (SAN) lost and found - these five items were lost between Feb 10 and April 21, 2013 (SAN has a searchable database of lost items, in addition to the memory sticks, approximately 50 phones, 20 laptops, and even an individual's medical records were left behind a SAN.)

Stolen Items: If it has value, it may be a target for theft. Items such as, Computer, Laptop, Smartphone, Backup Tapes, Disk Drives, Documents, etc. We've all read of the individual who walks into a coffee house, puts their laptop on the table to go order a cup of coffee and when they return its gone. Or the individual who leaves a briefcase of documents and memory cards in their vehicle and the vehicle is stolen or the items are taken. Whether stolen for the data or the device value, both can constitute a breach if the data within is unprotected. Take the December 2012 instance when Crescent Healthcare (a Walgreen's company) had their billing office broken into and computer hardware and papers were stolen, all of which contained Patient Health Information (PHI) and Personal Identifying Information (PII) the loss of which necessitated a HIPAA Violation notification. (See: Crescent Healthcare Notifies Individuals of 2012 Data Breach)

Malware/Crimeware: The computer, smartphone, tablet or drive you are using becomes infected with malware or crimeware and your sensitive data is harvested. Happens with regularity. These malicious programs copy and transmit data found to the malevolent individuals. One of the most egregious such events happened to Global Payments when they lost more than 1.5 million account records to online criminals (See: Global Payments Data Breach). Another is the case of South Carolina's Department of Revenue and how their database of 3.8 million tax returns were compromised when an employee opened a malicious email containing malware. (See: NBC's report "One email exposes millions of people to data theft in South Carolina cyberattack" )

Disposal: Every year we read about information being found along the street, thrown into dumpsters, or data recovered from a device's memory after being bought off e-Bay, Craig's List or the like. All avoidable, with a bit of forethought. The USA Today did a piece on sensitive data found on devices in 2012, their researcher "randomly purchased 30 used devices off Craigslist, and had them examined with simple forensics tools. Half the devices were thoroughly wiped clean, but 15 disgorged plenty of sensitive data, ranging from bank account and Social Security numbers to work documents and court records." (See: USA Today - Discarded digital devices can contain sensitive data)

Mail/Fax/Email: We've all done it. Sent an email to an individual and realized that isn't the intended party. When dealing with sensitive data, this may constitute a breach. Same when faxing information to the wrong party. A recent case involving retired North Carolina government employees, had 26,000 individual's Social Security numbers revealed through the envelope window due to a misalignment of the printed document (See: NC exposes SSN's )

Insider: The inadvertent (human error) and the malicious (criminal) exposure of data both involve the insider. And yes from time to time, individuals have been known to break trust with their employer or the clients and engage in malicious or illegal behavior. The insider has privileged access to the sensitive data, in other instances, they may go mining for the data, far exceeding their authorized remit. In either case, lack of checks and balances will make the loss easier to occur and harder to detect. Take the example of Florida Hospital who discovered in 2011 that they had an employee who had been accessing the records of 763,000 patients (from 2009-2011) and had sold the data on 12,000 car accident victims for attorney and chiropractor referral services. A HIPAA violation if there ever was one. See: (Former Florida Hospital Employee Pleads Guilty to Data Theft) or the instance when human error causes a potentially horrible disclosure which occurred with the Pembrokeshire County Council in Wales, when they apparently mailed 400 pages of psych records on 10 abused children to an individual who had requested their own file. See: (Hundreds of pages of confidential reports released after council blunder.)

Websites: Example - You provide data to a company or organization via their web registration site and they put it into a database which you can access to keep your data up-to-date, but they don't secure the website. Depending upon what data is provided, the breach can be minimal or very invasive. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada commissioned a study to look at website for data leakage. The commissioner went on to say, "the email, username and location were shared with marketing firms and analytics providers. Another example involved a well-known Canadian media site" that gave user data like usernames, emails, and postal codes to a "content delivery, marketing company, an advertising network, and a news content provider." All of which potentially violated Canada's data privacy laws. (See: Canadian Privacy Commissioner Reveals Websites Sharing User Data Inappropriately)

Now you have an idea of what may constitute a data breach. If you are entrusted with data, do take the time to understand the processes and procedures which are in place to protect the data. An easy rule of thumb, treat data as you would cash, you don't leave it laying about, and you don't give it to someone without knowing why, you keep it in a safe and protected locale.

