TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure

from the only-the-tsa-can-touch-you-this-way dept

Thu, Apr 14th 2011 9:54am — Mike Masnick

There have been plenty of concerns about the new TSA groping procedures, especially when it comes to little children, who are properly taught from a young age that it's inappropriate for people to touch them in certain ways. Many people were quite reasonably horrified when the TSA suggested that agents tell kids that the patdown was just a game -- as that's the type of language used by child sex offenders.

Apparently, the TSA remains completely tone deaf on this issue. Jonathan Adler notes "only the TSA can touch you this way," in referencing the anger felt by the parents of a 6-year old girl who broke down crying after going through the patdown process. The girl's mother, Selena Drexel, pointed out:

"We struggle to teach our kids to protect themselves, to say 'no, it's not ok to touch me in this way in this area. Yet here we are saying it's ok for these people."

The family videotaped the incident, as you can see here: At the end of this post, we also have a clip of the parents appearing on TV discussing the incident, their daughter's reaction and how they feel about the whole thing.

Given the attention this story is getting, the TSA published a blog post, and in true tone deaf fashion, defended the patdown as being "standard operating procedures":

A video taken of one of our officers patting down a six year-old has attracted quite a bit of attention. Some folks are asking if the proper procedures were followed. Yes. TSA has reviewed the incident and the security officer in the video followed the current standard operating procedures.

The TSA does not respond to the rather serious issues of how do you teach children that they shouldn't be touched in this manner... but it's okay if a stranger in an airport does it. Does the TSA truly believe that groping a 6-year-old girl and reaching into the waistband of her pants is making us safer?

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: children, patdowns, tsa

248 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 9:02am

TSA - Totally Sexually Assaulted.

Were I that father I'd tell them there's a kickbomb aiming for their crotch and I'd demand their IDs so I could complain all the way up the chain to whichever fuckwit decided that this was a good idea and bomb them off the planet.

"But orders are orders!" I hear you cry. Tough shit. If you touched my 4-year-old daughter in that way, you'd be watching my fist hit your face until you were a bloody pulp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Carmichael, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:29am
  
  Re:
  You can do whatever you want if you have a uniform and a law backing you up. It doesn't really matter what the law is, or if it makes any sense, or how it was passed and how long ago.
  
  And yes I would have definitely asked for IDs and complained. Though the bloody pulp thing... maybe not at the airport. In my backyard, maybe :P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pseudonym, 14 Apr 2011 @ 7:50pm
    
    Isn't there ANY legal redress?
    Someone with some legal qualifications, please help me out here.
    
    First off, private prosecutions are, as far as I know, still legal in most places in the US.
    
    Secondly, assault is not just a crime, it's also a tort, so anyone should (in theory) be able to bring civil proceedings if they have been assaulted.
    
    Has this happened yet, and if not, what's stopping it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LumpyDog (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:35am
  
  Re:
  Glad I'm not the only one who had this reaction. Yes the TSA agent is being professional, and yes she's just doing her job, but so what? It's an invasion none of us, much less a six year-old, should be subjected to. Had that been my daughter -- well, had that been my daughter the agent never would have gotten close to doing what she did -- but, had it come to that, I would have punched a woman for the first time in my life.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Yes the TSA agent is being professional, and yes she's just doing her job..."
    
    This is all the more offensive. If it were someone abusing their authority position and molesting a child, that person would be fired and arrested and tried for the criminal act.
    
    Instead, this is institutionalized and the agent is made to do this as a part of her duties. An institution being abusive is much worse than an individual acting outside of established laws and policies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SomeGuy (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 6:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It may be informative to remember that "I was just following orders" wasn't an acceptible defense for war crimes in WWII...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2011 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was thinking the same thing. Many Nazis used the same rationale to justify their crimes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    What's more fun is none of this theater is stopping 9/11 type threats. They are now trying to stop airline bombings.
    
    The former we solved via the locked reinforced cockpit doors.
    
    So why are we now trying to stop the latter that, one, didn't happen on 9/11, and two, has been going on for decades?
    
    The number of times someone is trying to blow up a plane are so infinitely small and the consequences so limited (but severe) it simply doesn't justify this overboard response.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LumpyDog (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:41am
  
  Re:
  Glad I'm not the only one who had this reaction. Yes the TSA agent is being professional, and yes she's just doing her job, but so what? It's an invasion none of us, much less a six year-old, should be subjected to. Had that been my daughter -- well, had that been my daughter the agent never would have gotten close to doing what she did -- but, had it come to that, I would have punched a woman for the first time in my life.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ppartekim (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:22am
  
  Re:
  They're just teaching her at an early age that the government can and will screw you whether you want it or not and there is nothing you can do about it unless you want to be detained for obstruction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    They're teaching her that anyone in an official looking uniform has the right to touch her like that in a public place with no reason...
    
    I'm gonna go throw up now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gracey (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re: The eejit (TSA-Totally Sexually Assaulted)
  I'm with you on that for sure. I'm pretty much an anti-violence person, but in this case I'd opt for the fist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:15pm
    
    Re: Re: The eejit (TSA-Totally Sexually Assaulted)
    Or a foot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ALLHAILPRINCE (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah you use the word bomb and your ass is getting tackled QUICK ! (maybe go with shot to the nuts?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 9:08am

Liberty must be defended...
Liberty must be defended even from those that say they are protecting it. (Thomas Berg, 2011)

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr136955.html

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga401781.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 9:41am

There is a simple solution:

Don't travel to the U.S. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:13am
  
  Re:
  They are American citizens. Not foreign travelers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Then leave. No one forces you to stay in your bankrupt nation paying taxes to corrupt politicians.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - James Carmichael, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Leave where? You're already living in the best country ever, ever.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't have the money to leave. I've been saving up, but I haven't managed to come up with enough so that once I get where I'm going I don't starve in the streets before I find a job.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just find a civilised country, those are the kind that don't let people starve in the streets.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Skeptical Cynic (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And every other country besides the US does that right? Name a single country that has no homeless. FCK off only socialist countries give the basic food to people and then say work for the good of the state to get no where. You will always be poor but know you are poor with everybody else. While we live rich and (unlike capitalistic countries) you will never have any chance to be among us. We will help you be healthly enough to make us money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rob, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know where you refer to, and I'm certainly not disparaging that country or yours (whether or not they are the same).
        
        However, there are some things you may not have considered about emigration/immigration -- even to nations we'd both consider civilized. I have considered leaving the US, and found some interesting facts about the process.
        
        1. Almost every country has an annual cap.
        2. Almost every country has an upper age limit.
        2a. Age doesn't usually apply if you are retiring there, since you're not entering the labor force.
        3. Preference is given to younger workers. Some formula is usually used when it's a husband/wife couple of different ages.
        4. Certain professions are more sought after. This will vary by country, and will only coincide with one's own profession by chance.
        5. It helps to bring money and/or a business.
        6. Most of the above are used to rank immigrants, and the ranking determines who gets in under the quota.
        7. I have not exhaustively researched every possible destination.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - FarSide (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Then leave. No one forces you to stay in your bankrupt nation paying taxes to corrupt politicians."
      
      Look up 'expatriate tax'
      
      You aren't exactly forced to stay, but you aren't getting out for free, neither.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL i was not aware of that. Thats too funny, especially the way its implemented in the states. Tax you on all your holdings at once as if you had liquidated it. Thats rich. Or poor, depending on your perspective. Also the assumption that anyone moving out worth more than 2 million is doing so for tax purposes? Again, rich.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes because the IRS is likely to run after you in .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 7:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Then leave.
      
