TSA Likely To Face Multiple Sexual Assault Charges For New Searches
from the tipping-point dept
Think the complaints about the TSA are beginning to reach a tipping point? There's a whole bunch of new news on this front, starting with a California district attorney saying that he's ready to charge TSA agents with sexual assault if evidence is presented that the new pat downs go too far (apparently multiple DAs are now saying this).Hopefully, some other DAs are willing to do the same, because some are ready and willing to file sexual assault charges. Richard Kulawiec points us to the news of how a nursing mother in Dayton feels she was sexually assaulted by the TSA. Contrary to claims from the TSA, she was not informed that her private parts would be touched (repeatedly, from the sound of it). She was not given the option of having it happen in a private area. And, she notes, this was not about her refusal to go through a full body backscatter scanner, since those aren't even in operation at that airport. The account is pretty chilling as the woman is clearly quite troubled by the experience (as she should be).
Along those lines, at the federal level, Ron Paul has introduced new legislation that would make it clear that TSA agents are subject to sexual harassment laws. You can see him speaking about it here:
TSA doesn't require much at all, it turns out. This government agency-gone-wild performs a background check to weed out applicants who are convicted felons, but TSA does not test at all for applicants’ psychological soundness.In fact, it's so silly that the parody video below, of a "porn-addict applying for a job at the TSA" really doesn't seem all that far-fetched these days:
These are low-wage government employees granted full authority to touch passengers however they like. There is no indication that TSA agents have selectively abused their authority, but as with all government programs: If there are no checks in place to limit power, authority will be abused. Forget racial profiling; if there no limits to officials’ power, what would stop them from claiming the most attractive powers need a more thorough patdown?
That said, apparently legislators in New Jersey and Idaho have introduced legislation banning the naked body scanners (oh and in New York as well). Of course, I'm sure the TSA will just claim that in the absence of the machines, they'll just have to do more groping.
As for the TSA? Well, it's still trying to defend its position. Its latest is to claim that 130 prohibited, illegal or dangerous items have been kept off airplanes in the past year. What, like nail clippers and bottles of water? Where are the actual details? What has been caught? Who has been arrested? What happened to them?
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: ron paul, searches, sexual assault, sexual harassment, tsa
Companies: tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Think it's bad now?
"The government has a lot of information on everyone who gets on a plane… so let’s integrate that intelligence into the checkpoint," he said. "Today the checkpoint is just looking for bad objects – like tweezers and shampoo, but the agent doesn’t know anything about the traveler."
With a quick background check, Lott said, agents could better assess the risk associated with each traveler, then use things like scanners and pat-downs to further analyze those deemed high risk.
Seriously, that's how these guys think. And the way things are going, they'll probably get that too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I advise no one go to a "private" area with TSA thugs.
And again, everyone should notice that *you* are on the DE FACTO NO-FLY list: if you don't submit to this invasive tyranny, you ain't getting on a commercial flight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I hope they get the scanners banned
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
This quote applies to a very large chunk of what the Fed government does today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just more evidence of your security theatre. I can just imagine a real terrorist or criminal:
"Oh, gee, they stole my nailclipper. Guess I'll just sit down and enjoy my flight like a good little boy now."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That didn't take long
It looks like a lot of money is involved in Airport Security Theater, and as Irving Berlin's musical is quoted: "There's No Business Like Show Business"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cost Bennefit Analysis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can't believe that the security of everyone is based on just strip searching people and groping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Surely not just 130?
Tell me we aren't giving up 3rd base for just 130 items nationwide. I'd rather just take my chances, thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Surely not just 130?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I agree stay out in public.....
Sure it may be a little more embarrassing, but it's ultimately _much_ safer.
If I were flying, I would;
1. Make sure to opt out of any screening that you can.
2. Where hard athletic protection (the kind you use for football or some other contact sport).
3. When the confused / frustrated TSA 'agent' asks you to go to a 'private area' refuse. If they want to sexually assault me, I want as many witnesses as possible.
#2 protects your 'junk'
#3 almost guarantees that they'll end up sexually assaulting you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not telling what we found
Of course there is zero chance of anybody bringing down a plane with ceramic knives and drugs. That and the 127 bottles of contact solution that make up the rest of the 'dangerous, illegal, or prohibited items'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
About the second video
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I agree stay out in public.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TSA is just the following the natural extension of groping
That's what I know for a fact. Am I missing anything?