Heading somewhere far off means running smack into a spectrum of new sights, new sounds, new tastes. But along with these comes the inevitable oven-fresh batch of eye-rolling, mind-blowing, completely incomprehensible Mysteries of Travel.

For years, I've racked my brain trying to unravel puzzles like the ones just below. I've even considered hiring a private detective (one who specializes in travel). Then it hit me. Why not ask readers? If you're reading this column, chances are you get around quite a bit. You may be just as cranky, or just as mystified as I am.

But maybe you can do better than my wife and I have in explaining travel's most challenging quandaries. By posting a comment to this blog, tell us your solutions. Or let us know about Travel Mysteries that have been driving you nuts. (The best submissions will be featured in a future column.)

Mysteries of Travel

* Sorry, hotel chains, but who was the genius who decreed that, once and for all, guests would have to spend a minimum of half an hour trying to figure out how the various lights and lamps in their hotel rooms can be turned ON and OFF.

* Was there something wrong with a simple switch near the bulb to do that?

* While I'm on the subject, is it completely impossible to invent some way to discourage hotel bathtub drains from clogging within 30 seconds of the start of a shower and filling the thing up to your ankles?

* Here's one for aircraft designers and their pals at the airlines. Crackerjack decision to place that bloated seat pocket crammed with magazines and barf bags exactly at knee level. Good thinking there. Who's responsible?

* TSA, on to you. I get that "liquids and gels" aren't allowed on a plane these days. But just asking. Can we narrow down the concept of what a "gel" is just a tiny bit? I mean, is Jello with sliced bananas allowed on airliners? What about Silly Putty? That okay?

* While I'm at it, how come there are literally no security checks at all if you travel by Amtrak or by Greyhound bus?

* We travelers are the cause of mysteries, too. When did we decide that even a mild activity, like mailing a letter, requires a backpack with plastic bottle of water to "stay hydrated"?

* For that matter, are we voyagers such raw suckers that we've completely bought into the notion that we need to purchase special all-weather, breathable, wicking, quick-dry clothing to travel to the next town?

* Would plain old, I dunno, regular shirts and pants work for that?

* Is it okay, TSA, if I bring some Play Doh onto an airplane? How about pectin? Marshmallow Fluff? Cashew butter? Kraft E-Z Cheese, if I carry it in a plastic bag with Triscuits?

* Why do we travelers keep on revisiting the same old places over and over, instead of exploring new ones? Ever meet people who practically live in Disneyland or Vegas, or those who've taken the same cruise--on the same cruise line--24 times?

* What about Bengay or Brylcreem on a plane? How about unguents? Mud? Silt? Maple syrup? That allowed?

* Don't, I'm warning you, get me going on adventure travel footgear. Special soles, computer-enhanced design, indestructible plastics. Gotta have it. Why?

* Did someone say Crocs? Let's just not go there.

* What about gunk? That fair game on a plane? How about goop? Slime? Decaying organic matter? The liquids and gels inside our bodies? Not okay?

* Please understand, TSA. I'm not trying to cause any trouble. I'm just asking. What about the goo inside Lava Lamps? Any issues with that through security? What about runny stuff, like glue, that turns solid later?

* What about runny noses? Any issues with those?

* In truth, I'm not feeling so good, surrounded with so many mysteries. Why can't I calm down when I travel? Why can't you?

* I might feel better if I could figure out why people don't say 'please' or 'thank-you' when trying to speak foreign languages.

* I might feel better if I ate some Jello, took a relaxing shower and a drink of water. (Just a sip.)

* Now, if only I could find the switch for that lamp...

* * *
Peter Mandel is an author of picture books for kids, including his read-aloud bestseller: Jackhammer Sam (Macmillan/Roaring Brook), and his newest about zoo animals passing on a very noisy sneeze: Zoo Ah-Choooo (Holiday House).

The TSA screening area at Reno-Tahoe International Airport's B gates isn't much to look at. It's a dark, cavernous processing area with well-worn linoleum floors that almost makes you feel like you're visiting a relative in prison.

But looks can be deceiving. I just had the best TSA screening experience in Reno, and I'm not alone. On a recent Monday morning, my entire family transited through Terminal B, and they could scarcely believe they'd been checked by federal screeners.