      By plane?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re:
  The TSA are not in place at international airports. It is only US citizens, traveling within the country, that are subjected to standard procedure sexual assault.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 9:41am

Gotta Love the TSA
I can just imagine the TSA blogger in question typing out "We checked with our bosses, and molesting young children is, in fact, standard operating procedure" hitting post, and then thinking to himself, "There, that should reassure the public!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:01am

If you don't like the procedures, get in a car and drive yourself to wherever you're going. Either that, or come up with a 100% fool-proof way of detecting any and all potential weapons and release it out into the world for everyone to use. If you can't do either, then drive or take a boat.

All it will take is for another September 11th for these very people to go from "unlawful patdowns" to "Why didn't you protect us???"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  "come up with a 100% fool-proof way of detecting any and all potential weapons"
  
  Sorry, are you claiming that sexually assaulting 6-year-old girls (or anyone else, for that matter) does this? If not, why is it at all relevant?
  
  If you are, then please provide a link to prove it, because it makes absolutely no sense.
  
  At all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well she wasn't actually sexually assaulted.
    
    The people who suffer the most indignity from this ridiculous game are the elderly who are forced to endure these things.
    
    Things may be different for the kids nowadays, but historically children have been much more used to close physical contact than grown adults and much more likely to not have a problem with it.
    
    Of course I do come from back in the prehistoric times of the 70's and with the paranoia surrounding western cultures' overnight discovery in around 1984 of the fact that children do get sexually abused sometimes by some people (as likely to be family and/or family friends as strangers) perhaps modern day children are now being conditioned to be traumatised by any physical contact at all.
    
    But if that is the case, then there's more than the government to blame.
    
    The search was ridiculously unnecessary, and the thorough searching of a small child rams home exactly how pointless these searches are, but children are not harmed by them unless their parents have raised them to be harmed by contact in which case those parents need some thinking time themselves.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Vic, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh, please! Do not tell too obvious of a lie! We might think you're delusional and stop taking you seriously.
      
      "Well she wasn't actually sexually assaulted."
      
      Is that your best line? OK, then go to the street right now, find a 6 year old in plain view of his parents and do the same as that TSA officer did. I wonder what are you going to be charged with?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "OK, then go to the street right now, find a 6 year old in plain view of his parents and do the same as that TSA officer did. I wonder what are you going to be charged with?"
        
        Yup, I am pretty sure I made very clear that peoples attitudes are completely wrong-headed on both issues.
        
        The pat down is not and never could be sexual assault, borderline rape or pornography.
        
        It is and always will be incredible stupidity from the country that has brought new meaning to cowardice and stupidity.
        
        As I've said elsewhere, I do have to keep reminding myself that there are many intelligent smart decent human beings in the US, its just so hard to understand why they are so often represented in politics as well as message boards by complete morons.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I wanted to vote for the smart ones, but they aren't on the ballots. Looking into leaving, but, since I grew up in the good ol' US of A, I only speak English...where to go.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chillienet (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 6:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Come to Australia, we will welcome you with open arms. If you come by boat we will even put you up in a lovely resort on Christmas Island all expenses paid for anywhere from a month to a few years (not your choice in how long.....) :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      She's six fuckign years old, and from the video, it's borderline rape. I'm guessing you don't have kids.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you think that's borderline rape then I'm guessing you either don't have kids or were unconscious during conception.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I have a fucking child. And this is one of my BIG RED BUTTONS.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But apparently can't speak a sentence without cursing. I bet you're a lovely example for said child.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        only on BIG RED BUTTON issues.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Eugene (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 4:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then, for everyone's safety, please stay away from your local Staples.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 12:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Okay, that got a chuckle out of me. Funnily enough, i sed to work in a Staples, before they put buttons on everything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't have any kids.
        
        Fuck you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 5:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, let us decry the words that someone uses when they are extremely agitated. It makes you look so much better of a person when you're saying, 'Why, no, Sally. The big scary person with the rubber glove isn't going to hurt you, just touch you in your no-nos where we always told you not to let them.'
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not sexual assault, eh?
        
        Someone uses force and the threat of violence to put their hands inside the waistband of an underage girl.
        
        The above statement is accurate, factual, and definitely sexual assault.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You have some evidence of the threat of violence?
        
        No?
        
        Gosh, what a pity.
        
        But even if we were to assume that the de facto procedure for the TSA is to insist on a full pat down search with a threat of violence to anyone including a six year old if they refused the search you would have to ask why parents would bring their child to undergo that or even risk undergoing that.
        
        But adults probably often put their fingers under the waistband of four five six and even seven year olds pants, it only sounds terrible if the assumption of child abuse is already there. Most rational people would not call it child abuse when they know full well what is going on.
        
        Maybe at this stage you wonder why I am so strenuously objecting to it being called pornography, borderline rape and child abuse?
        The fact is children have been genuinely sexually abused, are being genuinely sexually abused and unfortunately will be genuinely sexually abused, and calling things like this, that are inanely stupid but not sexual abuse of any kind, diminishes the very real trauma that people who have really been abused go through.
        So, please wise up people.
        
        The solution is simple, you don't fly, when people stop flying because of this then the policy will change.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All security action is done on the threat of violence. The reason the security measures are in place is because the government claims that if they arent, violence will ensure. Also, all government action is done under the threat of force. If you dont comply you will be forcibly arrested.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  Either that, or come up with a 100% fool-proof way of detecting any and all potential weapons and release it out into the world for everyone to use.
  
  Nice bar you set. The standard for replacing a completely invasive, ineffectual system is a 100% fool proof one? That's silly.
  
  All it will take is for another September 11th for these very people to go from "unlawful patdowns" to "Why didn't you protect us
  
  There is truth to this. Whenever a disaster hits the politicians will look to see what has changed recently and blame that for their own political gain.
  
  So again, to placate fallacies ridden political arguments, we have to be groped to fly.
  
  Great process.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 5:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They also missed the point that the pat downs wouldn't have prevented 9/11, anyways. The locked cockpits would have done that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Squirrel Brains (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:15am
  
  Re:
  This sort of logic is asinine. "If you won't like your government repressing its citizens, then just look away."
  
  This is about the TSA's security theater. Even if there was a fool-proof method of stopping all terrorist threats, I doubt the TSA is smart enough to find them and then use them properly. The current methods did not get put in place because people thought they were effective. They got put in place because some companies with lots of high profile lobbyists (such as Micheal Chernof) with a lot of cash got the TSA to adopt these measures.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:15am
  
  Re:
  Exactly. If you don't like it, don't travel to the U.S. Take your business meetings, vacations, etc, elsewhere. They will learn eventually.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Squirrel Brains (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    They will never learn because the public has a collective action problem. People endure the abuse because other methods take longer. This does not mean the abuse is justified. For a lot of people, cars and trains (and boats) really are not a viable option. We need to actively resist the government action until we can solve the collective action problem.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If the procedures were bad enough that quite a few businessmen actually refuse to go to the U.S. because of it, I'd bet a lobbyist would pay someone to change it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cashie, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They wouldn't change it. They would just make an express lane for the business traveler (for a fee, of course).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well thats is a change :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem is that the airlines are private business so their losses don't affect the federal employees. The feds that hand out bailouts to the airline industry is a whole 'nother department so the dots will never be connected.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  If you don't like the procedures, get in a car and drive yourself to wherever you're going.
  
