TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
from the that'll-go-over-well dept
There's been a lot of talk lately about the new backscatter scanners at airports that take a "naked" image of the passenger, and how airports have now instituted newer and more invasive patdowns for those who refuse to go through the scans. Many feel that both of these practices goes way too far. A whole bunch of folks have now been submitting the story of one guy who refused to go through the backscatter scanner, and then told the TSA (in a slightly crude manner) that he would not consent to having his groin groped. Specifically, he warned the officer, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." This, of course, led to supervisors and supervisors and various reports being written up before he was escorted out of the screening area and told he would not be able to fly.Of course, we've seen similar stories before. But where this one got even odder is that after he went to the ticket counter and was able to get his ticket refunded (even though it was a non-refundable ticket), he was approached by a man in a suit and two of the people who had both detained him in the security area and escorted him out of it -- and told that he could not leave the airport until he submitted to the invasive screening. If he tried to leave, he was told he would be sued and could face fines of $10,000:
At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn't know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents' supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area. When I asked why, he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined. I told him that I would submit to a walk through the metal detector, but that was it; I would not be groped.With groups like EPIC and the ACLU fighting these machines, I'm guessing the guy has already been contacted by them and other such groups. The idea that buying a ticket and entering the screening area means you've agreed, no matter what -- even if you decide not to fly -- to go through an invasive screening process, seems like a pretty radical reading of the 4th Amendment that I'm sure some civil liberties groups would happily challenge.
You can listen to the audio of most of the encounter at the link above (there's video too, but it's mostly of the ceiling). Some have questioned why he was filming, and if he had set this up with a plan to get into a confrontation all along. You can see his explanation here which makes sense. He claims that he had checked online prior to flying and the TSA's website had said that San Diego Airport did not have the backscatter scanners, which is why he agreed to fly through there. Then, when he got to the security area, he chose a line that was a traditional metal scanner, rather than the backscatter lines. The person in front of him was told to go to the backscatter scanner, and after refusing he realized they might ask him to go instead, so he then turned on his camera, since he'd heard of numerous other incidents, and wanted a recording just in case. Throughout the experience he points out that 80% of the passengers are just going through the traditional metal detector, and he'd be fine if he could just use that same process, but they won't allow it.
It seems pretty clear that these new invasive scans and pat downs are going to end up in the courts. From my perspective, they certainly seem to go way beyond the "reasonable" standard, but who knows what the courts will say. That said, in this case, the security officials went way beyond even that level, by threatening to sue the guy for not consenting to go through with it, even after he had said he would no longer be flying.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, airports, privacy, searches, threats, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Tough Call
Well, I guess if I'm going to be uncomfortable, I might as well make one of them uncomfortable too. Plus, you could always entertain yourself by making creepy statements while the pat-down was going on.
"Just a little higher . . . just little higher . . . yeaaaah, that's it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tough Call
I never really took it seriously until now. Osama is laughing his sorry arse silly over this kind of stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tough Call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tough Call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tough Call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tough Call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tough Call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tough Call
Ten years ago I was entering a coffee shop as a policewoman, a b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l (i.e., georgeous) policewoman was leaving, looking all butchy in her leather and blues. She was tall, stacked and racked. I almost said, "If I ask nicely, would you frisk me?" But then thought better of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tough Call
"I've got a flight in three hours. I need the biggest dildo you have."
Then just decline the backscatter machines on medical grounds so they have to send you through the grope line. When the agent walks in, crank the flame up to 11. Strike a pose and be all "do me big boy". Keep up a stream of commentary like, "If you were a hot asian chick travelers would pay extra for this."
If it's their job to molest me, it's my job to make them question their career decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tough Call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tough Call
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-scree ning-1576602-108259869.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tough Call
http://www.myvidster.com/video/600891/Video_of_TSA_Screener_Accosting_3_Year_Old_Child_at _Security_Checkpoint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tough Call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I can say is wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will never fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they escorted him out, they exempted him from the rule, whether they knew there was one or not.