The TSA checkpoint at Denver International Airport looks like it's something straight out of a science fiction movie. It's a gleaming hall with the newest technology, including an array of shiny new body scanners. It's the kind of place where you'd expect to find a modern, friendly and efficient screening.

Yet here, too, all is not as it seems: A few days ago, I had the single worst screening experience of my life. I still can't believe what happened.

The two TSAs

In America, there are two TSAs: one that understands its real mission and seems to respect the dignity of its passengers, and another that's operating under the mistaken belief that it's the last line of defense against terrorism and that it can break a few laws, and trample on the U.S. Constitution, to get the job done.

You can experience both today, with the apparent blessing of the Department of Homeland Security. Why? Because the government encourages "random and unpredictable" airport security, which means that it's in the TSA's best interests to have one airport that passengers actually like and another that's universally hated.

No one ever said this would make sense.

Best little checkpoint in Reno

When we arrived at the Terminal B screening area in Reno, we were prepared for the worst. But the line moved quickly, and within less than a minute, we were standing in front of a TSO who greeted everyone with a friendly and genuine smile.

"Looks like you guys have been in the mountains," he said. Our sunburned faces had given us away.

Another screener checked our boarding passes and waved us through quickly. There are no full-body scanners at Terminal B, which doesn't seem to bother anyone. (And surprisingly, no terrorists have exploited that little loophole -- makes you wonder about the deterrent power of those scanners, doesn't it?)

After getting our bags scanned, a screener asked my 10-year-old son, Aren, what was inside his bag.

Oops. Turns out he'd left his laptop in his luggage by mistake. But the agent examining his bag didn't scold him; in fact, he cracked a joke about what else he might have packed.

"Got any Tasmanian Devils in there?" he kidded.

"Uh, no," Aren replied.

Within less than three minutes, the backpack had been rescreened and we were on our way.

"Wow," said Aren. "They were really friendly."

Indeed. The Reno TSAers won the airport of the year award back in 2010, which suggests we aren't the only ones who like their work.

Missed it by a mile in Denver

Our experience in Denver couldn't have been any different. The pre-screening area is a confusing maze of ropes and missed cues. The agent asking for our ID tried to joke around with the kids, but his humor fell flat.

"And who are you?" he said to my six-year-old daughter, studying her ticket.

My daughter, who gets a little shy around strangers, said nothing. Mom and I answered for her, which only seemed to ratchet up the tension.

Then we were ushered into the screening area: a baggage X-ray, a metal detector, and a body scanner. The TSA has a state policy of not separating families and isn't supposed to ask young children to go through the body scanners, so it typically allows the whole family to walk through the metal detector at the same time.

But not this time. I was the last one through, and an angry-looking female TSA agent with a military-style haircut gestured me toward the full-body scanners.

"I'd prefer not," I said.

"MALE ASSIST!" she screamed, refusing to turn to me.

"You are separating me from my family," I said, politely.

She refused to look at me, instead staring straight ahead, like a schoolgirl giving you the silent treatment.

My "male assist" screener was not gentle. On several occasions, he nearly pulled down my pants. He also forcefully grabbed my ankles, where I had an injury. I winced. That didn't seem to bother him.

For some reason, a second TSA screener began hovering around us. I have no idea why. Maybe they recognized me? Maybe they just enjoyed watching a colleague perform an "enhanced" pat-down?

I asked my son to take pictures of the event (see photo, above).

Do I look like I'm about to blow up a plane? I don't know... with that shirt and ski pants, I look like I'm ready for a day on the slopes, not someone about to embark on a glorious jihad.

The experience left me a little traumatized. I mean, I don't really care if the entire Denver airport screening area sees my tighty whities, but I really felt as if the screeners were just harassing me instead of protecting America's transportation systems.

There's a word for that: security circus. It's an eye-pleasing spectacle that doesn't make any sense.

(And please spare me your inevitable comments about pressure-cooker bombers at marathons, which has absolutely nothing to do with airport security. Even if it did, would you really want mobile TSA teams scanning and frisking people at the next public race?)

It might be hyperbole to suggest that the TSA is at war with itself, that a small number of good screeners are fighting the incompetence and arrogance of a larger group of bad screeners.