If they really can't find the terrorists after all that groping, I really don't know what to think, but I think it needs to be scaled back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Public safety is one area where free market capitalism fails, just like with environmental protection. Free market capitalism only cares about one thing, profits, and if it's more profitable to reduce safety that's exactly what free market capitalism will do.
To what extent will an airport be held liable for poor safety measures if a passenger exploited those measures to cause damage? Or should only the villain be held responsible.
Usually in cases where private sector negligence has caused someone harm, for example, if I go to a store and something falls off a shelf and hits me, the store will be responsible. But if I go to a store and random non-employee at the store randomly hits me then the store isn't responsible for the damages because they didn't implement enough safety measures, the person who hit me is. and the store will claim that. Likewise, should airports be punished for the actions of terrorists because they didn't implement enough security measures to prevent their attack. A crowded store or mall is just as prone to a terrorist attack with a weapon or bomb as an airport.
While I do believe the private sector does have a role to play to ensure safety, I also think the govt also has a role to play as well (both when it comes to ensuring certain safety guidelines and when it comes to investigating potential terrorists and stopping terrorists). While I think their current approach is not the right one, I do think the govt has an important role in ensuring our safety.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Subject
Amazingly, you may touch any body part, and if you are so compelled and if you find a woman, man, child or baby sexually attractive enough you may even visually inspect their anuses, breasts, penises and vaginas. But it gets even better for the perverts and pedos! The government allows them to actually touch and stick your fingers inside any orifice of any man, woman, child and baby!
That's right. You do all that you can to try to protect your children from pedo's on the street, and you may even be preaching the importance of chastity and virginity until marriage. Guess what? A perverted or pedophile TSA agent can just rip your childs clothes off and is allowed to happily enter and invade your childs sexual organs. You can bet that the first person to ever touch and enter or violate your childs sexual organs will be a TSA agent.
Absolutely amazing...and the government totally and completely sanctions this. I wonder how Obama would feel if TSA agents were taking turns sticking their fingers inside his virgin daughters vagina.
On the other side of the coin; terrorists are always testing the weaknesses of security. It is not common for them to strap bombs to their women and children so they can blow themselves up to smithereens. They don't see lives as precious and valuable. Heck no; they'd blow up their own grandmother and/or child in a heartbeat.
I'm all for bomb sniffing dogs and bomb puffers. Dogs naturally wanna sniff crotches and butts anyways, and I don't mind if a bomb puffer goes near my crotch or butt. I don't see how either of those would be harmful to children. I believe that form of screening is the most effective of all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If they really did find 130 items...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Think it's bad now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thank you, Mr. Paul
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Go Commando!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I don't want the existence of public safety measures to be solely based on the economic efficiency of having such measures. We (should) value public safety much more than we (should) value economic efficiency. It's generally not the private sectors job to ensure the safety of individuals from criminals and terrorists, it's generally the governments job. Sure, malls may have mall security, but their role is very limited. It's the police's and the governments job to take care of more serious threats to public safety (ie: criminals and terrorists), it's not the malls or the private sectors job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not telling what we found
Drugs? I could care fucking less if they found drugs. The War on Terror is just as much grandstanding as the War on Drugs. I could also care less if they found toiletries or water or whatever the fuck it was they found. If it wasn't an actual incendiary device, I DO NOT FUCKING CARE.
Since they didn't find any, in essence they are just bilking more taxpayer money for Security Theater, to show us who's in charge and to intimidate us. Well, they aren't scaring me.
I wish I was flying this week so I could test the waters of the potential for a civil suit and a fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cost Bennefit Analysis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cost Bennefit Analysis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Job Opportunity..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Citation needed.
To be fair, Ron Paul has always been a proponent of "freedom and responsibility." So, yeah, an airport or airline (more likely the airline would be responsible for the security on the boarding and the flight itself) is free to implement security as it sees fit. But, if it has crappy security, it would be opening itself up to massive civil damages. And, under Paul's philosophy, the government would NOT be there to bail them out.
A track record of quality security combined with respect for the passenger would be a huge competitive advantage for an airline.
The problems with the government solutions are many. They are politically motivated, rather than safety-motivated. They limit us to one solution, whether that solution works or not. They provide way too much power to government agents. They provide little recourse for passengers when the procedures are abusive or inappropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
....where do I sign up for that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But those civil liabilities themselves are a form of govt intervention. Who creates the laws that enable civil liabilities, and who enforces them? The govt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Israel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I got caught
I'm one of them.
