EMI So Scared Of EFF Amicus Brief In MP3Tunes Case, It Asks Court To Reject It

TSA 'Demonstration' Of Gropings Backfires In Congress

from the oops dept

Wed, Nov 24th 2010 2:57pm — Mike Masnick

Apparently the TSA went to Capitol Hill this week to "demonstrate" the new groping pat downs to prove to folks in Congress that they're really not so bad. The only problem? Those watching the gropings seemed to get exactly the opposite sense:

He said that several House staffers were uncomfortable and averted their eyes when the TSA demonstrated an enhanced pat-down in the room of 200 people.

"The dumbest part: they did two pat-down demonstrations -- male on male, and female on female," the House staffer said. And they used a young female TSA volunteer "and in front of a room of 200 people, they touched her breasts and her buttocks. People were averting their eyes. The TSA was trying to demonstrate 'this is not so bad,' but it made people so uncomfortable to watch, that people were averting their eyes."

"They shot themselves in the foot," the staffer continued.

Now, will those in Congress actually do anything about all this? It's really amazing how frequently the TSA and its supporters insist that the gropings "aren't so bad." It really suggests a huge disconnect between what they're doing and what people consider "bad" to be.

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: congress, groping, searches, tsa

51 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TehZomB (profile), 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:05pm

The only way to make this situation worse would be to demonstrate on actual politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:07pm
  
  Re:
  If the president is in such support of this, why doesn't he volunteer his entire family?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He doesn't have to. Neither do members of Congress. They get to skip these procedures.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DS, 24 Nov 2010 @ 4:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And that's sort of the problem.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - interval (profile), 24 Nov 2010 @ 5:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Rose, your icon reminds me of a holy card or a saint's portrait. Every time I glance at it I briefly think the church is about to weigh in.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Nov 2010 @ 11:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My icon is actually a photo of me... So the idea of it being holy is slightly disturbing. :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich Kulawiec, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:45pm
  
  Re:
  "...to demonstrate on actual politicians."
  No...on their children. Let's see how many support this after watching their 7-year-old child get sexually assaulted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Todd, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:26pm

TSA should just be dismantled and we should return to the same standards used in most of the civilized world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:28pm

Was this captured on cspan on other network?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:30pm
  
  Re:
  Clearly not. Networks aren't allowed to broadcast adult material, even if it's softcore.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - interval (profile), 24 Nov 2010 @ 5:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Ha ha ha ha!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:37pm

Put the TSA on the borders! Thats where we need them. Borders wide the hell open but you need to grab my balls when I fly from Cali to GA? WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:42pm

I want to see these congress members get pat downs or scans. This is ridiculous, why are they exempt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2010 @ 9:44pm
  
  Re:
  Because some animals are more equal than others
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScaredOfTheMan, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:45pm

Red Herring
The Pat downs are a Red Herring to keep us from rejecting the full body nudie scan. There is no way the Pat downs can continue, I think their purpose is to make the nudie scan more palatable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rec9140, 27 Nov 2010 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re: Red Herring
  "The Pat downs are a Red Herring to keep us from rejecting the full body nudie scan. There is no way the Pat downs can continue, I think their purpose is to make the nudie scan more palatable"
  
  DING! DING ! DING!
  
  We have a winner some one finally gets it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
angal2 (profile), 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:45pm

There's a video clip in the linked article of Janet Napolitano talking about the pat-downs. She says, "Most Americans are not used to a real law enforcement pat-down like that." Could that be because most Americans are not used to being treated like a criminal for wanting to board an airplane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:51pm
  
  Re:
  Of course Napolitano is dimwit anyways. She was a terrible governor for Arizona, she said publicly that illegal aliens crossing the border was not criminal it was civil, and on and on.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:48pm

People can't stand facing the truth.
For instance, when I remind that the US is still slaughtering people daily in Iraq and Afghanistan, most will manage to blur their minds and forget it the next instant. And anyone so sensitive that they can't stand watching a TSA grope can't possibly understand what goes on in Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DS, 24 Nov 2010 @ 4:43pm
  
  Re: People can't stand an asshole
  I corrected the title for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 3:54pm

Oh, and look at the latest headlines from the MSM

Airport protest never takes off, few delays seen

http://channels.isp.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-+&idq=/ff/story/1001%2F20101 124%2F2679.htm&sc=+&floc=NI-nelead

These people clearly have an agenda and I see no reason to trust anything they say, including their survey data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sarah Black (profile), 24 Nov 2010 @ 4:25pm
  