But if nothing else, my own experience suggests this agency could benefit from a little more transparency. And consistency.

We know, for example, that some of the New York-area airports are cesspools of TSA troubles, with corruption, thievery, and botched pat-downs in the news regularly. We also know that the government rates its own airports and compares their scores to other airports.

Don't we deserve to know which airports have the best TSA agents?

One thing seems clear: If every TSA screening were like the one we recently had in Denver, I would be writing about the TSA every day instead of just once a week.

And if it were like the one we experienced in Reno, I would probably never have to write about the agency again. Except, maybe, to commend them on a job well done.

By the way, after you've left a comment here, let's continue the discussion on my consumer advocacy site or on Twitter, Facebook and Google. I also have a free newsletter. Here's the signup form.

Why is it that with the travel industry struggling as much as it is, the TSA makes traveling worse for travelers by making the process of going through security checkpoints so uncomfortable and degrading?

My husband and I are frequent flyers, and have traveled many places with our son, who is 7 years old and diagnosed with Down syndrome. We have traveled through many airports and have always followed the TSA policies. However, on this one particular day, we encountered such a rude and unpleasant display of harassment from a TSA Supervisor in the Houston airport that I wrote a letter to the TSA.

We were returning from Spring break in Mexico and just cleared customs. We put all our carry-on bags on the security belt, as well as our shoes, my husband's hat and belt and the small cooler pack that contained my son's "empty" medicine bottle, which was clearly labeled. The bottle was empty because we brought just enough for our trip. It also contained two Capri Sun water packs and one Dananimal Yogurt drink. Which, if you take a look at those yogurt shakes, was only 3.1 fluid ounces. As it reads in the TSA policies for "3-1-1 for Carry-Ons 3.4 ounce (100ml) bottle or less (by volume) is acceptable, so still within guidelines.

This time was no different from any other time we have traveled. We clearly were upfront with the agents, explaining that this is what we had in the cooler bag, our son has special needs and we have a note from the TSA (that we received from an earlier incident five years ago in Newark) and a doctor's note explaining his special diet.

What's interesting is that there is no set policy that is carried out by TSA agents across the board for all the airports. What I mean by that is that we have encountered TSA agents who didn't even open the bag; some who told us you are allowed liquids and medicines by the TSA and never looked inside; and some who want to scan the liquids. My husband and I have no problem with them doing that, we understand that it's their job.

However, we were told that they needed to go through all of our bags because the iPads were standing upright in the bag. We have never heard of this rule in all of our times traveling. So, instead of going through those bags and rechecking them, as they said they were going to, they decided to pull my husband aside to do a pat down. But this was after he checked the one yogurt drink we had in the bag, and didn't look at anything else.

Again, we explained that we have documentation from the TSA, but no one wanted to acknowledge or even look at the documentation; they just proceeded to pat my husband down. At this point, my husband and I were clearly upset. But, what made matters worse is that the TSA Supervisor who was standing right there had the audacity to say to us "if you just be quiet, it will go a lot faster." Seriously, is this how the TSA trains their employees to treat passengers? I was absolutely appalled at his comment.

At this point, my husband was so upset that he began shaking because he felt that he was being disrespected during the pat down. He even said to the supervisor: "he's pulling my pants down," and the arrogant supervisor said "well hold them up." I turned to him and said, "You just told him to put his arms out to the side, which do you want?"

Let me quote what the TSA policies read:

Our current policies and procedures focus on ensuring that all passengers, regardless of their personal situations and needs, are treated equally and with dignity, respect and courtesy they deserve.

Neither my husband and I believe that this was an act of dignity or respect, what do you think? It even got to the point where I then said to the supervisor, "look how you are upsetting my son," because at this point, he was clearly shaken seeing his father getting patted down and harassed. He is smart enough to know the issue was about his drinks, that all he kept saying was "I'm sorry, I'm sorry!" This is absolutely the most despicable and insensitive thing I have ever seen.

As a family traveling with a child with special needs, we have enough to deal without having a TSA employee -- a supervisor, no less -- upset my son right before we get on a flight. This was an absolute misuse of power. He stood there with his blue shirt on and little badge that said TSA and abused his power of authority by harassing an innocent family with a special needs son.