  "If you don't want to be searched by police officers without cause, you can always never leave your house."
  "If you don't want your cellphone conversations being screened police officers without cause, you can always use carrier pigeons."
  
  It's so simple! Whenever the government does something shitty, claim it's really okay because you can just do something else!
  
  Either that, or come up with a 100% fool-proof way of detecting any and all potential weapons and release it out into the world for everyone to use.
  
  There isn't one. Deal with it and quit spending billions on shitty authoritarian solutions that treat every citizen like criminal. What a bunch of god damned pansies we've become. "Oenoes! I have a one in a hojillion chance of dying to a terrorist attack! Please save me gubamint! Here, take all my rights if that'll help!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:17am
  
  Re:
  The odds of a group of 6 year old white girls collaborating to take down the world trade center is like, what? 800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000:1?
  
  Multiply that by the odds of them being successful of:
  567,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000:1, and you have, in my estimation the odds of you ever getting a clue.
  
  CBMHB
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - James Carmichael, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    They're working on the assumption that she's a mule for a nuclear bomb. The odds are indeed very slim that she is actually a mule, but hey, you can never be too careful with all the terrorism going on. Wait, when was last time we had terrorism, other than on TV I mean? It's been a while... I think the last few years we've been fucked by our own people a lot more than from foreign terrorists... and we already took our revenge on a couple countries they may have been from... I think? I see WMDs everywhere, man.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Irving, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, your revenge was taken on nearby countries; apart from your home-grown bombers, the major player in attacking the US has been Saudi Arabia.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  Of course patdowns are 100% effective thats why no drugs get into prisons. Its also why no weapons ever make it into courtrooms.
  
  if this was 100% foolproof method i might agree with you. But its been proven that people can sneak guns through these scanners and pat downs as well as the underwear bombs they were designed to catch.
  
  Here are 2 ways off the top of my head to beat your 100% foolproof system. Stick a bomb up my ass, done. Surgically implant a bomb in a dog or cat and then have them flown in the cargo hold. But i guess if either of those happened you would be happy having a finger up your ass and a TSA agent reopen any surgical scars on your dog to make you feel a little safer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  So the ends justify the means? There is no 100% foolproof method for detecting dangerous objects. More common sense needs to be applied here.
  
  Our freedoms are being eroded. Where will you draw the line? When you get patted down when getting on a train or a boat? What about entering the Capitol building or a museum on the National Mall?
  
  We need to fight these ridiculous laws now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  All it will take is for another September 11th for these very people to go from "unlawful patdowns" to "Why didn't you protect us???"
  
  You have invoked Giuliani's Law: the first person to mention September 11th in a discussion about terrorism, national security, or other related subjects should be ignored, as they have nothing to bring to the discussion but "9/11 NEVAR FORGET".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:25am
  
  Re:
  If you don't like the procedures, get in a car and drive yourself to wherever you're going. Either that, or come up with a 100% fool-proof way of detecting any and all potential weapons and release it out into the world for everyone to use.
  
  Yeah, but how can we drive until you present us with the 100% fool-proof way of preventing car accidents?
  
  So, forget driving.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    In this case, forget living completely. Come up with a 100% fool-proof way to breathe.
    
    Your argumentation is flawed. Nothing ever was, nor will ever be, 100% fool-proof. Mostly because there's always some retards willingly testing that for us.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris in Utah (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or willfully brilliant testers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 12:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      AS is yours, by your own logic. WE are agreeed that there is no foolproof way to solve anything. Odd, that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:25am
  
  Re:
  If you are afraid of flying, how about you get in a car and drive. The day after 9/11 I would have flown anywhere (at the time I had no money and no where to go so I didn't). I'm not afraid of flying. At least not anymore than is reasonable for being in a pressurized tin can 40,000 feet above ground moving at 500mph.
  
  Terrorists don't scare me. My government does. People like you who are more than happy to be molested every time for that slight extra percentage chance that you'll be safe scare me. Learn something about risk. Learn about probability. If you're so afraid of dying, look at this chart. Long before you have to worry about dying in a plane crash (much less a terrorist attack on a plane) you should be worrying about the foods you are eating, falling down, a car accident, nature, electrocution or even suicide. If you want to live in irrational fear, feel free. But please stop asking the rest of us to do so, to cow down in fear, and let the government walk all over our rights. I have the right not to be molested. You have the right to live in fear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Did I just read that I'm more likely to be killed by an asteroid than by a terrorist? We should outlaw asteroids then.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And what about guns? How many people do they will in the US every year? They should be outlawed too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 5:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Guns don't will anyone. They don't kill anyone either, their owners do, sometimes....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DH's Love Child (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 8:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Guns don't will anyone. They don't kill anyone either, their owners do, sometimes...
        
        So the solution is to outlaw gun owners, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - athe (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 3:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And if you're on a plane currently being threatened by by terrorists, that gets hit by an asteroid, you really gotta wonder if someone has it in for you...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - VancouverDave, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    I was in a plane flying to a job 2 days after the shutdown ended. No stress, no worries (a lot of hijacking jokes from my colleagues though).
    
    Chosen Reject, you have this exactly right. Politicians, pay attention to this person.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jack, 14 Apr 2011 @ 3:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    On a long enough time line the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:36am
  
  Re:
  If you don't like the procedures, get in a car and drive yourself to wherever you're going.
  
  Why do you believe that will solve the problem. The TSA has already begun a proposal to include this same procedure at "large public events" including but not limited to: sporting events, conferences, and concerts.
  
  Would you be willing to go through this procedure every time you leave your house? Where is the line drawn?
  
  If you want to sit around wetting yourself with fear, fine, but please don't trample my rights so that you can muster up the courage to walk outside and face the day. The phrase "the only thing to fear is fear itself" has started to take on a whole new meaning for me as I see how far people like you will go to reduce their own irrational fears.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Maybe we can play the same fear game with the morons that let this happen.
    
    If you let a TSA agent touch you, YOU WILL GET AIDS!!!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Insider, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: Must be another case of typing before thinking.
  The current TSA procedures serve 2 purposes:
  Create TSA Jobs
  Indoctrinate its citizenry into being more malleable and less rebellious.
  Unfortunetly it is too many voices of ignorant people like yourself that think that just because they see a sign of authority, they are safe from harm.
  
  FACT: The shoe bomber was discovered after he was on the plane and tried to blow the plane. THE TSA WAS USELESS
  FACT: The underwear bomber was discovered ALSO after he was on the plane and tried to blow the plane. THE TSA WAS USELESS
  
  I don't want more security measures. I just want the ones that work.
  
  So throwing more underpaid and unqualified staff at the problem doesn't make me feel safer.
  And reading simple-minded opinions like yours just make me realize that this country MAYBE having the type of MISS-GOVERMENT it deserves.
  
  I EXPECT our government officials to UPHOLD the constitution, not write amendment and come up with corrupt PATRIOT ACTS that just serves the purpose of creating government overhead!
  
  I want to be safe, and to be free, and keep my privacy. ALL THOSE GOALS IN HARMONY. NONE BEING EXCLUSIVE. If the existing representatives can't STRIVE for that they shouldn't be in office.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jilocasin (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:54am
  
  If that's your standard, then they should stop now.
  If your requirement for something to replace inappropriately assaulting the citizenry is;
  "Either that, or come up with a 100% fool-proof way of detecting any and all potential weapons..."
  