The irony is that no one needs to get on a plane to commit a terrorist act. You could kill a lot more people just by detonating a bomb on your person when you're in the security area. Why TSA hasn't thought about this is beyond me. Maybe we need pre-security area security areas to filter out would-be attackers from entering the security areas. Then of course we'd need pre-pre-security area pre-security areas too. We should just build out from the airport with security checkpoints on the road manned by TSA agents in riot gear and carrying assault rifles. Airports could be like little medieval fortresses where the fiefdom of TSA is safe from the terrorists (and the peasants who they opress).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I'm obviously naked and carrying no luggage, the only possible danger I might present is if I'm a world-class martial artist or bear-wrestler or something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just lock the cockpit and be done with it. The solution to aviation security is a $10 lock away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MrWIlson
Thinking about it strategically, a terrorist actually COULD have more killing power if they got aboard a plane. If they timed it right, they could easily wait until the plane's trajectory would smash it into the next airport/landing zone--and that could easily kill MORE people than if they were to detonate in the security lines, not to mention cause MUCH more damage from an economic standpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MrWIlson
Can you just imagine the shock and hysteria that would follow the bombing of a security line?
The mental damage it would do to a massive number of people really outweighs the economic damage another plane explosion would have (t least IMO).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson
Crash a plane, and they tighten airport security more.
Blow up an airport security queue, and . . . what?
I would argue that the feeling of helplessness caused by bombing an airport security line cause much greater terror in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson
But I still fail to see what is so special about deaths caused by air planes.
All the recent TSA horror stories inspired me to tweet this a few days ago:
in 10 years, terrorists on airplanes killed 3,000 people. USA also had 150,000 regular murders. Yet no naked scanners to enter Detroit?
Why is it such a big deal when people die from air planes?
Where is the "war on gun ownership among inner city residents"?
Where is the "war on Tobacco"?
How many lives have been lost in Iraq? where is the "War on War in Iraq"?
But no... let's ignore all this and make air travel invasive, inconvenient, and force people to go though potentially dangerous porno scanners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson
If I killed my own dog and did not wish to be blamed for the atrocious act, I would go all ballistic in ensuring that no one could kill my dog in my back yard again. Fences, video surveillance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson
If you hadn't guessed yet, the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs" and not caring if poor people kill each other in the inner city as long as they don't step foot in my upscale suburban neighborhood is the American Way of Life™ that we're fighting to preserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson
There are just so many different ways to terrorise a populace, that it makes me wonder if the various terror attacks in the US, UK and the like are legitimate.
Look how it's done in places like Afghanistan. They blow up 200 people at a wedding, wait for the emergency services to arrive then blow them up. That's terror - going about your every day life and not knowing if you'll be killed.
I'm 1000x more afraid of a planes engines falling apart (can anyone say A380) than a terrorist blowing one up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They have thought about it.... they just don't care
Now if a terrorist gets onto a plane, and causes that plane to crash into a corporate office building. There would again be serious injuries and death, but the property damage would be felt by the corporations who were housed in the office building. I think we can assume from past events that they wouldn't target 'small' office buildings, so this would mean that they would be targeting some of the Fortune 500 corporations...
Corporations can't stand for that, so they have purchased the current 'security theater' we have to try and mitigate or shift the risk (assuming that if the terrorists think they can't get the bombs thru security, due to new 'high tech' devices, they will decide to blow them up in the airport instead).
To the corporations who are purchasing our laws, this is an acceptable outcome.
Sure, I'm being sarcastic... or am I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't somebody please think of the children...
The terrorists have won. The rest is just figuring out how Corp. America can profit from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Won't somebody please think of the children...
"Ex-Homeland Security chief head said to abuse public trust by touting body scanners"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821_pf.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Won't somebody please think of the children...
> becoming victims of child porn
Unless your kids are also performing a sexual act while inside the machine, it's not child porn.
The courts, up to and including the Supreme one, have ruled that mere nudity of a minor can't in and of itself be considered child pornography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purchasing a Ticket Doesn't Imply Consent
Common sense would argue that someone who bought a ticket under a different assumption of the security paradigm who does not want to have their personal space violated in the way that we're being asked to now should be entitled to a refurn of their ticket without question if they really don't want to be put through these screenings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What good will that do? I have been accosted by TSA numerous times (over the years). The culture hasn't changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deal with it.
If you're self-conscious about having tiny junk or something, deal with it. You're not the only frickin' one that has to go through it. I can understand flight attendants and pilots not wanting to go through the scan (I mean, after all--going through the X-Ray as often as they would could end in health problems), but civilians who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. It's not like somebody's gonna stop you after the machine and say "HAHAHA YOU HAVE TINY JUNK!"
The fact of the matter is that this beef-up in security is pretty much required at this time, what with all of the turmoil going on in the Middle East, AND with the possibility of turmoil occurring right here in the US. Think about it--would you rather have somebody sneak explosives on board and send the plane crashing down? Be glad that you have the OPTION to CHOOSE to do the scan, rather than being forced to have a finger up your butt or get your groin pat down to check for hidden stuff there! If you'd prefer, TSA COULD just remove the backscatter scans all together and make patdowns mandatory--heck, why wouldn't they? It'd be a lot less expensive on their part!