But hold on, this gets even worse. Would you like to know what his response was to me? He looked right at me and said, "if I don't shut up, he was going to get law enforcement." Instead of apologizing or trying to make the situation better, he wants to call the police on me because I told him he was upsetting my son? Really? This is outrageous! This was the worse my husband and I have ever been treated at an airport.

In reading the TSA website, I quote:

Many airports have lanes specifically for use by passengers with disabilities and medical conditions or those traveling with young children. While passengers still may need to wait in line if they use these lanes, the lines often are much shorter and the wait time generally is less. A passenger can ask to be directed to one of these lanes when checking in with his or her airline or once he or she has reached the general line used by passengers. Use of these lanes is not limited to passengers who have physical disabilities. Passengers with cognitive and psychological disabilities that make it difficult to wait in line are also allowed to use these lanes.

I did not know this but will be asking for this in the future. Hopefully, those agents will better know how to handle a family with a special needs child.

Now that I am so upset, I proceed to tell the supervisor that I was going to be writing a letter to the TSA telling them of the actions carried out by their employees. Well, as anyone who was wrongfully mistreated, you ask for the person's name who is mistreating and harassing you. So, I asked him "what is your name?" His response: "I'm the Supervisor." I stated "that is not what I asked you, I asked for your name." He again responded "he was the supervisor." At this point, I said to him "Do we have an issue here, what is your name?" He then finally told me his name. I also looked around to see if there was any information that would tell me at what checkpoint I was at. I thought that with that information, his name, date and time they could identify who it was.

My hope is that the TSA make this person go through more training on how to handle families with special needs children, have him go through some sensitivity training and take his level of Supervisor away until he shows he knows how to handle that responsibility.

Have you been in a similar situation with a TSA agent? Do you feel this was harassment?

Next time you fly, take a minute to look around at the airport screening area. You'll see all kinds of interesting passengers, from the "get-alongs" to the dissidents to the folks who think the rules don't apply to them.

Just last week at the crowded Orlando airport, I had a front-row ticket to a confrontation between a young woman and a TSA screener.

Young woman: "I don't want to be X-rayed."

Screener: "We don't use X-rays."

Young woman: "I don't want to be scanned, either."

Screener: "Then you'll get a pat-down."

I briefly made eye contact with the passenger and saw that familiar look of terror. She was about to receive what the TSA refers to as an "enhanced" pat-down, and perhaps a little firmer than normal, despite the fact that it was abundantly clear she posed zero risk to the aircraft.

Her crime? Questioning a TSA screener about the safety of its allegedly invasive and harmful body scanner.

I know about these retaliatory pat-downs. I refuse to use the scanners, a decision the agents tend to take personally. During my last opt-out, a screener in Denver was so aggressive that he almost pulled my pants down in front of everyone.

Folks, this shouldn't be happening in a free country.

I didn't see what happened to the young woman, but I know how she must have felt.

She's just one of five common passenger types you'll encounter at a TSA checkpoint. Who else are you likely to meet?

The get-alongs. This is by far the largest group of passengers. They just want to pass through the screening process with a minimum of hassle. They have nothing to hide, they figure, so just do what the people in the blue uniforms order them to do. They comply, obediently stepping into the full-body scanner and agreeing to a pat-down, because they "know" the TSA is just trying to keep everyone safe -- and despite the fact that even a small amount of research will reveal that almost nothing they're asked to do makes the flying experience any safer. Critics call these passengers "sheeple."

The elites. A smaller group of passengers and crewmembers are offered special screening privileges -- a dedicated line where they often don't have to remove their shoes or step through a poorly tested scanner. Pilots, flight attendants, and dignitaries fall into this category, but by far the largest subset belongs to those with TSA "pre-check" membership. These frequent fliers believe that because they've given an airline so much business, or have paid the federal government to run a background check, they deserve a less invasive screening. And they're partially correct. Actually, everyone deserves to be screened in that way.

The dissidents. An even smaller group of passengers opts out of the full body scanners, which means they get an automatic, prison-style pat-down. These brave contrarians know that opting out takes up valuable screener time, and they understand that a pat-down can feel even more invasive than a quick scan. But that's fine with them. For many reasons, they believe the government has no business asking them to submit to a scan, and they're willing to make that point whenever they fly. Many opt-outs feel they have a lot in common with the civil rights activists of the 1960s. One day, when the scanners are decommissioned and the world recognizes how far the federal government overreached, maybe their protests will be more appreciated than they are today.

