TSA Warns That If You Wear Scanner Resistant Clothing, They'll Have To Grope You
from the public-service-announcement dept
With the new TSA naked scanners getting so much attention late last year, a number of different folks started offering up special clothing to wear while going through the scanners. My favorite might be the undergarments with the 4th Amendment printed in metallic ink, so that whoever is viewing the scan can see the "message" left for them. Others apparently created special "flying pasties" (possibly NSFW). While it looks like those "stickers" to put over your private parts didn't actually have anything in them to block the scanner (making them something of a scam), it appears the TSA is warning anyone who might think of wearing scanner resistant clothing. Consumerist points us to a blog post from the TSA, in which they warn anyone who plans to wear such clothing that might "conceal sensitive areas," that it will only mean that you're more likely to get groped.So basically, passengers should be aware that the use of these types of products will likely result in a pat-down. Some might think this is TSA's way of getting back at clever passengers. That's not the case at all. It's just security.Seems a bit high on the passive-aggressive scale.
We're certainly not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't buy or wear, but I feel it's only fair to give you a heads up on your choice of attire.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So if scanning and/or patting down is CRITICAL to security, why aren't you patting people down at airports that don't have these scanners? How stupid do you think these terrorist are that they wouldn't go to a small regional airport, get through the metal detectors, and fly to a major airport...pat downs and scanners easily avoided by the ones you are really trying to catch.
January 7, 2011 9:16 PM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, and of course, the people I visit live in a nice quiet small town with a barely accessible airport and the security there is quite lovely, no scanners and high-fives and smiles all around.
I do feel quite lucky that my only need to fly is still so comfortable, not having to worry about the TSA terrorizing me. But I can't imagine how awful it is for all the less fortunate people who are now having to find alternate means of cross country travel, or accept being violated at an airport.
[ 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 ]
They should make some that say
"If you can read this, you are violating my rights"
or maybe
"Am I safe yet?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thing about our version, was it in no way impeded the job of TSA agents. In fact, it didn't even say 'don't search me', so any claim by TSA agents that our line could be seen as interfering is false. Unlike some of the others, nothing gets in the way of what they're peering at. The only point was to get people to think more about their rights.
Tim Geoghegan
Timmovations LLC
4th Amendment Wear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I like to remind everyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As I like to remind everyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As I like to remind everyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pat Downs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pat Downs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pat Downs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a waste of resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is sort of obvious, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honestly, if you have security procedures that require looking at genitalia, you're doing it wrong (or right, maybe, if you are into that kinky stuff.) It doesn't help security, and it only inconveniences the honest, non-terrorist folks as the terrorists just side-step the whole process.
The fact that a terrorist can easily bypass the security procedures in place by inserting bombs into orifices which aren't detected by the scan, or by putting bombs into air cargo, going to an airport which lacks the additional security, or detonating them in a busy airport checkpoint is what makes this all academic. Sure, having security procedures in place is good, terrorists have to keep guessing on whether they will trigger a trap or not. But making the process ridiculous adds no more security than having a sane process in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
... and acting irresponsibly and mocking the procedure isn't very sane either.
If you want to protest, do it somewhere else then in front of me at the airport. If the TSA wants a picture of my nutsack, they are welcome to it. I don't care. It's just a nutsack. If you want to keep your nutsack out of the image and piss and moan about it, do it somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People have every right to fly and to wear clothes with metallic ink if they want. If you want to piss and moan about that, then you should do it somewhere else. Like, perhaps, in a country that doesn't have freedom as its first principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hope the agent has a big, fresh load of infectious disease organisms all over his hands from the person in front of you. And since they don't change those rubber gloves between examinations, that's a real good possibility.
They are the one getting the stink finger, not me.
Heh, you just might be getting more than you realize. Let us know when your "pasty white ass" rots off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When have I ever said that I protested in an airport? When have I acted irresponsibly? Sure, I mock procedure here, but I've been through the rape-scan device several times, and all I hope is that the person behind the curtain got an eyeful. The problem is that neither you nor I are a security risk, and while some security is good (as I said before,) going overboard is a problem, no matter what side of the security scanner you are on.
Since when has thoughtful protest (even at the airport) not been a right in a free country. If you don't like Freedom, I am sure they have a place for you in Iran.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you want to protest, don't protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Major BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thats actually cheap and easy, latex rubber or latex foam appliances (body parts) filled with something that approximates the density of human fat or muscle. Shove what ever you want in it, Glue it on and you are done. Or you can hide it where the sun don't shine, or ... all in all the naked body scanners are pretty worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots.