I don't care if this violates amendments, or what. I know that I--And NOT ONLY I--am losing NOTHING through this extra security. I'd rather face an implication of security that causes honest people like myself and others to lose nothing, and know that I'm that much safer, than to fight it for the sake of losing the safety and security to gain NOTHING.
Also, to those of you here who are making comments like (and I quote) "Buy a plane ticket, and as a bonus, receive forced confinement and sexual molestation!", you're being ignorant. The patdown is an OPTION, for if you don't want to go through the quick and easy way.(Which is, by the way, easier and more pleasant for both the person boarding the plane AND for the people doing the patdowns. Do you honestly think that they ENJOY patting down every obese male that feels insecure about his junk?)
Admittedly, the rule of having to be checked regardless of whether you're going to board the plane or not is more than a bit ridiculous. So is the idea of being SUED for not consenting to such if you're not going to board. In the end, for this PARTICULAR case, TSA is in the wrong. However, as a whole, they are generally doing this for the safety of your passage, and they're not even charging you for it! Maybe I'm just not as self-conscious as some people, but I'll take the backscatter scanner any day. If it means that I get to feel safe and secure on a plane ride, then I will HAPPILY subject myself to the scan--especially since I have nothing to hide. Do you?
It's common sense. How much brainpower does it honestly take to comprehend the actuality of what's going on here!?
Inb4"tl;dr"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
Eric
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
When you're talking on the phone, you're alone. You're not around hundreds of people, and it really wouldn't have any effect on anybody. You're just leisurely chatting with somebody(unless you're doing a business call, of course). This is a true and utterly pointless invasion of privacy. THIS kind of invasion of privacy has no effect in any way on the safety of hundreds of citizens(or at least, is a LOT less likely to), and in that sense, is truly an absurd invasion that shouldn't be tolerated.
I'm not saying that EVERY potential for damage should be solved with invasion of privacy, but if you don't have anything to hide, the invasion is minor, and the invasion can help in providing safety and protecting the lives of great numbers of people, I don't see what the problem would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
What I don't get is why people are in an uproar about something so minor that has the potential to save thousands--nay, tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
And some of us are trying to oppose the steady march towards a police state. But by all means, continue your "We've already gone this far towards fascism, why not just go all the way?" line of thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
If we don't start fighting for our rights, we are going to lose them. Rights are paid for with Blood and this is no different. I'll gladly take my chances on a plane without the invasive scans or the aggressive pat downs. This is nothing more then an unreasonable search without probable cause. This is the government, taking away a right which it will never give back!
As for the greater good, argument, the greater good is served by upholding our 4th amendment right.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
Second, a lot of people don't view being groped or seen essentially nude by strangers as "minor."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
The other issue is that it can be easily defeated by obvious means. There are less invasive means that do a better job, i.e., a trained K-9 is great at explosive detection and is not limited to external masses of explosives.
So for this marginal benefit, you're groped or you have to let people look at you naked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ben did that too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
> willing submit to every encroachment on my rights.
Whenever one of my fellow cops says this, I always like to pose a question back: if you stopped me on the side of the road and wanted to search my car, saying to me that I shouldn't mind if I have nothing to hide, what would be your response if I told you, "Okay, officer, I'll give you consent to search my car, but only if afterward, we go to your home and you let me look through whatever I want-- everything from your personal financial files to the browser history on your computer to your wife's underwear drawer. Would that be okay with you, to have a total stranger looking through your private things? I mean, you shouldn't mind if you have nothing to hide, right?"
Funny how their tune always changes when presented with that scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
Like I said further down; dogs will work. I guess we are so stuck on technological solutions to problems that we have lost our common sense.
Tell me, when you can't find it and you know it's there what do you do? You bring a dog; that's what you do...
If we give up our freedoms then the terrorist have won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
Believe it or not, some people don't want to be (a) shown naked to strangers, or (b) groped by strangers, regardless of whether they have anything to hide.
Is that really so hard to imagine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
You lose nothing by not having everyone searched. Nothing. Get over it, your life isn't worth much. Maybe to your friends and family it is, but overall you're not doing much to progress the species as a whole. Don't worry, almost all of us aren't (I'm certainly not). So forgive me if I'd rather not be hassled on my way to the giant tube with wings that is filled with explosive material. I accept the danger of flying, terrorism, and death. So quit with your scans and let me fly after I show up 10 minutes before my plane leaves.