The victims. An even smaller group of passengers doesn't realize it yet, but they're about to become a headline, a viral video, or at the very least, a complaint letter to the TSA. Thanks to a misunderstanding, or a cruel TSA agent or a federal screener who has no values and steals from the passengers he's assigned to protect, the screening will go terribly wrong. It may not happen often when compared to the millions of travelers who fly every week, but it ought to happen less than it does -- a lot less.

The ignorant. The smallest group of passengers are the dummies who pack loaded revolvers, souvenir hand grenades, and machetes in their carry-on luggage and expect to get through security. Too many actually do. A vast majority of these "armed" passengers turn out to just be careless mistakes; a handful are done intentionally. One in a billion are done with the objective of bringing down a plane. No matter what, you can bet the TSA will tout the confiscation and inevitable arrest on its blog every week. Critics can do nothing but shake their heads at these incidents. The only thing they squabble over is the propaganda value of the confiscations. Taking away a gun, say agency-watchers, doesn't necessarily mean you've stopped another 9/11.

I've met most of these passengers either at the airport or after their flight. By and large, they all have one thing in common: They just want to get from point A to point B with a minimum of hassle. And the paramilitary blueshirts pushing them through scanners, prodding them, and in some cases stealing from them, are a hindrance, not a help, in that regard.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't our taxpayer-supported federal screeners be making the process easier instead of harder? At the very least, shouldn't the TSA try to do a better job of telling one group apart from the other?

Andy deLivron says he's no threat to aviation security. But he flies with box cutters in his checked luggage -- the same weapon used by the 9/11 terrorists. And he recently packed the sharp tools in the wrong bag.

By the time deLivron, a sales manager from Pottersville, NY, realized the box cutters had been misplaced in his carry-on bag, it was too late. He was already past the TSA screening area at Dallas Love Field and boarding his flight to Orlando, where he planned to catch a connecting flight to Albany, NY.

DeLivron missed his connection and had to spend the night in Orlando.

"But now I had a problem toss the knife or try to get it home in my carry-on bag," he says. "I decided if I could place the knife on edge in my carryon it would be highly likely that security would miss it again. Sure, enough I was right. My carryon went right on through in Orlando."

Yes, you read correctly. TSA agents missed a box cutter in his carry-on luggage. Twice in a day.

And no planes fell from the sky.

"I'm an experienced business traveler and not a threat to my fellow travelers," deLivron adds. "But imagine what a mercenary is capable of doing?"

Coming Full Circle

Airport security is devolving before our eyes. The latest slip is the TSAs surprise announcement that it would allow pocket knives -- but still, no boxcutters -- to be carried on to a plane starting April 25.

Why? TSA says a committee reviewed its prohibited items list "based on an overall risk-based security approach" and decided the knives, as well as selected sports equipment such as ski poles and golf clubs, could be carried on board.

Never mind that any knife can be used as a weapon. For reasons that remain unclear to many air travelers and to America's flight attendants, blades will soon be OK on planes.

But this is as good a time to any to ask where this is all heading, and whether the last decade has done little more than make us feel better about aviation security.

Rewind to Sept. 11, 2001, the day terrorists boarded several aircraft armed with the same kind of box cutters deLivron carried to Orlando and Albany. Back then, the private airport security guards screened us almost exactly the same way we screen elite-level frequent fliers, passengers with Pre-Check clearance, flight attendants, pilots, members of the military and dignitaries today -- which is to say, they walked through a metal detector with their shoes on.

No body scan, no pat-down or chat-down. It was a quick common-sense screening, and it worked.

If there's a consensus among security experts, it's that the meaningful screening takes place long before you arrive at the airport, and that's where the failures of 9/11 happened, and why we now have a formidable new Department of Homeland Security, no-fly lists and pre-checks for every passenger.

No Size Fits All

When TSA Administrator John Pistole says we're moving away from a "one size fits all" approach to security, what he really means is that we are returning to airport screening that actually works, which is pretty much what we had before 9/11.

I'm pretty sure the TSA won't contact me to find out the specifics of deLivron's flight because it knows that stuff gets through its vaunted 20 layers of security, and it knows there's nothing it can do about it.