What it all comes down to common sense and indiviudals. No ones the same, no one has the exact same opinions, ideas or mind. Be it good or bad, everyone differs and that will never change which is why there is never a full proof solution to anything because you can not provide security against a billion differing opinions. This is god damn common sense. What you do is provide as much as a deterrent as you can because, again, it doesn't get better than offering that minor peace of mind.
Poster #18 (Itlwolf is the exception to this rant, as he appears to have common sense) thank god someone does. The rest of you are blind idiots who deserved to be treated the wya you have because YOU are the hinderence to the only minor thing we can use to help prevent terrorists. You make me sick. Thanks for listening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots.
So why spend billions of dollars, huge amounts of lost time, 4th Ammendment/privacy violations, etc. on procedures that add a minute (negligible) amount of improvement? The costs are high, and the limitations well known and significant.
Despite the vast sums spent on airport security, it has not stopped a single threat from getting on a plane. All the plots since 9/11 have completely bypassed the entire TSA checkpoint. Why spend tons of money and give up freedom for it, when you get nothing tangible in return?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I went through security acting deliberately suspicious, wearing this scanner resistant clothing and such, in a deliberate attempt to get called for a patdown *specifically because* I actually do want someone handling my junk (and/or putting things into my ass for a more extreme search) because, I dunno, I'm weird and that kinda thing gets me off, and it's clear to the TSA agent who is dealing with me that I'm enjoying it...
Is that sexual harassment? Like, is the TSA agent being sexually harassed? Keeping in mind that I've specifically set up a situation where my genitals are being fondled because I enjoy that.
Please note the use of "I" is purely hypothetical in this question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No real theat to our airplanes is going to be deterred by a system with very visible flaws.
Aside from that, it's fucking insensitive to people who have been abused in the past. It's not idiotic at all to call out the farse that this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really passive-aggressive
However, it really only stands to reason that, if you make an overt effort to avoid a security measure (putting aside the question of whether the security measure is reasonable in the first place), you will then be subject to greater scrutiny.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not really passive-aggressive
Kind of "just asking for it", huh? Kind of like how if a woman dresses a certain way or walks a certain way, she's "just asking for it" too. Yeah, I see how that works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
9/11 changed the rules forever.
#1) No airplane full of passengers will ever sit quitely and obey the hijackers orders ever again because none of them are willing to be used as a weapon against thier own (or any other) people. Flight 93 proved that on the very day, they got wind of the plan and fought back. Each and every attempt since then has been thwarted by the passengers. Frankly I am annoyed at how little press these incidents are given in the USA.
And
#2 The airlines were forced to remake the cockpit doors to prevent anyone from the passenger crew from being able to get into the cockpit.
Further I personally believe that every time the TSA violates a citizen's rights or person the Terrorists win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, the TSA wins. They out to prove that they can do more to stamp out freedom than those other terrorists ever dreamed of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What If ...
And to answer "anonymous", a lot of people in this country feel that these procedures are a violation of the constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable searches. They feel that it is their duty as a citizen to resist these procedures as much as they can in order to uphold these constitutional principles. There may well be court decisions to the contrary. Well, there were court decisions that approved of the incarceration of Japanese-Americans (many of them American citizens) without due process or any evidence or wrongdoing during World War II too. Doesn't mean it's right or not a gross violation of someone's constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i beg to differ
We Say: we don't know how your site can call us a scam without even contacting us and inquiring what's inside our pasties? We would have gladly mentioned to you that our pasties DO in fact have '3' materials that will either block or deflect harmful radiation...and KEEP your privacy (our main objective). In fact, our pasties have a secret "pasty girl" that would clearly show up in any airport scanner! ;-)
Please be kind and write a retraction. Thank you.
Best,
- flying pasties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's pathetic, our security is a complete waste of billions of dollars and Jared Loughner shoots 13 people before being restrained by two civilians.
and now Obama wants to Create Internet ID for All Americans.
Here is the alleged reason why this is needed.
"What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities"
As mikeman2 in the comments section pointed out.
"So let me get this straight, President Obama is worried about my need to remember passwords in a world where the government is close to insolvency, public education is in shambles, and illegal immigrants continue to come across the border in droves? "
As Consecrated2God points out
"I manage my passwords just fine, but even if I didn't, that just doesn't seem like anything that is in the realm of government oversight."
and as rlj points out
"My fear of it ... is based in the fact I have never seen any reason I should trust the government with my personal data. From the data that was lost to Wikileaks to the number of misplaced laptops to the foolish errors by government workers that put trojans on their machines I simply don't trust the feds to have them oversee my online transactions this way."
These people are the very definition of incompetence. Why should we allow them to manage our passwords? Seems more like a security threat than anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you made me spit out coffee all over the keyboard and display
Thank You!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What TSA wants..??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]