There needs to be a airservice that only flys planes that have cockpits you must enter from the outside (i.e. no connection to the passenger cabin). Then the only damage that can be done it to the passengers, or blowing up the plane. It costs $50 more per flight, and no security check. But when you board the plane you get a baseball bat. For $15 extra you can keep the bat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
Oh wait. Darn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
Have an original idea yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
CwF+RtB finally hits the airline industry ;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
Ah yes, that old fallacy. Tell that to this guy, who consented to letting the police search his car and ended up being railroaded by the justice system into a 7-year prison stint for following the law.
But by all means, continue to be ignorant of the world around you; most statists are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
I fear losing my privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I have nothing to hide, I have plenty to fear. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
That's a telling statement. What if they start doing other things that violate amendments? What if they start violating the first amendment by not allowing people to print the truth? How would you feel? What if you were no longer allowed to own bear arms and hang them from your wall? Would that be alright? Start housing soldiers in your house all the time because they don't want to pay for barracks? We know you don't care about the fourth because of what you have already stated. Want to be denied due process or a speedy public trial because they don't like the way you look? No more trial by jury? Want your punishment for any crime to be 'He shall lose his testicles'?
I could go on, but there is really no need to. If you lose your testicles because you spit on the sidewalk, that wouldn't be my problem. They're just testicles. You should just deal with it.
As an veteran, some days I wonder why I fought. All of those 'amendments or what' were what I signed up to uphold and protect. Sure, the terrorists are bad guys and we should stop them. Groping people or sending them through radiation machines is not going to do that. They could put an explosive up their ass. How will you feel when they start doing cavity searches for anyone flying just to make sure there are no bombs in your ass? Will it still be alright to violate 'amendments or what'?
You, sir, are the definition of douchebag. Please post your name so I can tell my buddies who are still serving to make their battle cry "This is for everyone in the US except ! He doesn't care about amendments or what!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
He understood your context perfectly. You find violating the bill of rights to be okay "in this particular case", which is idiotic, because if the government is allowed to choose when and where they can ignore the bill of rights, then why have it at all?
Hence, his post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
Do me a favor. Go find a very tall and steep hill that is covered with snow or ice. Take a single step down it. Just one. Surely it's safe. You wont end up at the bottom.*
*I don't like using the term slippery slope. I prefer to tell people to go do things that will hurt them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it. #14
Try reading the charges and fees listed on your ticket purchase. You ARE paying for the privilege. And you're not guaranteed a safe flight.
Read #26 - you're worth a few dollars in raw materials and minerals, and not much more than that. So what if your end comes in a spectacular cloud of smoke and debris, or in your bed? In 100 years, you'll be dead, and hardly anyone will (a) miss you or (b) remember your name, whether or not you had something to hide. You, individually, are not important; the world will go on without you just fine. Anything you have accomplished (or might accomplish) will either be done by someone else, or not be done -- and the world won't care at all either way.
The only real value you have is to yourself. If you're willing to agree you don't deserve to be respected, then you probably don't warrant any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it. #14
So I was wrong about the charge towards security--big whoop! I'd pay a few extra dollars to improve the chances of keeping myself alive, wouldn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14
I'm on dangling modifier patrol again and the asnwer is "No, I wouldn't."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14
There is nothing that requires an "evildoer" to do that though. Despite all the added security, there have been a couple, high-profile failures of the system. None of these scanners deployed by the TSA would have stopped them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14
You know, i was going to let all this go because everyone else already made many points I would echo about slippery slopes and the sheep-mentality of "it's ok for this one time" removal of freedom...
But this? Come on... I don't actually expect you to follow this link since it would prove you wrong (and misinfomred): http://boingboing.net/2010/01/22/naked-airport-scanne.html
so here's a recap: the device FAILS TO FIND EXPLOSIVE COMPONENTS in the guy's pockets. Not shoved up his bum, not strapped in his junk... in his pockets. So... if you're going to sell your freedoms for a warm cup of reassurance, make sure there's actual substance to it! Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14
PS I love that the comment starting all this was voted funny. We're laughing at you, not with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14
Notice how the idiot talks about "security," since the word FREEDOM clearly isn't it its (very limited) vocabulary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
They never caught a terrorist by groping American citizens. They never caught a terrorist by forcing us to use 8 oz plastic bottles for our shampoo. They never caught a terrorist by making us take our shoes off.