  Then the TSA should stop immediately. Since it's already been shown that their procedures fall far short of 100% fool-proof way of detecting, well anything.
  
  It's hard to make things 'fool-proof' as those fools are just so darn clever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:06am
  
  Re:
  If you're such a big P*SSY that you don't want to fly unless you think Creepy Uncle Sam is there to protect you, you shouldn't fly. If you want to give up your liberty to make yourself feel safe fine, but you have NO RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY MINE.
  
  I'm tired of cowards like you repeating this ridiculous mantra.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly Anon, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:07am
  
  Re:
  I can't tell if you are trolling are just that stupid.
  
  Are you honestly suggesting that any of the procedures in place are 100% fool-proof? It has been proven that these new security measures wouldn't even protect against past attacks let alone whatever is being thought up now.
  
  Second, if another terrorist attack happened, these unlawful patdowns wouldn't protect us. So, it wouldn't be "Why didn't you protect us???" It would be "Why did we give up our freedom if you couldn't protect us???"
  
  And last, getting gate raped wouldn't have stopped the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Just saying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:27am
  
  Re:
  Ugh, so bad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  I hate to have to point this out again, but the underwear bomber, for whose attempt these procedures were created, got on the plane in EUROPE and would not have been screened. The fact is that no terrorist attacks in the US involving planes have originated from within US borders. So groping 6 year olds on domestic flights is going to do what exactly?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, since the start of the millennium...
    
    Of course, there is also the thought that the US was the only Western country that had such lax security at the turn of the millennium as to let hijackings happen... at least that has been improved on everywhere, it's just a shame when it so ineffective, intrusive and expensive.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:40am
  
  Re:
  Faulty and naive logic, if one can even CALL it logic.
  
  The chances of 'another Sept 11' happening are slim to none. And using that as an excuse to pat down a child is downright disproportionate and inappropriate.
  
  There IS NO 'fool-proof way' to detect all weapons on a person. But this method is completely invasive and can cause far more harm than good.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  so why doesn't Israel use scanners and this groping? they have a lot more of a terrorist problem
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nelson (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    my understanding is that they actually profile people. all their security agents are trained in psychology to be able to identify people who are actual threats instead of randomly searching people
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It helps when your security people have a background and training in, you know, security. We license police to carry deadly weapons and give them the authority to use them, and still they are not allowed to perform perfunctory pat-downs and finger-rape little girls. But some $15/hr TSA lackey is allowed? What kind of background check are they going through? Training? Licensing? Or are they just the friendly neighbourhood finger-rapists?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:56am
  
  Re:
  All it will take is for another September 11th for these very people to go from "unlawful patdowns" to "Why didn't you protect us???"
  
  That just confirms how wimpy American's have become. Thousands more people die in vehicle collisions and from heart attacks each year, yet there is no outrage, no fear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris in Utah (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Because literally sitting on our asses is 55% more dangerous to our heart health. Look it up :) Which makes me wonder why people need to quit smoking.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stuart, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  The price you pay for freedom is danger.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fred M., 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:28pm
  
  Grow a pair, Tinkerbell
  Who the hell told you that the government was going to be your wet nurse and protect you from all of the bad people and dangers in the world? I'd much rather that cowards like you died in fiery crashes than have Americans, even children, groped in the name of protecting your little sissy @ss.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re:
  Ugh, so bad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymous patriot, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:33pm
  
  There it is, justification for abandoning liberty!
  There it is, justification for abandoning liberty!
  
  Do you really think another plane will ever be hijacked with box cutters again?
  
  God forbid one is blown out of the sky, but to so easily abandon rights that MILLIONS of citizens have FOUGHT AND DIED FOR, because your afraid is asinine.
  
  Essentially you're saying the lives of the 3000 that died on 9/11 are worth more than the millions who have died in the past defending my kids right to not be molested.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PlagueSD, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:18pm
  
  Airport Security
  Israel has it figured out...and they're in the CENTER of it all. According to the report. Israeli security hasn't been breeched since 1972. Can we say that for the US?
  
  http://www.slate.com/id/2279753/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re:
  What the TSA is doing is nowhere near 100% fool-proof. Maybe 1%. Or 2%, if you are feeling generous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SomeGuy (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 6:24am
  
  Re:
  I for one would rather annual 9/11-style attacks than the current system of abuse inflicted on citizens in the name of safety.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Knoefler, 9 Jul 2011 @ 2:29pm
  
  Got his name right
  At least he has the right name.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:02am

Just so you know, as a Canadian it is highly unlikely that I will ever visit your country because of this, and other customs actions taken (laptop searches, etc.)

And thats too bad, because I have lots of tourism dollars. My organization has ceased sending us to training in the US because they dont want to be held liable under Canadian law for some American sexually assaulting us. They would rather the extra expense of sending us to Europe, or waiting for things to come here.

Also, how do you say that China treats dissidents poorly when your government sexually assaults law abiding citizens? And yes, it is sexual assault. Did that girl ask the TSA agent to put his hands in her pants? Even if she did, can she legally give consent for that? Can parents legally give consent to have another adult put their hands in her pants?

*shudder* thank god I'm Canadian....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:17am
  
  Re:
  don't kid yourself. The U.S. has it, we'll have it in about 3 years. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    I dont think we will, our airport security is still fairly benign. I fly lots, and never have a problem. The only real issue I ever had was trying to take my 1 lighter on board, but once it was a nice zippo, and the security agent told me I had to check it in case it exploded with the change of pressure.
    
    I tried to explain that a) a zippo did not use pressurized fuel, but soaked cotton and ignites fumes, and b) travelling in an airplane decreases your pressure, and then back to normal but never increases it as that involve travelling below the surface of the earth... But rules are rules and I checked my lighter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh common, when has the US made a bad policy move that we haven't ended up with eventually?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rockafeller laws. Nuff said. They are moving one direction, and although we take a few stumbling steps towards it, we generally dont do quite as badly.
        
        Other examples include bombing Baghdad, criminalizing personal copying, etc. We arent perfect, but their problems are thankfully not ours.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Traveling can increase pressure. It depends on where you are flying to and from. Going from Denver to LA would cause an increase of pressure.
      
      Not that I disagree with anything else you wrote. Just wanted to point that out.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is true, however, I was travelling from Ottawa to Edmonton, and regardless, zippos arent pressurized, and the policy is set specifically forbidding zippos, and NOT pressurized lighters. Its just stupid, and makes 0 technical sense. If pressure were actually the reason, then zippos should be allowed and bic lighters banned (although they arent pressurized either, they are sealed, so pressure could conceivably be applied if the relief valve at the bottom failed).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ray, 16 Apr 2011 @ 1:56pm
      
      Lighters and pressure.
      [quote]
      I tried to explain that a) a zippo did not use pressurized fuel, but soaked cotton and ignites fumes, and b) travelling in an airplane decreases your pressure, and then back to normal but never increases it as that involve travelling
      [/quote]
      
      It is not that the pressure outside the lighter increases, it is that the pressure outside decreases, which would increase the [i]relative[/i] pressure [i]inside[/i] a sealed lighter (or any air-tight container, or that matter).
      The science is sound, and to some degree this makes sense, but is sadly, (as in your case), treated is a blanket rule without regards to the individual case.
      I once heard of the TSA not allowing a paintball gun canister, with the regulator removed, (ie you could stick you finger into it and wiggle it around if you wanted to) only a plain because the canister was marked "pressurized," even though any 3-year-old could have told you it wasn't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 2:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      @"I tried to explain that a) a zippo did not use pressurized fuel, but soaked cotton and ignites fumes, and b) travelling in an airplane decreases your pressure, and then back to normal but never increases it as that involve travelling below the surface of the earth... But rules are rules and I checked my lighter."
      