But that should be reassuring to all of us, in a way.

The faster the agency assigned to protect America's transportation systems returns to a common-sense screening approach, the better off all travelers will be. And by "common sense" I mean decommissioning the hated full-body scanners, banning "enhanced" pat-downs, retraining agents in the basics of customer service, allowing all passengers to leave their shoes on and travel with liquids, and using metal detectors as a primary screening method.

The heavy lifting of airport security should take place long before you arrive at the terminal. That's where your name should be vetted and compared against a list of known terrorists. That's where they'll catch the next hijacker.

Eventually, we will come full circle and airport screenings will devolve to where they were before 9/11. It's only a matter of time.

By the way, after you've left a comment here, let's continue the discussion on my consumer advocacy site or on Twitter, Facebook and Google. I also have a free newsletter. Here's the signup form.

Wanna insult a reporter? There's no easier way than accusing him or her of being a shill for the other side, of churning out propaganda instead of covering a subject.

And that's especially true when it comes to the TSA.

But consider the following "exclusive" story from a local ABC affiliate, which aired a few weeks ago.

It was an earnest report about the imminent dangers of a terrorist weapon being detonated on a plane. Explosives "experts" at Camp Pendleton in California rigged shoes and laptop computers and blew them up in front of a group of TSA trainees. They even let a reporter incinerate one of the props from a safe distance.

It made for terrific TV and it helped the TSA make the point that it, and its $8 billion a year budget, were urgently needed to keep America safe. Such demonstrations are a staple of the TSA publicity machine.

But as is so often the case, it's not what was said, but what was not said, that made this report the latest feather in the TSA's PR cap.

The reporter failed to mention that TSA agents aren't given any explosives training, so the exercise had no educational value beyond showing that plastic explosives go "boom."

She also omitted the fact that not a single terrorist has ever tried to get a liquid bomb or plastic explosives through a TSA checkpoint. Instead, wannabe terrorists like the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber looked for vulnerabilities overseas, where the TSA has little or no jurisdiction. If you're going to demonstrate America's security prowess, maybe a foreign airport is a good place to start.

Put differently, the entire display was for show. The TSA could have detonated grenades, set up an archery range, even set off a small nuclear weapon -- it would have been just as meaningful.

Or meaningless.

We're easily impressed

I can't blame a journalist for filing that kind of piece. Few news outlets have a full-time national security reporter. Dangle an "exclusive" in front of them, maybe give them a few hours to edit the story, and they just can't help themselves. Calling an outside expert to help put the TSA's pyrotechnics into perspective might have been impractical.

I want to believe that.

But an outsider might have said this: TSA agents are about as capable of disarming an incendiary device as a bomb-sniffing dog. The agents watching from the bleachers are screeners, not law enforcement officials. In the sense that they're helping air travelers through the security process, they are primarily in the customer-service business.

I would have been much more impressed if the TSA had shown a seminar with Miss Manners, in which new agents are taught how to say "please" and "thank you" instead of barking and prodding.

But I digress.

Fact is, we're easily wowed by demonstrations like the one shown to ABC. Also, journalists tend to instinctively trust something an official tells them, whether it's true or not.

ABC shouldn't feel singled out. In the recent past, outlets from National Public Radio to NBC News have also filed fawning reports that do little more than help perpetuate the TSA's "permanent emergency" and fuel public fears that help it secure more funding.

We shouldn't be

Bias is difficult to detect. Even when you think you detect it, it's almost impossible to prove. Reporters on deadline don't always have time to think about the other side, and if they aren't subject matter experts, they may not even be aware there is another side.

It's not an excuse. In journalism school, there's a saying: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." It's what I like to call the Fox Mulder principle: Trust no one. It's one of the most difficult lessons to learn when you're a reporter, particularly when your sources seem to be so trustworthy.

Be critical, even when it will cause some to question your patriotism. Especially then.

I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased. I'm on the side of the consumer, and travelers are not well served when the TSA trumps up false threats or exaggerates its role in keeping America's transportation systems safe.

In the meantime, maybe the best advice I can give is this: don't believe everything you read.

NEW YORK -- A lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration over its airport security procedures is heading to a court hearing next week, following a Friday order in the case that could give the government extra headaches.