Meanwhile, consider the cost to society of all this extra screening. You know, the externalities that you aren't accounting for in your hypothetical "I am losing NOTHING" spiel. The cost of the machines to develop, assemble, install, use, and maintain. The cost of training technicians to service them. The cost to build extra rooms so that the TSA agents can't see the people being scanned.
All this, and the next failed terrorist attack might involve explosive eyeglasses. Then what, force everyone to wear contacts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
^^^ This is the larger issue. Every time some would-be murderer gets caught, they institute procedures that *may* have caught them. It's the "closing the barn door after the horses have left" cliche. The TSA is in a bind though, because if they don't close the metaphorical barn door & the next terrorist is successful, they're open to a lot of justifiable criticism.
That said, I think this is the limit. Insert George Orwell reference here. They've gone too far with this.
I'll try to summarize one of the key points some have said vs. Zane's posts: Life cannot be made completely safe, and certain efforts have a larger impact on our freedoms than our safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
Let people have shampoo and water. Let them have their pocket knives and fingernail clippers back.
Bomb the fucking terrorists in their homes. If the Muslims do not like it they can wipe these evil fuckers from their ranks themselves. Heavy use of pre-screening people when the purchase tickets and good use of profiling should keep us relatively safe.
That is all I want. All we can really demand. Relative safety. Not make it as safe as possible and fuck everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
Because the US government is an expert in closing the barn-door after the cows have gone... as well as putting iron gates on it. It's all show-- the government fucks up, so WE have to pay the price for their incompetence.
What, you think the PEOPLE own the country? Think again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
You can't fly without being groped or having naked pictures of you taken.
You can't have your prostate examined without having... your prostate examined.
Yep, it's pretty much the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
If a police officer hits me with his nightstick without provocation, it's okay because he's trying to do his job, which is to prevent crimes.
It's the same as if two boxers punched each other, because they can't do their jobs without hitting somebody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
But even as silly as that is, it STILL makes more sense than the TSA being able to bring CIVIL action against this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
ALMOST every other problem occurs outside the USA...Underware bomber, current mail bombs and the like... doesn't sound like we need more security...
and hey why not just keep trading your freedom for security... if the government just built us all jail cells you would be really safe, with meals and they will even let you out to work like a good little sheepel you are...you just come back to your safe, mandatory "apartment"/Cell block every night, no problem, your not doing anything wrong, nothing to hide right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
If you are so terrified of a hijacking, stay home. I don't want to live in a country where this sort of invasive searching is the norm.
If that many people want to hijack planes to make a point, that the only solution is this sort of Nazi state, maybe we are being lied to by the gov't and maybe the gov't is doing things it shouldn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
I trust the doctor not to try and cop a feel. I don't trust a barely trained security guard to do the same.
You saying that is like you saying that the government has a right tap your phone lines without a warrant, or monitor your internet activity, or allow them remote or physical access to your computer's HDD. All without probable cause and without a warrant. Heck at this rate why not allow the feds to see us dress in the morning right after we get out of the shower! That's a bloody fantastic idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
Personally, I'd be happy to be patted down while wearing my kilt commando. Just so long as the guy doing it is hot. I'll even bring my own lube for a cavity search if it goes that far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
> care if this violates amendments, or what.
And with that simple statement, the American way of life gasps its last breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
Just how far do they have to go before you'd draw the line? Full cavity search okay with you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.
Why doesn't the fourth amendment apply here? They have no probable cause and no search warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F YOU, FASCIST!
Likewise, you clearly are a sheep who trades liberty for security; next thing you'll say "they're just de-lousing you, so shut up!"
Moron, that's how Hitler did it, i.e. through idiots like you trusting the government and forking over their rights because it was "just for national security."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F YOU, FASCIST!
Likewise, you clearly are a sheep who trades liberty for security; next thing you'll say "they're just de-lousing you, so shut up!"
Moron, that's how Hitler did it, i.e. through idiots like you trusting the government and forking over their rights because it was "just for national security."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The opinion was something along the lines of:
'If we let people start the security process then stop it whenever they like, then terrorists will just do that until they succeed.'