  Re:
  Fliers Claim TSA Have Deactivated Body Scanners
  http://gizmodo.com/5698536/fliers-claim-tsa-have-deactivated-body-scanners
  
  You cannot protest usage of a device which is not being used.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 7:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You can, but it would be a waste of time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 4:08pm

I work for an extremely large global company. I know people driving hours when they would have otherwise flown. This is going to impact productivity if it continues. We Americans are a distrustful bunch when it comes to government and have been for hundreds of years, especially when we find the same rules do not apply to our government officials. This rise of a ruling class who certain laws do not apply to is everything our constitution was intended to protect against. Whether it is taxes they choose not to pay or TSA pat downs they are excluded from I think the average citizen has had enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval (profile), 24 Nov 2010 @ 5:05pm
  
  Re:
  Not distrustful enough, imo. Maybe this will tip the balance back to where it should be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 6:10pm

...and she said that those pornoscans are coming to terrestrial and maritime points too.

They want to grope everyone.

Sigh that is why everyone drives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2010 @ 11:19pm
  
  Re:
  I've only seen the US/Mexico border checkpoints on TV, but do they grope people driving back from Mexico? Canada?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2010 @ 8:13am

I hope the US likes being segregated from the rest of the world, because honestly it's not worth being gate raped to come visit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2010 @ 9:44am

When I see the officials of the TSA going through their own security, I might consider it. Otherwise I'll just drive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody, 25 Nov 2010 @ 3:55pm

So... Do we care enough about our safety to be willing to do this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- USPatriot, 27 Nov 2010 @ 6:21pm
  
  Re: Safety?
  TSA is not about safety. How many children have blown up planes, or old women in wheel chairs etc. It is muslim males between the ages of 17 and 45. And they get a pass. They refuse a pat down and the scan. So now how safe do you feel? And targeting people who object to this invasion by strangers? TSA calls them "domestic terrorists!" See article on Richond Patriots web site. Setting up for tyranny in the banana republic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anothermike, 29 Nov 2010 @ 3:57pm
  
  Re:
  So... Do I care enough about your illusion of safety to surrender my rights?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 26 Nov 2010 @ 8:04am

I watched an interview of Hillary Clinton. She was asked if she would be comfortable going through a full body scanner. She said "No, I wouldn't".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 26 Nov 2010 @ 10:36am

TSA bashing again
So, it is fine for the police, etc., to do exactly the same thing (well, maybe more intrusively) to prevent a criminal act of some sort, but horrifying for the TSA to try to prevent terrorists from killing hundreds?
So horrifying, apparently, that unless the TSA can show 100 percent effectiveness, it is not allowed, while the police can be somewhat effective (as well as more aggressive) and it is fine?

Beam me up, Scotty, there is no intelligent life here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz, 26 Nov 2010 @ 11:22am
  
  Re: TSA bashing again
  So, it is fine for the police, etc., to do exactly the same thing (well, maybe more intrusively) to prevent a criminal act of some sort...
  
  Umm..actually no Gene it is not fine for the police to do anything of the sort to prevent a criminal act.
  
  Beam me up, Scotty, there is no intelligent life here!
  
  I agree... seems to be no intelligent life at your house what so ever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Headbanger, 26 Nov 2010 @ 11:50am
  
  Re: TSA bashing again
  The police don't get to indiscriminately sexually assault individuals for no particular reason. They have to get a warrant or have to be exhibiting discretion in a narrow set of 4th amendment exceptions.
  
  The TSA has not proven any measure of success - only made claims based on information that they refuse to disclose to any measurable extent to face scrutiny. Of course, if you have information to the contrary, please share.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 26 Nov 2010 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re: TSA bashing again
  uh, the police cannot just pat you down... that would fall under unlawful search and seizure. They can only search you if they are arresting you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck, 28 Nov 2010 @ 7:20am
    
    Re: Re: TSA bashing again
    Where did you get your law degree? Sorry, but this is totally incorrect. Police can stop and frisk you any time they have reasonable suspicion. This was upheld by the US Supreme Court in the 1968 case Terry vs. Ohio.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2010 @ 9:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: TSA bashing again
      They can frisk the outside of your clothes. They can not stick their hands down your pants and grope your genitals without a search warrant.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- guest, 28 Nov 2010 @ 6:49pm
  
  Re: TSA bashing again
  TSA has never caught a single suspect. They've never even participated in the investigations; outside of their jurisdiction.
  And the new measures are no more effective for catching the last dozen terror suspects that any already in place. Dogs at the airport would be more effective, more cost efficient, and better received.
  The fact that you think using such clearly useless measures is "intelligent" and that expecting reasonableness from the govt is stupidity speaks volumes, good sir.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shoe, 26 Nov 2010 @ 1:30pm

Israel is safe without such abuse...
Somehow, Israel keeps the rights of their citizens and their visitors in mind, yet still keeps their airports safe.