Last June, I was flying home from a convention in Ohio. A pair of items I brought with me was a pair of handcuffs (Don't ask if you don't want to hear the answer). I went through PDX (my home airport) easy. No issues (they did a manual scan of my bag and DID see them). On my way home, I was stopped by TSA and they took my cuffs (which were a gift. Again, don't ask).
I recall them even saying that they were on the acceptable list. But the supervisor there was apparently allowed to break the TSA rules and force me to mail them back home (for $50) or dispose of them. Sadly, I didn't have $50 to spend (having just went to a convention), so I decided to have them disposed of. As I was actually boring the plane, they had me do a second check through my bag before I could board.
Apparently, I was a danger to people because of them. I could have.. I dunno.. Hit someone? I mean, I also had my laptop and that couldn't have also been dangerous.
Made the usual complaints and nothing came of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
>> Citation needed.
BP - the public safety aspect of offshore drilling is difficult, sure, but it didn't look like they cared much about PREVENTING the blowout.
Ford Pinto - it was cheaper to pay the damages than to retool the production of the car to prevent the damage caused during a crash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So what about those who can not afford to pay for an airline with good security? Should they be provided with much less security? Should terrorists be allowed to target their airplanes for attacks on buildings who's owners aren't guilty of implementing poor security or choosing to fly or contribute to an airline with poor security?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Subject
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Laws would still exist, as would the courts to settle both criminal and civil disputes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Job Opportunity..
They are not eligible for federal employment.
In contrast to the private contractors that the airports used to use for security, prior to 9/11. They didn't even have to be US citizens.
Mr. Paul needs to review history before he proposes what he does. Governments that contract services give them to the low bidder, the contractor that will hire the cheapest labor. Who except child molesters will take those jobs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, wait. That already happens.
Besides, the point is that, if security were privatized, a highly publicized hi-jacking would destroy an airline's bottom line as surely as a highly publicized crash due to improper maintenance. Safety is a selling point, and no airline is going to want to risk damaging their reputation with a hi-jacking.
Now, just to be clear, I am not entirely opposed to government security. There are pros and cons either way. My point was not to say that government security is always bad, but to counter your blanket assertion that private security is inherently inferior.
However, creating a government agency with no oversight and giving them the right to do whatever they please in the name of security theater is not a proper way to go about it. Certainly, a privately funded security force would want to spend it's money more efficiently and effectively.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, the responsibility part is what's missing, not the government regulation. Regulation is really quite powerless. They can pass a lot of laws and create a lot of "inspection theater," but a corrupt corporation will find ways to sneak around the laws. Meanwhile, honest companies pay the price of increased regulatory costs, which they then pass on to us in the form of higher prices.
Ford Pinto - And why was it cheaper? Because of liability caps. Not to mention that those "in the know" should have faced manslaughter charges. Again lack of responsibility, or accountability, if your prefer that term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Job Opportunity..
Again, I am not completely opposed to a more reasonable government solution, but I want to point out your mis-statement of Paul's position.
Also, didn't your statement just prove his point? If governments contract the cheapest services, don't you think they will also contract the cheapest employees? Especially when that government organization has no oversight or accountability?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boycott Flying!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why are you insistent that it is an either-or proposal? In most cases, especially for a transportation company, safety is an inherent part of economic efficiency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Go Commando!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does this mean they also don't look for links to terrorist organisations? "We've checked and you have never been found guilty - you are approved... as are your 12 cousins... you may all work on the same shift if you like..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Job Opportunity..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Scanners in Canada
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not gonna pass
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Expensive scanners
One thing I have been wondering about- what happens to a woman who is using a sanitary napkin. Does the TSA employee remove it and check it for explosives?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TSA
But seriously, a terrorist bomber could do the exact same thing and still get on a plane with 30 pounds of TNT. His surgeon would have implanted it. Stupid processing is useless, except as a means to terrorize the population.
Wake up and write your senators and congressman: the TSA theatre is no longer serving us. And everyone knows it; the real work must go on running background checks and profiles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
businesses should have to compete. If they do a crappy job, they should go out of business. If planes go down, they should go down. The way how it is, the more terrorism there is , the greater the funding the TSA will get. Thats insane.