I can't believe that grown men and women think like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: f*** the TSA
I plan to be wearing a radiation detection badge on my shirt and explain it's to be used as evidence in my suit against them so I won't remove it at their request. Also, if I get groped, I'll inform them AFTER that I'll be suing them and shout out loudly, "PERVERT! POLICE! POLICE! HELP! I've been sexually assaulted! Arrest this PERVERT! I want to press charges!" If they claim they're "authorized" I'll loudly remind them of the Nuremberg trials. Just because they're "following orders" does NOT excuse them of violating the Highest LAW of the Land; our beloved US Constitution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supported by Appeals Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Supported by Appeals Court
Furthermore, the original case was an appeal arguing that the drugs found on the man were the fruits of an illegal search, which the ruling denied, and thus the guy went to jail for drug possession. Since the guy in this case wasn't found to have any contraband, the ruling doesn't seem to apply there either (what would they charge him with?)
Of course that won't prevent the government from arguing that is does apply. After all, they'd probably like to search us before we get in the car to go to work every morning to if they could ("By buying a car, you implicitly agreed that that we could do whatever the hell we want to you before you get in it every morning!")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Turism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Turism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have they stepped up this procedure? It was far less invasive than I was expecting (thank God). I got the pat down in June 2010, because Las Vegas did not have a metal detector option either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with your logic is there is no end to what you can conceive to "protect human life." At some point, you have to stop letting people take whatever they want from you or they will just keep taking.
Is THAT so hard to understand?
By your logic, once they figure out how to explode a plane by planting a bomb inside someone's anus, we should starting submitting to a cavity search every time we want to fly to Chicago.
"Every time you think, you weaken the nation."
-Moe Howard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben Franklin says...
There's some contention as to the exact wording, but methinks that is about right.
Philosophically, though, what constitutes "essential"? Absolute freedom is anarchy; government, as it exists today, is simply a compromise where we have given up some freedoms that we may protect the subset deemed essential. At least, that's what the Constitution and Bill of Rights is about. Personally I think the Founding Fathers did a pretty decent job of defining things. It may be a line drawn in the sand, but it is a line drawn with considerable thought poured into it. To change it on a whim in the name of "increased security" is to effectively discard what it means to be American.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Draw the line....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OPT OUT!
Meg Mcclain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can do this all night...
Exactly how many bombs have been smuggled on planes before 9/11/2001 vs after 9/11/2001?
Because I actually think Ive heard more news reports about people smuggling explosives on planes AFTER /911. Seems the increased security has had the opposite effect.
The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution for a reason. Those are some basic freedoms that need to be protected. I served my time in the military to defend those rights and I feel entitled to them. So Zane you can deal with it. The rest of us are ok would just be happy with our pass through the metal detector and getting on with business as usual.
To be honest they miss my lighter 8 out of 10 times. Good job TSA. Wonder how much other stuff they miss. Maybe if I kept the lighter in my underwear they would catch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We can do this all night...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just do a scan
Put me through a scanner. Ive seen them, they dim the body and light up anything that X-Rays cant pass through, such as your wallet, or keys, or gun, whatever.
Unless your junk is made of lead, no one is seeing it.
Unless your underpants are laced with steel, no one can see them.
Its two colors (at least the one I saw) and it was green and orange.
I would chuckle at the thought of someone checking me out in my obscured nudity in green and orange.
Of course you HAVE to be checked, you people cant have everything! How are they supposed to check you, you are afraid of the scanners, you dont want to be touched? How should they make sure you dont have something on you.
Do this country a favor and deal with it, you dont hear anyone complaining about strip searches in jail, or about the X-Rays that they bombard your poor little laptop with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just do a scan
I am speaking out against the useless circus that this has all become. And all to make the sheep feel better. I am sick of being penalized and made to suffer indignities just because I'm not part of the lowest common denominator.
But, instead of showing up naked to expedite the search (crossed my mind) or going in with a nice and highly-contagious rash to give back as a thank-you for the grope, I have decided to act with my wallet: I will never fly as long as the TSA is pulling this farce. But that doesn't mean that I won't continue to join my voice with the MANY more who think this is a BAD THING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just do a scan
http://www.projo.com/blogs/shenews/photos/rapi_scan_lg.jpg
http://justgetthere.us/blog/upl oads/girl-body-scanner.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just do a scan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James A. Garfield
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Spinal Tap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is Spinal Tap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't agree with how they handled this situation, don't get me wrong. They could have easily avoided a good part of the issue by simply explaining WHY they needed to pat him down before leaving. Saying, effectively, "the other employees are idiots, and nothing will happen to them because of it" was a VERY bad thing to say.
Now, how this SHOULD have gone (post walk-away):
"Sir, we need to pat you down before you can leave because... (give reason)"
"Well, they let me leave. it was your supervisor who said i could!"