      The decrease in outside pressure is why you get explosions: the inner pressure isn't held in check by the outer pressure, and the vessel ruptures, so the TSA guy is right about that, not you. (all moot if zippos aren't pressurised though)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:51am
  
  Re:
  Being from Europe I had decided a long time ago, that I would never willingly set foot in the USA.
  
  Thing is, I know there are lots of smart, bright intelligent pleasant decent people in the US.
  But I do actually have to remind myself of that over and over and over again because my concept of the USA is so overwhelmingly negative.
  
  A lot of people in Europe struggle with this, which considering that the attitude towards the US as we were growing up was so generally positive that it has taken some serious doing by the representatives of the people of the US to turn that so massively on its head.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 5:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I have to remind myself of the same thing daily, and I live here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- coachgeorge (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:32pm
  
  Re: Please....
  Stay home
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam G (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:06am

I would be interested to know the statistics of TSA agents ever actually finding anything using this method?

I would also like to see the same statistics comparing what they do find, to actual threat based things. I.e. I don't care if someone had a 1oz too large toothpaste bottle in their pocket or a misc overzealous rule violation.

Pocket knives, scissors, explosives.

I also don't care about them finding drugs through this method.

I personally feel like it only adds inconvenience to everyone, and protects no one. Though I understand the airlines desire to look "proactive" in security and the public image of trying to be "safe" even if their methods are completely misguided and useless. Too bad we didn't have a choice. "Safe airline" and "dangerous airline" whereas safe airline is current standards, and dangerous one did very minimal intrusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:17am
  
  Re:
  I don't have a link but I recently read a couple of news articles that pointed out that the TSA was failing it's own tests (i.e. people sent explicitly to get caught with weapons were not noticed at all).
  
  So... I think it's safe to assume it's not very effective
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Perhaps the agents that are failing realize that it's all just theater. They read techdirt and they know that they're essentially actors that nobody even wants to look at, and so they can't even be bothered to half-ass their performance.
    
    I mean really, if they think about it even a little bit and have come to the conclusion that the odds of their encountering an inspector (who holds their job and livelihood in their hand) are so slim that they needn't bother with doing it right, where does that put the odds of an actual threat? From their point of view it's basically free money, they are making double min. wage (at least) to pretend to work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  Here are some statistics for you:
  
  The number of successful terrorist attacks by plane in the US: 1
  
  The number of known terrorist attempts by plane in or coming to the US: 2
  
  The number of those prevented by the TSA: 0
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly Anon, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:13am
  
  Re:
  A percentage of all terrorist attacks are stopped with this method. ***
  
  *** 0 is a percent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan, 15 Apr 2011 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re:
  I accidentally flew with a pocket knife last weekend. I had no problem getting through security with it at both airports I was at. I did not realize the pocket knife was in my carry-on until I was unpacking it at home.
  
  Whoops!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:09am

Whew, that's one 6 year old that won't be hijacking any planes with a shiv hidden in her crotch! Good job TSA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Publius (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:12am

Haven't they heard that "we were following orders" is the worst justification possible?

Then again, maybe people will start asking real questions of the ones giving the orders.

Maybe.
Hopefully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  Worked for the Nazis, why not for the TSA?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    I would claim Godwin on this but it is too true and funny at the same time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rich, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Godwin's Law only works when someone is trying to be insulting without actually making an argument. He was drawing a very insightful parallel between the excuses used by former Nazis and TSA agents for the repugnant things they do/did.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crade (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate"
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rich, 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's some guy's Wikipedia write up on the law. It doesn't make it so. Godwin wrote the law when he saw many Usenet arguments devolving into name-calling, which eventually reached the point of someone bringing up Nazis, et. al. Just mentioning them as the OP did in his comparison does invoke the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 15 Apr 2011 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That's some guy's Wikipedia write up on the law. It doesn't make it so. "
        Blasphemy! The article at least had references.. What do you got?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    AFAIK it did not work for the Nazis
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - blaktron (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ummm yes it did. Only those giving orders were prosecuted. I have an unfortunate feeling the same will be true of the TSA.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chosen Reject (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unfortunate? I think your being optimistic. I'd be singing in the streets if those giving orders here were ever prosecuted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben, 17 Apr 2011 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  It is true. People committed genocide during WWII and blamed it on orders... they were severely punished for their crimes, despite the fact that they were given orders to do what they did and would likely have had their jobs revoked or been executed had they not.
  
  == Sexual abuse is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:
  1. forcing of unwanted sexual activity by one person on another, as by the use of threats or coercion.
  2. Sexual activity that is deemed improper or harmful, as between an adult and a minor or with a person of diminished mental capacity.
  
  == The Federal Criminal Code definition of sexual abuse includes:
  
  1. Causing another person to engage in a sexual activity by threatening or placing that person in fear.
  2. Engaging in a sexual act if that person is incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in that sexual act.
  
  So by the dictionary and by law, forcing someone to accept the touching of their private areas, for any reason, is sexual abuse. And what of the penalties? Criminal penalties may include imprisonment, fines, registration as a sex offender, and restrictions on probation and parole. Civil penalties may include liability for damages, injunctions, involuntary commitment, and, for perpetrators related to their victims, loss of custody or parental rights. There are also heavier penalties for child sex offenders, especially repeat offenders and offenders who are in a position of trust, like a parent, guardian or TSA official.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:12am

Im not afraid of terrorists. Not one bit. I am afraid of the US government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cidu, 14 Apr 2011 @ 4:28pm
  
  Re:
  You are contridicting yourself... the US Government = Terrorists
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 8:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:13am

How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel "safe"? I think I'll start a all nude airline. Would they still have to pat people down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  "How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel "safe"? I think I'll start a all nude airline. Would they still have to pat people down?"
  
  No, but judging by my fellow passengers on my recent flights, you're going to spend a fortune on barf bags....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't like to sit on those seats after gross people will pants on have sat in them. I hope we are at least allowed to bring a towel to sit on.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you crazy? What if they have a bomb wrapped in those towels?!! Don't you know that towelheads have bombs?!! If you bring a towel, then you must be a terrorist!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    The towels could be provided by the airline, so the passengers don't bring them on themselves.
    
    DH could offer discounts to hotties of both or more genders.
    If that would reduce the use of the barf bags.
    Or you could charge for those.
    Or both
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris in Utah (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Dont forget the complementary mile club hair ties.
      
      Advertising:
      
      Now with 18 private compartments on board to fit your budget.
      As always lubes, toys and former TSA Leather will be at your disposal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- johnnyc, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:17am
  
  Re:
  that won't work. A guy here in San Diego stripped down to his underwear before going through security. They would not screen him until he put his clothes back on. then IIRC they cited him for public nudity. Can't find the link but it happened just before the Thanksgiving holiday travel period.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rob worth, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:22am

child molestation
even if you believe the "official 9/11 story", how many planes have been hijacked by terrorists since then?

more people die from drinking, smoking, and driving on highways, than hijacked planes.

this is simply a way to brainwash the american people into submission to the government. it is starting to look like nazi germany in america.

and for the person that said "get in a car and drive", well, do some home work mole.. the tsa is already starting to have check points on highways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re: child molestation
  It's not about facts at all. It's about propaganda. They started by taking away your liberties, you were fine with it. Then they started taking more away... and people started complaining. Now they're testing new "we can do what we want" 'laws' (used loosely) in the airports. It's just another step towards annihilating your rights and liberties.
  