Statistically you have higher odds of winning the powerball TWICE than dieing in a terrorist attack, we need to stop being so freaking scared and have businesses think smart rather than having dumb TSA goons grabbing at our private parts. Airlines that are too dumb to put common sense defenses on their planes like locks on doors and guns in cockpits PLAIN SHOULDN'T EXIST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TSA Over The Top, Over Your Body
A song titled, TSA Boots Are Going To Walk All Over You, might make a great sequel to Nancy Sinatra’s “These Boots Are Going To Walk All Over You.”
TSA’s mistreatment, humiliation and general abrasive handling of Americans at airports, may be a portent to Americans (next) getting a Boot in their face if they refuse to be stripped searched, molested or x-rayed before boarding—any form of public transportation; bus, train, cruse ship. It is obvious TSA intends to extend its reach beyond airports; that TSA will blackball Americans from using other forms of public transportation, including preventing Citizens from driving beyond highway checkpoints, for alleged security reasons. TSA appears headed toward shutting down Americans' Right To Travel Freely in their own Country.
The Nazis used national emergency as a premise to repeatedly target, search and detain Germans boarding or taking trains considered political dissidents or morally unfit; Citizens were intentionally delayed by police/military so they would be late or miss work. As a result many Citizens lost there jobs and could not survive.
TSA’s physical searches of air passengers’ private body parts, is intimidating passengers to submit to x-rays scans. Continued Low Radiation Exposure is Accumulative and believed to cause Cancer. Americans need to draw a line in the sand; 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 physically searched at public airports.
The government intends to invade your bedroom. The government purchased hundreds’ of X-Ray Vans that will travel our streets without warrants, x-ray scan, see Americans naked when walking, standing, riding their bike and may—retain your scan-photos.
Government/police will use x-ray vans to peer though Citizens’ homes and vehicles, exposing Americans and their families to radiation; government will view Citizens in their bedrooms. Americans need to ask Obama if independent studies were conducted to determine if Citizens could develop Cancer, if (repeatedly bombarded) by police X-ray scans. It is expected government/police with or without a warrant, will repeatedly X-ray scan a person of interest, in his or her home.
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 thread ]
C'mon...get serious!
There I feel better. Even if people will continue to hear your inaccurate and inappropriate rant.
Dan HArris dharris@en-terpret.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Progress?
Shoe bomber comes along and we catch athletes foot and the security gate starts to smell a little less pleasant.
The Pansy Panty Bomber fails and now we get subjected to porno scanners and groping.
I predict the next step is the rectum bomber which is likely to result in your 'friendly' TSA worker singing and dancing as he asks "What what (in the butt)" as you bend over and spread before boarding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU&feature=player_embedded
This has been a presentation by your local Security Theater. Hope you enjoyed the show.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NEODYMIUM N38
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NEODYMIUM N38
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
TSA is apparently also hiring illegal aliens with forged documentation and clearing them for airport security jobs. See the following: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/dec/tsa-clears-illegal-aliens-work-ny-airport
These actions do not inspire confidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just say no
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Israel
The CBC did an interview with the former (?) head of airport security who said in no uncertain terms that the backscatter xrays are worse than useless. I think the term was fraud, I was only half listening up to that point. And that the pat down wasn't a whole lot better.
What they do do is what any well trained security person does is watch the behaviour of the person to see if they're unusually nervous or amxious, check their flight itinerary for flights and connections that simply don't make sense and a number of other subltle give aways that a person in this position does.
Yes, it's profiling in a sense but it's the same kind of profiling police detectives, customs agents and countless others in security have been doing for a long long time.
Yes, they do use standard xrays mostly at or near the airport entrances which picks up anyone with a belt made of C-4, restrict access to the working areas of the airports such as flight path aprons, baggage and any other place they identify as needed strict control of who gets where and when they do.
Anyway, in my case they can stuff they're back scatter xray (or any other xray that I know of) because I have a programmable pacemaker whose operation could be negatively impacted by too much xray exposure. For example I could have a heart attack right then and there.
They want a pat down they can do it right there as well, in front of everyone which really ought to cut down on the shenanigans or having to explain in front of people who want nothing more than to get on their plane.
And has it occurred to anyone other than this fella that "The Terrorists" (tm) have probably already figured out how to get by these silly things? That is to say the ones that really do know what they're doing?
In the meantime a backscatter xray picture is damn poor porn, if you ask me!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no magic bullet to prevent disasters. However, I tend to believe that the ingenuity of 350 million Americans is more likely to find effective solutions than a few appointed government bureaucrats with no actual stake in safety, but with a definite stake in accepting money and favors from the most corrupt lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: C'mon...get serious!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]