"I'm sorry about that sir, he shouldn't have done that, and I'll make sure he is informed of how to properly handle these situations. Will you come with me please? I do apologize for the inconvenience"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Please" is not a word that has ever, or will ever come from any of their over-fed government pie-holes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Be amazed at the inanity that is humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He wasn't patted down. He asked if he was free to leave and when they couldn't say no, he left.
"If you think about it, it makes sense."
It also makes sense to search the house of someone you suspect is a drug dealer, but it's not the same as having the legal warrant to do so.
"I'm sorry about that sir, he shouldn't have done that, and I'll make sure he is informed of how to properly handle these situations. Will you come with me please? I do apologize for the inconvenience"
"Ah, am I under arrest?"
"No."
"Then, I'll be leaving."
And that's basically what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There should BE no touching, no nude imaging, NOTHING.
Buying a plane-ticket does NOT void the fucking CONSTITUTION, MORON!
Air travel IS a right, ever since it became a standard mode of transportation; anyone who said otherwise is a moron who needs to go live in third-world country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A gov't that starts -- and continues -- illegal wars
It's about time that people dig in. The TSA position on this is hardline -- and on their website they just flatly LIE that they're not groping. This is another test of incremental police state.
I expect that pilots and flight attendants will eventually be let out of the severe screening, and as I said previously, that begins dividing society into levels of the more and the less trusted, enforced by epsilon minus TSA thugs.
As to the threat of a lawsuit, that's *quite* interesting, viewed right: a *civil* suit was threatened. First, proves the TSA is operating under "color of law"; it's not a gov't agency at all, just pretending to be. 2nd, if someone is merely threatening a civil suit, you *can* leave, you're clearly not under arrest. Just get the name of the thug and go.
The bit about giving up your rights is also interesting. It means that you're considered to have someone accepted contract terms -- not true -- and agreed to various invasions that violate Constitutional protections. More "color of law", that's how they operate, *pretending* to be the gov't, in fact private -- for-profit -- corporations. That's fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bottom like to all this is...
Think about that for a while kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bottom like to all this is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boycott Flying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tribute to Barack Obama
Clinton with his cigars, now Obama with his groping.
At least Clinton did it with the girl. Well maybe this groping stuff is some kind of pro gar rights stint .
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tribute to Barack Obama
Regan was too flashy.
Bush senior was small (remember backing out of Iraq)
Clinton loved his girls.
Bush Jr was compensating.
And now Obama loves to touch.
Gotta love our history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tribute to Barack Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes their jobs much easier.
If they don't make opting out a horrible experience then more people will do it and they will not only be wasting too much of their precious time, but they won't be able to justify the millions spent on the body scanners.
Remember: they are in charge -- and they will do whatever is necessary to make sure you remember that...even if they have to make up laws and violate their own "procedures" along the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where Does It Stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Business Opportunity-- City to City Taxicabs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way forward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA Searches
As far as bombs go, dogs are the best defense. A dog, when properly trained, can identify practically all explosives, not just a few like these technological boat anchors that we’ve devised at a cost of millions of dollars per unit.
The Israelis should know that's what they use and they don't need no stinking body scanners...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Catch-22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secure area /= screening area
It sounds to me like this all started in the screening area. That is NOT the same thing as a secure area. The defining difference being that everyone in the secure area has been screened already. Yes, unfortunately
he'd be subject to further search if he was already past the screening area and thus in a secure area.
The whole legal premise for these searches is supposed to be consentual search. If you don't consent, then you don't get to pass. If you pass, then you've consented. That's how they're supposed to work in order to stay on this side of the 4th Amendment. Changing the name of the screening area does not suddenly make it a secure area. That's why they have to describe it to you first, so that you can say no thanks and leave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waste of time for sure and other things
And to the poster who said that groping children isn't kiddy porn: really? Go read some legal statutes on what constitutes child abuse and kiddy porn. Inappropriate touching is a criminal offense, anywhere but the TSA! You might get away with trying to pat me down, but, try and grope my kids and I will hurt you.
And to the people who are willing to trade their freedoms for safety: If your freedom means so little to you why don't you move to a country that has none? We won't miss you, I promise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out of control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA Over The Top, then some
Does the lawsuit by The Transportation Security Administration against John Tyne for refusing the X-ray body scan mean; that we don't dare buy a plane ticket unless we are prepared to submit to a body scan or be sued for $11,000? Pretty soon most persons showing up to fly will be those that will submit to X-ray scans, erroneously giving the impression the public has accepted being repeatedly radiated/scanned before flying. I would not want to own airline stock.
