Want To Grope People At Random In Airports (Not Just At Security)? Join The TSA!
from the well,-you-look-kinda-cute... dept
The TSA's sexual assault-as-security theater continues. The latest involves reports from a woman, who, despite having already cleared security at LaGuardia airport, was approached by a TSA agent near the gate for her flight, and told that he had to give her a pat-down on the spot, ordering her to drop her things and assume a spread-eagle position against the wall, at which point, he "patted her down," grabbing her breasts, thighs and crotch. The woman claims that two other women were given similar "security treatments," which to most people would sound like a public sexual assault. The TSA was asked about this and said it could not comment "because of security concerns." Yes, so apparently, if you want to sexually assault women at will, the TSA is the place to be and they'll cover it up for you, due to "security concerns."
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: airports, patdowns, sexual assault, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ 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 ]
Great Employment Opportunity!
Damn that airport smoking ban!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's done.
The wife drove to New York a few days ago and it's getting... desperate.
On topic now: Hey, don't forget! The TSA has the power, if it so chose to use it, to have each and every person strip naked to board that plane!
Personally, I wish they'd go ahead and do it. One view with a naked grandma and TSA agents wouldn't even wait the two weeks for prior notice, thus ending this charade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I read that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did I read that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did I read that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did I read that right?
However after reading a bit more it looks like standard TSA incinerating the constitution with little to no oversight. As sad as it is I'm not overly surprised by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Did I read that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I read that right?
Probably doesn't make this woman feel any better about it.
Of course none of this makes it actually okay in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Did I read that right?
> that same gender does the pat downs
Most men would find it *more* offensive and uncomfortable to be intimately groped by another man than by a woman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did I read that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hot == Harassment
Not Hot == Valid security concern?
Seriously though, the TSA is shady shady.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
valid security concern
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* the above statement need not apply to unattractive females, those with a penis, or any dangerous individuals whom we should have stopped but are too idiotic to catch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wer nichts zu verbergen hat, hat nichts zu bef�rchten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like there is a whole other side to this story. Want to bet the "victim" is a blogger or professional complainer looking for some media attention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which, I'm sure, makes it a much more pleasant experience for the woman being groped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't blame the authorities, blame the criminals who use these methods to commit their crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
BULL FUCKING SHIT!
Blame the assholes that think their lead star gives them free fucking rein to do whatever the hell they want, no matter how vile, disgusting and unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From 1976 to today, more than 1200 offenders have been put to death in the United States. During this same period, almost 140 convicts on death row have been exonerated of their crimes. These figures are troubling. The number of individuals on death row that have been exonerated is almost 12% of the total number of offenders executed.
It's better to execute 100 innocent people than to have 1 guilty person go free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
guns, knives, cars, phones, the internet... I'm forgetting something, oh yeah, the TSA. Lets ban them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I also blame any enforcement agent that thinks those things help, when clearly, clearly they don't.
Look what even law enforcement officers have to say about it.
http://leap.cc/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And what does that have to do with protecting the aircraft and its passengers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She is an urban planner, from her linked in:
Current:
Program Officer at Local Initiatives Support Corporation
Past:
Program Coordinator at openhousenewyork inc, Research Associate at Center for an Urban Future, Cafe Manager at Drench Kiss Media / Vox Pop, Fellow...
She has a very tiny online persona, and no blog. Turns out this is old news too I found stories about her from August '10.
Looks like i win the bet, whats my prize?
Although I do agree that people like to attach scarier words to the pat down, like grope and grab where more gentle words like rubbing and lifting would work. However I don't think semantics really matters. If I rubbed somebodies bra line on a train they would feel violated, no more or less so if I put a good solid squeeze in there too, the fact that TSA is getting paid to do it doesn't make people feel less violated. The question is do the security concerns > peoples feelings of being violated. Personally I would say no.
The strawmen your reaching for, she leaned on a security door or strayed into a restricted area are pretty weak. From the four reports I read on it would seem she was walking from security to her gate. If there was a reason she was never given one. And 2 other women were searched in the same area so I doubt the all leaned against the same door. Also the reports all mention people walking by and watching which was part of why she felt violated. If she was somewhere she shouldn't be there wouldn't be a bunch of other people walking around.