  If they told everyone 9/11 was a lie, then the 10 years of propaganda they did since would die right there. That can't happen, not with their current agenda. Also take into account that of they do, in fact, agree once, that this is non-sense, again their entire agenda drops dead. Can't let that happen, ever. Why do you think all those complaints fall on deaf ears?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew Norton (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: child molestation
  "even if you believe the "official 9/11 story", how many planes have been hijacked by terrorists since then?
  
  more people die from drinking, smoking, and driving on highways, than hijacked planes."
  
  ACtually, more people died on US roads in SEptember 2001 alone, than due to terrorism in the US between 1995-2010. You're even 80x more likely to be murdered than killed by a terrorist. Explains why we're cutting police funding, and spending what we DO have on 'anti-terrorism' crap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HM, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:24am

The TSA is just doing there part to make sure we have a new generation of strippers and prostitutes. I for one thank them for doing their part in destroying the ability of little girls to grow up and have meaningful intimate relationships.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:25am

I agree that patting down children is not the best idea, but the whole argument of "How do we teach our children to to be touched there!" is pure bullshit.

When children go to the doctor they are violated much worse that was was shown in the video, but we accept this because it's in the child's best interest, and the parent is there to let the child know it's ok. I don't see where the TSA pat down is any different.

Besides having a youtube video of the incident, what exactly makes this issue a "tech" issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:38am
  
  Re:
  When the TSA has licensed doctors doing the pat downs your argument will become valid...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    When the TSA has licensed doctors doing the pat downs your argument will become valid...
    
    No, not even then. Unless the routine vaccinations and check ups in the US vastly differ to the UK, my children have never been touched up by their doctor and they never will be.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:48am
  
  Re:
  What? I have two children. I've taken them to the doctor lots of times. I don't ever recall the doctor molesting them. Either you had a lot of problems with your plumbing as a kid, or your parents weren't taking you to the real doctor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  "I don't see where the TSA pat down is any different."
  
  Perhaps the part where it isn't in the child's best interest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  Are you are really comparing TSA agents with doctors?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:53am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 14th, 2011 @ 10:25am
  I agree most children have an equal relationship with every tsa agent and their pediatrician
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rob, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:38am
  
  Re:
  You said:
  
  When children go to the doctor they are violated much worse that was was shown in the video,
  
  This is false.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 9:06pm
  
  Re:
  ... What the hell kind of a doctor did *you* go to?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- joethedouchebag, 16 Apr 2011 @ 1:55pm
  
  Re:
  That would be okay if the TSA were actually any good at what they get paid for. Frankly, the fact that an internal TSA evaluation of security procedures resulted in a planted TSA agent getting through TSA security with a gun tells me that that the TSA is utterly worthless and incompetent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Carmichael, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:27am

1984
Did anyone mention Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four yet?

Seriously though, that's messed up. Not just the TSA, but the agents themselves. What's their best moral defense, honestly?

"If I don't touch your kid's private parts, I could lose my job."

We'll look back at this footage in a hundred years and be like, "Wow, 2011 was messed up, good thing I wasn't alive then."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: 1984
  In the year 3000, we refer to it as "the Stupid Ages".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JC, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:30am

To be fair to the TSA, that little girl did look suspicious. Did you notice the way her eyes darted back and forth. That, plus the nervous sweat that was rolling off her forehead would make any rational adult think that something bad was about to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:32am
  
  Re:
  What you didn't see is the shotgun she pulled out of her pants after she boarded the plane.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:31am

I think Justice Stewart said it best in regards to videos of this sort

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:44am
  
  Re:
  Seriously if you think this even approaches pornography, never mind hard core pornography, you have led too sheltered a life even for the most devout of silent order nuns.
  
  What it is, is ridiculous.
  
  The TSA proudly serving America by protecting it from 6 year olds and their evil schemes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - iamtheky (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    pretty sure the end of the judges comment is " and this is not that." But taking things out of context makes for better smarm.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:31am

Any person who argues that they "followed procedures" after performing an abhorrent act... would have made a really good Nazi.

Oh, Godwin's law as been fulfilled. I'm outtahere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:32am

Does anyone know what the official legal argument is that describes why this doesn't violate the 4th? You have citizens making their way from their homes, to the airplane own by a private business, how is virtually strip searching everyone at the airport "legal" while doing the same to people on the street is not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  Simple: The 4th Amendment has been repeatedly crippled and can now be ignored by shouting "safety!!!!" really loudly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - someone (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The supreme law of the land still states:
    "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."
    
    As I have said before, wanting to fly on an airplane does not make you a terrorist and as such they have no probable cause to perform a search.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techie42 (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:36am

It is the new Amerika! where the TSA says; "Please get you travel papers ready while we molest your wife and children. It is just another way to protect your freedom."

The new USA. Just don't go there and avoid the fuss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:44am

Remember United-Statians, you elected those people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris in Utah (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re:
  1 2 3 not it. I don't vote.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:44am

this isn't what I voted for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re:
  No, but it's who you voted for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canucklehead, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:45am

Coming soon to TSA...
All men 40 years and older get digital probes, improve airport security and detect prostate cancer at the same time !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:51am

It's disgraceful.
But the answer is in the hands of the citizens of the US and those who go along with this in other countries. Stop flying. They'll soon drop back to actually sensible security procedures instead of this ridiculous theatre.

Keep tolerating this behaviour and flying and it can only get worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:01am
  
  Re:
  Remember this theatre is all for your benefit anyway.
  Nobody else actually wants it which is why TSA agents tasked with securing the airways from terrorist threats are paid so well.
  
  But yours and some other western governments are so convinced that their citizenry are such cowardly fearful pathetic personages that they feel they have to put on a show to help keep you feeling safe.
  
  The point of not flying isn't just a meaningless protest depriving yourself of your few special pleasures, if people stop flying the airlines themselves will feel the pinch sharpish and the security procedures would change sharpish once they get on the phone to the gov and tell them its change the security procedures or lose an entire industry.
  
  Airlines on the whole do not have vast reserves, if you want change fast stop flying.
  
  If you want to drag this out for decades, then keep whining and complaining but still flying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    sorry boss i cant go to the meeting in Denver, im protesting air travel.
    
    Also that conference in vegas...Im gonna need the 3 days before it off so I can drive out there. Im sure you will pay me for my travel time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2011 @ 2:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And thusly do wrongs keep going when the majority oppose them but don't like having to make anything other than the easiest of choices.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
known coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:57am

My youngest child was shown a "good touch, bad touch" video in school that was revised to say Parents, Doctors and nurses, and the TSA" ( i did not see the video). My kid said the TSA personn was grabbing the kids private parts fairly hard. He then asked me not to fly when we go to florida, because he does not want to be grabbed like that (he is a very sensitive special needs child).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 10:59am

It's Potemkin villages. A Hollywood show to show that you a safe from a terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glenn L., 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:00am

young girl pat down
Why you would use the word "grope" in your title is very unfair and biased. The TSA personnel doing her job never groped the little girl. She used the back of her hands when she came to her buttocks, as she is suppossed to. She also never slid her hand in an upwards direction on the girls thigh. It was done according to procedure. As evidenced by the tape, the little girl was not concerned & she didn't have any verbal concerns.