But us? We seem to think it is necessary to threaten either over-exposure to radiation (think about folks who fly twice a week for their jobs) or submit to sexual impropriety.

Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ernest C., 26 Nov 2010 @ 6:37pm

Get off your high horse.
Everyone wan't to be safe. These same people would be utterly outraged if something were to happen on a flight they were on because someone placed a wallet sized packet of C4 under their breast or somewhere in their genetalia. I am not saying that its the right thing to do to pat everyone down, its pretty invasive. I would not react as agressively as most consumers have. The TSA has said that the pat down is only a proceedure used when all other means of search have failed. The body scan is not as invasive as people like to believe it is. It is as safe as a CT scan and emits little radiation at all, ITS NOT AN XRAY! The scanners have no storage or transmitting capabilities either. "Private parts" do not show in detail, all that is seen is a silhouette. The purpose is to show foreign objects and not body parts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 27 Nov 2010 @ 8:46am
  
  Re: Get off your high horse.
  "It has been estimated that CT radiation exposure will result in 29,000 new cancer cases just from the CT scans performed in 2007."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CT_scan
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- guest, 28 Nov 2010 @ 6:41pm
  
  Re: Get off your high horse.
  All pics are stored on the network server for at least 6 months before being moved to other storage means, as per federal regulations. And no Privacy acts cover the pictures, so they are freely available, and "unclassified" materials. The US Marshals have already admitted to having files prepped to store for a minimum of 2 years all scans that go through.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2010 @ 1:23am

Another problem with the TSA patting people down is that a simple laptop battery if shorted could probably put a hole in an airplane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 28 Nov 2010 @ 6:44am

revenge
If " terrorists' really want to take revenge they just need to find a goofball jihadist / easy task/ who would be willing to try to board an airplane with a stick of dynamite up in his back end.
Imagine , cavity search at airports ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nasch (profile), 28 Nov 2010 @ 7:42pm

On purpose?
I wonder if they did this to get Congress to tell them to stop doing it. That would be politically easier than admitting it's a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
canadian, 29 Nov 2010 @ 7:33pm

who has the time?
god, it must take forever to pat you guys down there in the U.S. why don't you blame the government for how fat you are while you're at it? most of you are teaming blobs of complaining fat vomit, so surely there's no incentive to nudie-scan or pat most of you down. trust me. security is the only possible reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2010 @ 12:19am

I don't care how "racist" this sounds. I think that they should just scale back security at airports to the levels it was pre-911 and racially profile Islamic people. Period.

When was the last time you heard about a 75 year old woman or a 12 year old caucasian boy committing an act of airline terrorism? NEVER. The simple fact is that the people they should be looking for to put through additional screening should be Arabic males aged 16 to 45. It doesn't matter how you want to slice it. It doesn't matter if it's "racist" or "insensitive". None of those labels are going to change the fact that roughly 90% of all the airline terrorist acts that have occurred in the last 15 years have been committed by Arabic males aged 16 to 45.

Sorry Islamic people, but your brethren f*cked it up for you. As far as I'm concerned you should suffer since you are the minority here. There is, and never has been, any palatable reason to suspect the vast majority of people now subject to these horrendous security measures. There is, unfortunately, plausable reason to suspect people of your race. Sorry, but those are the facts. Deal with it or don't fly.

If, as the TSA says, the goal of these invasive procedures is additional security, then why are they not specifically targetting the highest risk group more than the others?

You know what the real kicker is in all of this, is that Arabs get a free pass past all this additional screening by claiming that it violates their "religious beliefs". So basically at the end of the day these additional measures completely invalidate themselves by specifically excluding the very group of people most likely to be a security risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 30 Nov 2010 @ 7:44am
  
  Re:
  As far as I'm concerned you should suffer since you are the minority here.
  
  You didn't have alarm bells ringing in your head when you wrote this part?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
QueenB**ch, 30 Nov 2010 @ 5:06am

TSA = Jackbooted Thugs
Not only that, but because all of us have objected to the "scope or grope" publically, we're now "dissidents" and have been placed on watch lists! Talk about a police state... G(**&^! Brown Shirt Jackbooted Gestapo THUGS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]