I agree there is another side to this story, unfortunately I disagree that "The TSA agents are not wandering around the airport looking for people to grope," because apparently they are. Either this TSA agent was doing her job as instructed, which is fucked up, or she was going beyond her duties and just groping women for the hell of it, which is also fucked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Drench Kiss is a multi-media attack that includes print publishing, new media, and innovative projects in television and film. Drench Kiss publishes books that are so truthful, so powerful, other publishers are frightened of them."
and:
"Drench Kiss Media Corporation has a solution: The Truth Destabilizes Tyranny."
thanks for your reasearch, you have actually helped to debunk the story. This woman sounds like a professional complainer and activist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you can't argue against the message, try to destroy the messenger is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all, but nice attempted deflection. My point is that certain types of people will take something minor, and convert it into a whole song and dance. We end up with words like "groped" getting used, and of course the whole "I was in tears" routine. It is hard to imagine that an activist type wouldn't be trying to expand the truth to make a point.
Considering her involvement with Vox Pop, which appears to be run by a "9/11 truther" (someone who thinks that the government did it), you really have to wonder about how this person sees reality.
It isn't a question of denying her claim. Rather, I wonder how much of the story has been "enhanced" for her benefit, and now I really do wonder if she did something overt to try to cause an issue in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What she does for a living doesn't justify what happened, nor does it justify the continued erosion of civil liberties in the US in the name of some mirage of security. (And FYI: it's because of "professional complainers and activists" that you HAVE ANY RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, from minimum wage and safe working conditions to the right to spout idiotic BS on the internet. So I guess... you're welcome?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This right here destroys anything and everything you have to say. Hard core republicans / conservatives / whatever the hell you call yourselves, just as much as the hardcore liberals / democrats / whatever they call themselves are all such very close minded individuals. They only see what their party masters holding the chains that bind them want them to see. Facts and truth be damned!
God you people are stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The validity of facts and truth (especially when they are only a single person's account of a story) have to be weighed against their own credibility in the issue. For me, she is the perfect candidate to be complaining about this sort of thing. I have no doubt at all reading her story that the truth is rather far from how she is portraying it. I don't think she is intentionally lying or anything, I just think she is adding greatly to the story in order to try to create outrage where none is merited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the US, maybe. For almost everywhere else, that's far right.
(Note: that does NOT mean Far Right as in Combat 18 or White Wolves)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your response actually smells very much more like just a bit of "I will say this to try to make this guy look wrong, even though he was right", but I will give you a benefit of a doubt here.
IF that is the case, then you can simply replace the "yourselves" with "themselves" where I refer to republicans, and you still fall under that category by labeling this woman as a far left socialist complainer. Like it is some sort of group. You can label her a complainer, but tossing the rest in there still makes you appear very close minded.
You are welcome to bend over for the TSA but the rest of us won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're right, managing a cafe at a media company's office definitely makes you deeply responsible for the content of that company's media.
Seriously, I am completely at a lack of words to explain how thoroughly you have made me dismiss any point you may at one time have thought you were making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your life must be so boring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thats funny im pretty sure Mike says this to you on a weekly basis.
I agree, as i think I stated earlier, that news stories and Ill even go so far to agree the sometimes victims may even blow things out of proportion. That doesn't change the fact that getting felt up while just trying to go about your life shouldn't be normal. Its called my bathing suit area, I was taught when i was 6 that I don't have to let anyone touch me there, and if they do tell a responsible adult, like maybe a government official. I could bring a bomb on a train, to the mall, to the federal court house, to Mcdonalds, or into the Sears tower. Do i have to be fondled to go to the mall? Are my chances of getting blown up similiar, yeah, do I want everyone to be searched to guarantee my safety? no. What about banks? Those get robbed all the time we should start doing random strip searches there.
"You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane"*
So maybe they should be spending this money making sure less planes crash instead of buying their scanners and employing more feelers.
"You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack"
Can I get a TSA agent to come inspect my bed for safety hazards before i sleep? Maybe they could make sure I am in the proper mental and physical state to sleep too, for my safety.
"You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack" Can we get some gov agents near every body of water and faucet please!
The best part is the new security doesnt really make you any safer. Its already been reported that the TSA fails its own tests on the system regularly. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/security-fail-loaded-gun-passes-through-tsa-screening/
So lets lay this out.
We are violating peoples privacy and physical space (If anyone but the TSA was doing this it would be a crime)
We are doing this for safety
What we are doing doesnt actually make anyone safer
So why are we doing it? For fun, for theater, to say we are doing "something" none of these are a legitimate excuse.
*http://newsblaze.com/story/20090221100148tsop.nb/topstory.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are significantly more likely to die on the way to the airport than in an airplane. It does not in any way make an airplane more safe.