We may not like pat downs, but they are there for a reason, and the TSA officer did everyting by the book.

If you don't think that terrorists would use a young girl, even unknowingly on her part, or a woman or a mentally diminished person for their purposes - you're dead wrong. They have !

If you're going to attack something, you ought to get it right & not make false accusations & use hyperbole. Youre comments on the video and the little girl are quite simply amateurish rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:02am
  
  Re: young girl pat down
  Oh good, you've trotted out the same tired arguments that the TSA uses. How convincing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:03am
  
  Re: young girl pat down
  Yup they're their for a reason, they're their to make paranoid cowards feel more secure, lucky really, considering they have no meaningful effect on the chance of a terrorist activity occurring on any plane.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:05am
  
  Re: young girl pat down
  This family meets the profile of a terrorist?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- iamtheky (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:09am
  
  Re: young girl pat down
  Youre comments on the video and the little girl are quite simply amateurish rhetoric.
  
  and yours are grammatically incorrect and the same old shill. With well researched defenses like "We may not like pat downs, but they are there for a reason" and a first paragraph that sounds like a molester defense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: young girl pat down
  If you are so afraid of terrorists, stay home and hidden under your bed. Stop using your fear to justify the erosion of MY rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:12am
  
  Re: young girl pat down
  If you want to cower in fear of "terrorists", please do so by yourself. I'm happy with plain old metal detectors thank you very much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:13am
  
  Re: young girl pat down
  We may not like pat downs, but they are there for a reason
  
  Correct! And the reason is: To make timid members of the ignorant populace (like you!) feel safe, despite all rational evidence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re: young girl pat down
  As evidenced by the tape, the little girl was not concerned & she didn't have any verbal concerns.
  
  silence means YES YES YES GIVE IT TO ME YES!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josef Anvil (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re: young girl pat down
  @Glen L. Your comment confused the hell out of me. I immediately looked for which button to push and could only find insightful funny and report.
  
  It is now OBVIOUS that Mike needs to add a moronic or dumb fuck button so that we can accurately tabulate comments like yours.
  
  Let's compare and contrast your comments.
  
  "If you don't think that terrorists would use a young girl, even unknowingly on her part, or a woman or a mentally diminished person for their purposes - you're dead wrong. They have !"
  
  "If you're going to attack something, you ought to get it right & not make false accusations & use hyperbole."
  
  You clearly group women children and mentally diminished people as possible terrorist tools to defend your stance on pat downs for children and then you state that one should get things right and not use hyperbole.
  
  Hmmmmm
  
  Could you please link me to all the attempted or successful terrorist attacks on airplanes that used children as tools? I'll wait.
  
  Whilst I'm waiting.... Mike, could we get that "dumb fuck" or "moron" button added?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- outraged, 14 Apr 2011 @ 9:06pm
  
  Re: young girl pat down
  Do you work for TSA? Only someone in that line of work could think the way you do! That was a groping and anyone who thinks it is right should not be an american citizen. Take your thouhgts to a communist country where you will fit in better!!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:03am

TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure
Don't put up with this unconstitutional garbage! It�s all worthless security theater that does nothing to keep you �safe�. Boycott Flying ENTIRELY until sanity returns! Please join us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Flying/126801010710392
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GunSheep (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:09am

Another 9/11?
Sorry, not going to happen. The days of passengers sitting quietly while someone takes over the plane to use it as a flying bomb are over. The TSA groping and scanning are just security theater..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:25am
  
  Re: Another 9/11?
  All they ever needed was proper security on access to the cockpit, but hey, that was considered to be too expensive everytime it was suggested since the 70's
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HothMonster, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:12am

Cant we just have one TSA agent dress like a clown and tell the kids they get candy if he gets to touch them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:18am

And Bin Laden is sitting back in his cave satisfied that the terrorists have won... No need to kill people when you turn a country that is the "beacon of democracy" into a paranoid police state ala 1984.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:20am

I'm not worried, they're payback is coming. As soon as 2012 comes around and lava engulfs the earth reducing all but a spit of land habitable for a desperate population A simple test can guarantee, admittance to safety. Were you or have you ever been associated to the TSA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elohssa (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:22am

What troubles me most is the inability to opt-out. I'm under the impression that once they choose you, there is no out, even if you decide not to board your flight, until they check you. This is understandable from their POV, as it would allow trouble makers to test the defenses without being detected, but they need to make it clear when you have been detained by a federal agency.

A big sign and a red line explaining the rights they are about to give up would settle this for me. I will avoid flying until they knock it off. I feel for people who are forced to travel for work, though.

Natch, some terrorist is working on a taint cannon right now, if only to prevent the TSA from becoming rational.

Ben Franklin said it best with the old "liberty\security" blather.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:22am

I am never letting my kid fly, ever.

As for TSA this is how it should be done.
Step 1: Fire 75% of all TSA workers
Step 2: Fire the remaining 25%
Step 3: Hire people with behavioral psychology degrees to fill that last 25% and pay them enough that people who are good at reading people will want to work there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:27am

Why is this article even on TechDirt?
Why is this article even on TechDirt? This crap belongs on the View or Jerry Springer. Did TechDirt run out of tech stuff to write about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: Why is this article even on TechDirt?
  I find all anonymous cowards equally irritating.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hm, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:42am
    
    Re: Re: Why is this article even on TechDirt?
    then are you irritating yourself?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joe Publius (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why is this article even on TechDirt?
      A little Benadryl should clear that up. I suggest not applying it the "TSA way" however.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:29am

If not the children, then nobody
I'm horrified by the video. But I'm also equally horrified at what happens if children are not searched. If not searched, then children become potential unwilling participants in terrorism because they become the 'loophole' that allows terrorists to succeed.

Clearly the whole pat down program is a failure and TSA needs to look at more intelligence focused methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:39am
  
  Re: If not the children, then nobody
  If there were no unnecessary pat downs of children, then the terrorists would spot the loophole, kidnap a child, perform an operation on the poor innocent planting a bomb in their stomach and then putting them on a plane to go back to their parents only to blow them up at a critical point.
  
  So pat downs save children from such a fate,
  NOW whose going to complain?
  
  I recommend a full autopsy on anyone who wants to fly.
  This will ensure complete safety.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:56am
    
    Re: Re: If not the children, then nobody
    Also don't by diapers, make your own. Terrorists may be hiding bombs in them so you inadvertently arm your child with urine triggered explosives before getting on a plane.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sidewinder, 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:54am

TSA sez:
Submit!!

I sez: No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 11:57am

The TSA is just a symptom...
The TSA is just a symptom of our -civilized- Western Democracy's inability to recognize a cleverly executed slow-motion WAR plan being waged against us by the ultra-violent (via 1600 years of first cousin marriage created inbreeding) forces of -uncivilized- Islam.

Until we summon the courage as a nation and as a people to openly name and face this evil totalitarianism masquerading as a religion, we will not know peace within our own borders.

The misguided, self-hating apologists that currently infest our federal government will continue to harrass YOU and YOUR CHILDREN because -they- are feckless, unprincipled cowards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:06pm
  
  really?
  Really, your calling all practitioners of Islam ultra-violent uncivilized inbreeds?
  