If not stopped, Airports are just the beginning of Citizens being X-rayed / Stripped Naked by Government, having their Private Body Parts Touched, Squeezed and Patted-Down by Government Employees. It is problematic Americans (next) will be X-Ray Scanned and Physically Molested boarding trains, cruse ships, buses; when entering sports events and office buildings. Continued Low Radiation Exposure is Accumulative and believed to cause Cancer.
Americans should boycott airlines; that would get TSA's attention and stockholders of airlines. Meanwhile Not just pilots and flight attendants, “ordinary air passengers” should also be afforded privacy, when felt up, searched at public airports.
Talk about government in your face. Recently the Obama government purchased hundreds’ of X-Ray Vans that will travel our streets without warrants, x-raying Americans, seeing Citizens naked when walking, standing, riding their bike. Government/police will use the x-ray vans to peer though Citizens’ homes and vehicles, exposing Americans and their families to radiation. X-ray vans are an affront to privacy, allowing government to view Citizens in their bedrooms. Americans need to ask Obama if independent studies were conducted to determine if Citizens could develop Cancer, if (repeatedly exposed) to police X-rays. It is easy to imagine government/police with or without a warrant every night X-raying a person of interest in his or her home. It is foreseeable some Citizens might install similar to smoke detectors, sensors that will set off an alarm, if their home or vehicle is being bombarded with X-rays.
Obama’s X-Ray Vans can ALSO be used by the military or police to secure perimeters to control civil unrest and instances of revolt, to screen and stop Citizens carrying guns, cameras; any item. Does Obama expect Americans to revolt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA
I know that in Florida, I can make a CA if I witness a felony or a misdemeanor, but if I'm wrong, I can be subject to quite a few nasty infractions myself, such as impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, and wrongful arrest. These dangers are compounded by the fact that as a citizen, I have NO authority to infringe upon an individual’s civil rights under any circumstances (except, of course lethal force response in self defense). As much as I'd like to sometimes, I can't force a speeder to pull over and detain them while the police arrive. Trust me, I've looked into it.
I'm with you man, but be DAMNED careful before doing something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The TSA is counter-productive.
I just don't see how groping young children and old women and inspecting your grandmother's underwear is going to help stop terrorism. In my opinion, it sounds like terrorism.
The obama administration really needs to keep the TSA on a leash they are way out of line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what they're doing
Until now, I actually thought the government was serious about hunting down and stopping terrorists. Now, I think they're sitting in the oval office with them laughing and smoking cigars. It makes me sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scanners can be re-configurable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wife got groped today.
I have no respect for this Government, it is out of control.
The terrorist have already won we just don't know it yet.
Everytime one of them sneezes our great Government creates another police force and passes more laws that take away our freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal Coercion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only Way It's Going To Change
I mean, come on.....it's like no one has a soul at all. The airlines don't have a soul, the screeners don't have a soul, TSA as an agency is soulless, D.C. doesn't care, and the passengers themselves seem to like it they keep subjecting themselves. In all of this hasn't the Marketing Customer Relations Departments of ANY of the airlines considered improving this experience?
I thought the U.S.A. was about innovating and improving and not just sitting pat when something wasn't working for us.
Jesus H. Christ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA violates my Constitutional Rights everyday I go to work!
Today, I had a verbal altercation with TSA because they "chose" me to "randomly" search. I objected on the grounds they were violating my Constitutional Rights to travel freely unmolested, to provide a living for my family- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and search and seizure. I carry a "Freeman's Writ of Right to Travel" with me all the time. I also carry an "Affidavit of Reservation of Rights", which clearly STATES anyone who violates my rights will be charged a violation fee of my liberty in the amount of $250,000 per incident. I showed that to them, and the TSA manager, Greg, said he didn't have to read my "paper". I also told them verbally I reserved all of my rights under UCC 1-308 and I did not enter into any verbal, imaginary, assumed, or silent contract with them, and that they could be sued under that law. It did not matter. The TSA refused to let me into the airport to work and are trying to have my badge revoked, which means I will be fired without reason.
I have been told I need to file a "Notice of Injury" and "Violation of Human Rights" on them and I plan to do so.
I have left a message for a Civil attorney today and hope to speak to him soon. I am also planning to send each individual involved (as I wrote down names and titles) a Commercial Affidavit and a Notice and Demand that they have violated my Constitutional Rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]