Two Harvard law students brought the suit in 2010, arguing that their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches was being violated by "nude body scanners" and "enhanced pat-downs." A federal district court threw out their case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit will hear their appeal on April 3.

In a twist, the 1st Circuit on Friday also granted a request from a group called Freedom To Travel USA to make its own appearance during the oral arguments. The group would like the courts to conduct a fact-finding mission on the intrusiveness of the TSA's search techniques before the 1st Circuit rules directly on their constitutionality. If the appeals court agrees, it could begin to peel back some of the secrecy surrounding screening.

"The scanners and patdowns have not been tested in the court of law," said Freedom To Travel USA co-founder Jeff Pierce. "What we're looking for is a fair test in a court of law."

The two Harvard students who launched the case, Jeffrey Redfern and Anant Pradhan, referred The Huffington Post's inquiries to Freedom To Travel USA.

Co-founders of the advocacy group say it is an effort by ordinary citizens to dig up more information on the TSA's screening programs. In addition to Pierce, a businessman, the group was launched by Renee Beeker, a nonprofit executive, and Wendy Thomson, a retired management consultant.

"We have the oddest coalition, all the way from A to Z," said Thomson, claiming both Occupy arrestees and "very, very conservative people" as supporters.

"We wanted to take the high road and bring forth actual facts and follow the news and do things along the legal avenue, instead of just taking the emotional avenue," she said.

In its friend-of-the-court brief in Redfern v. Napolitano, Freedom To Travel USA argues that the TSA has disclosed far too little about the capabilities of its scanners. "Many Americans have reported experiencing humiliation, fear, and a total loss of dignity," Freedom To Travel USA writes. It is time, the group contends, for the courts to essentially turn the tables on the agency, performing "a fact-intensive review of the TSA searches' unprecedented level of intrusiveness."

The TSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Redfern lawsuit. Its lawyers successfully argued to the district court that the case should be dismissed on the narrow grounds that under the relevant law, the plaintiffs should have filed their lawsuit directly with an appeals court.

In October, the Supreme Court rejected without comment an appeal in a similar case in which a plaintiff sought to bring a lawsuit in a district court. The lower courts generally have more leeway to investigate facts -- a critical goal for TSA critics who would like the agency to open up about its procedures.

Redfern, Pradhan and Freedom To Travel USA have had their arguments hampered by that same shroud of agency secrecy. Volumes of administrative records on TSA screening procedures have been introduced into the court record only under seal, some not even available to the plaintiffs.

In a March 20 court filing, a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer representing the TSA asked to be allowed to introduce documents describing why the agency is discontinuing the use of one form of scanning machine, the highly controversial X-ray backscatter device. The agency said that its reasoning was protected as "Sensitive Security Information" and that it was "in the process of creating a redacted, publicly releasable version" of the document.

A separate lawsuit, filed against the agency by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), yielded some modest results on Tuesday. In a belated response to a 2011 ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the TSA opened up a public comment period on its use of body scanners.

The TSA's move will not likely satisfy critics, who say the agency has released too little information about the privacy and health implications of its devices. "What is there to comment on?" asked Jim Harper, director of information policy studies for the Cato Institute, on his blog. "The TSA's brief document defends a hopelessly vague policy statement instead of the articulation that the court asked for. And as to the policy we all know it's implementing, TSA hides behind the skirts of government secrecy."

EPIC scored another court victory earlier in March, when a federal judge found that the Department of Homeland Security should have released two studies on the safety of radiation-emitting scanners in response to a records request.

Traditionally, the courts have been deferential to the government when it comes to airline screening. In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a privacy advocate's challenge to TSA rules forcing passengers to either present ID or submit to an extensive search before boarding planes. The plaintiff in that case had made a similar argument that the TSA should be forced to reveal more detail about its security procedures.

The three 1st Circuit judges who will hear the Redfern case have multiple options: They could accept the government's argument and dismiss the case, send the case back to the district court for more argument and possibly a trial, or order a fact-finding effort to determine how intrusive TSA screening is.

"Our agenda is to put a spotlight on what's happening, so that at least whatever's happening goes through the rigor of discovery and evidence and logic," said Thompson of Freedom To Travel USA. "We don't believe that has happened yet."