While you are much more likely to die in a crash than a terrorist act aboard a plane, one would have to wonder if those numbers would be different if there was no security check points and no action taken to screen flyers. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember a time when it seemed every other plane was being hijacked to Cuba. Perhaps you don't remember terrorist acts against flights from Israel, which only stopped when they started doing extensive screening and scanning.
The rest of your rant is a rant, meaningless as it comes. Are you truly that bored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also did you know that the Israeli agent responsible for security in airports there called American stupid for using those scanners?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One year odds are approximated by dividing the 2000 population (275,306,000) by the number of deaths. Lifetime odds are approximated by dividing the one-year odds by the life expectancy of a person born in 2000 (76.9 years)."
In one year (circa 2000) your odds of dying by:
Assault by firearm----25,489
Drowning and submersion---- 1,191,801
Firearm discharge ---- 1,196,983
Contact with venomous animals and plants ---- 3,441,325
Falling, jumping, or pushed from a high place ---- 5,005,564
Struck by lightning (2010) ---- 1 in 500,000
Odds of dying by terrorism ---- 1 in 25 million
---------------------------------------------------
And if I remember, TSA has yet to catch ONE terrorist. ONE in the last few years, hence the name of security theater. You do NOT need to grab a person's private parts for security. They react to things happening OUTSIDE of the US, as if to make people safer.
Now, if you haven't done your research also consider that the body scanning machines caused a HUGE stink because the (former) CEO of TSA profits from them directly. The "security protocol" has a lot of detractors because it's too invasive on personal liberties and the airplane industry is suffering all the more for it.
Also, your last statement seems more anecdotal. I remember one terrorist flight in 1972 regarding the Olympics and Israel. They have less security (also, smaller airline) and didn't have a problem.
Let's also consider that BEFORE the TSA's inanity, there was no problem with the airline committee and passengers stopping terrorists. The passengers have FAR MORE to gain by stopping a terrorist (their FRIGGIN LIVES!!!) than the TSA.
Of course, if a terrorist really wanted to commit, they'd just blow up in the line to the plane. Not something to condone, it is something to consider when trying to say someone doesn't think about all the possibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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 ]
this would actually be a green measure. imagine the drop in air travel, the savings in fuel, the decrease in carbon emissions, the decreased middle east funding of extremists and terrorists.
why travel, anyway? take care of thing by video-tele-conference. and if subtle body language cues aren't really discernable, ask that everyone use emoticons to make things easier.
so I'm waiting for the first pedophile hired by TSA to be exposed patting down kids. They're always pushing on security doors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suckers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Career Change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Career Change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stare...
We have become the thing we despise. Seeking security, we have lost of freedom.
Terrorists - 1, America - 0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes indeed.
I'd rather live with any amount of 'issues' as long as my rights are intact. Rights trump all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- The right to be groped by unqualified "staff" (oh yes, again!)
- The right to have their x-ray taken (and possibly exposed)
- The right be jailed for taking pictures of farms (moooo)
- The right to be mass-sued by bullies (the american dream!)
- The right to NOT investigate disasters (Ok, CNN doesn't count).
- The right to vote for 2 retarded parties that will drive their country further into the ground.
- Etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
happened to me at midway friday afternoon
A guy in my row commented to me that he would have gotten pissed if it had been him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: happened to me at midway friday afternoon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: happened to me at midway friday afternoon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So maybe they should be spending this money making sure less planes crash instead of buying their scanners and employing more feelers.
"You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack"
Can I get a TSA agent to come inspect my bed for safety hazards before i sleep? Maybe they could make sure I am in the proper mental and physical state to sleep too, for my safety.
"You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack" Can we get some gov agents near every body of water and faucet please!
And you are probably 40,000 times more likely to die in a car accident than any of those... easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack"
according to the site i linked, I agree though I actually was looking for car accident comparison when i found that site, and had a number in my head around 40,000x.
My favorite though is
"You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack"
or this one
"You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack"
The us government beings "the war on hot air" today with "operation fan old people"
I hope are next war on "intangible unstoppable enemy" is "the war on vomit" or "the war on foods that are not liquid thin mush"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does that mean we can kill all political types? After all, they expel a lot fo it, but don't actually do very much about the whole situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they say no, I could tell them I am gay so kind of need a woman so I won't get excited?
Will have to try to find some hot female TSA agents first though, that could be difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scanners
I just got a great idea! They should just make glasses with the scanning technology, then the TSA agents will be able to 'scan' passing 'threatening' looking people at their pleasure. I mean, leisure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Airports
[ link to this | view in chronology ]