  Take your bigoted posts elsewhere
  
  Im sure christwire.org/ would love to have you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - GeneralEmergency (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 3:37pm
    
    Re: really?
    "Really, your calling all practitioners of Islam ultra-violent uncivilized inbreeds?"
    
    Yep, Pretty Much.
    
    Reproductive Health Journal reports the following rates on consanguinity in Muslim countries:
    
    Algeria: 22.6%
    Bahrain: 39.4%
    Egypt (North): 20.9%
    Egypt (Nubia-South): 60.5%
    Iraq: 47.0%
    Jordan: 28.5%
    Kuwait: 22.5%
    Lebanon: 12.8%
    Libya: 48.4%
    Mauritania: 47.2%
    Morocco: 19.9%
    Oman: 56.3%
    Palestine: 17.5%
    Qatar: 54.0%
    Saudi Arabia: 42.1%
    Sudan: 44.2%
    Syria: 30.3%
    Tunisia: 20.1%
    United Arab Emirates: 40.0%
    Yemen: 40.0%
    
    http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/6/1/17/table/T1
    
    Ouch. Bet that one hurt.
    
    "Take your bigoted posts elsewhere"
    
    Nope. Staying right here.
    
    And may I point out that your order for me to leave this discussion board is very anti-free speech and is fundamentally Un-American. A very Totalitarian tactic. Hint: Try countering my statements with fact-based counter-arguments next time instead of insults.
    
    "Im sure christwire.org/ would love to have you."
    
    Wow! They seem like nice folks.
    
    I bet if I went there and posted that I had just burned a Bible and even posted video of me dancing around it while urinating on it, they might get mad, but they would probably mostly -PRAY- for me. You know, quiet, reflective thought and focused hope. As opposed to rioting in the streets killing and BEHEADING random, foreign looking people.
    
    You have now been fully basted with my incisive rebuttal. Care to try again?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - vivaelamor (profile), 17 Apr 2011 @ 11:18am
      
      Re: Re: really?
      "You have now been fully basted with my incisive rebuttal. Care to try again?"
      
      You mean where you counter someone calling out your accusation that all of Islam is evil by providing tenuously related statistics that don't even uniformly approach 50%?
      
      You implied that violence is a product of inbreeding. I might surmise that the fall of the British Empire was due to a decline in royal intermarriages, were your statements not merely concentrated ignorance.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re: The TSA is just a symptom...
  Your ignorance and immorality is almost as sickening as that video.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - GeneralEmergency (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 3:38pm
    
    Re: Re: The TSA is just a symptom...
    You.
    
    See above.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nelson (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:07pm

terrorists have won
The terrorist's have won. They are sitting wherever they are, watching this youtube video and laughing at how stupid our society is. This was their goal. They knew that destroying the world trade center's would not cause the world to shut down, but they knew this would happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:15pm

As so many have rightly said...
This kind of security theater is to comfort the sheeple. It accomplishes nothing, but gives our "leaders" something to point at and say "See, we're keeping you safe". Right up until the next incident. The terrorists look at what we are doing, and then plan their actions around it. Just like the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that...

Those who accept this "to be kept safe" deserve not our anger or frustration, but our pity. Their ilk can be found in every dictatorship, quietly accepting whatever they are told. Sad, really.

I actually am glad that at my age, I will not see the unpleasant end result of the continuing landgrab of liberty. I feel sorry that my children will have to go thru the inevitable American Revolution II.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial Thompson, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:19pm

Pointless to complain
Every time this issue comes up on here there are hundreds of commments complaining. And even with the outrage nationally the TSA managed to keep this policy through the Holidays and it's just as strongly seated now as ever before.

This practice isn't going away anytime soon, and no amount of complaining or voting is going to change things. The TSA and Homeland Security has been voted into a position that they are almost out of reach, and those who they are within their reach are more afraid of crossing the TSA/Homeland Security and finding themselves sitting in a cell with no ability to communicate with anyone.

The world thinks that the President of the USA is the most powerful leader in the world. The reality is that the Leader of the Homeland Security is the most powerful person.

Voters put the Homeland Security in place, but there is no taking that power away no matter how hard we try. Hell think about it, not even the Supreme Court is willing to stand up against them for clear and blatant violations of the 1st and 4th amendments. The Supreme Court is the last of the battle grounds in the USA, and effectively that battleground isn't even available to us.

The Day that Bush sold the American public on the Homeland Security Bill is the day that the United Stated tore up the Constitution and danced on it's pieces.

It's also the day that every American Soldier that has died in the name of freedom collectively rolled over in their graves and wept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2011 @ 6:46am
  
  Re: Pointless to complain
  "The TSA and Homeland Security has been voted into a position that they are almost out of reach..."
  
  Who voted these people in?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glad I'm a Canuck, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:27pm

So charge them with sexual assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:38pm

If that little girl was sexually assaulted, then you all must be pedophiles for watching that entire video of the assault! Oh Please! The child was not touched in a sexual manner and will probably only remember the situation because of any adults around her talking about it afterwards.

Have you ever seen a child (or group of children) explode into tiny pieces because one of her relatives wired her with explosives? I personally know many military members that have seen this first hand. My husband being one of them. It happens. It is real.

I'd rather have a trained person pat down a 6 year old little girl then have her blown up because she sat next to the wrong child that was not searched for that plane ride!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:45pm
  
  Re:
  ugg, America is not a warzone. Your more likely to die in the bathtub than in a terrorist attack. Maybe we should have government agents come over and watch all of us while we are in the bathtub, its for our safety.
  
  http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc530.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re:
  Then you and your 6 year old girl can take Fear Airlines. Leave the rest of us out of your quivering little nightmare of a life.
  
  I'm so sick of hearing just how fearful our country has become. You know what?
  
  I.
  Don't.
  Give.
  One.
  Damn.
  
  if my family or I end up as a smudge on the ground because of a terrorist attack. At least I'm going to live life instead of being afraid of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re:
  Searching anyone by hand should be the last resort, not the only choice from Column B.
  
  Do you think someone psychotic enough to wire a child with explosives is going to wait until they're on a plane to blow them to bits? What's keeping such a monster from doing so right inside the entrance to a busy terminal?
  
  I'd rather have, and honestly, would more likely trust, a trained canine sniffing people for explosives than this touchy-feeling or proven-worthless scanning nonsense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:15pm
  
  Re:
  If you are that afraid, stay home.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:50pm

They even have a comment Delete-O-Meter!! Awesome!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
taoareyou, 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:52pm

TSA Can't Touch Me
I used to fly with my daughter on holidays to see family. Now I just rent a car. Takes a little longer, and costs the same. Yeah flying is more convenient time wise, but not worth giving up personal freedoms and being submitted to warrant-less, unconstitutional searches. I know the airlines aren't impacted by the loss of revenue due to my choice, and I don't care. I choose not to fly because I choose not to submit to criminal searches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 12:52pm

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility - I welcome it.
John F. Kennedy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:08pm

Oh jeeze. Watching the video, the pat-down was done in a professional manner. The agent let the kid know what she was doing as she did it. Everyone yelling foul that our kids are being sexually molested are retarded.

I agree that pat-downs aren't 100% effective, but name one system that is. Also, while you're sitting there, come up with a better way to detect and prevent the smuggling of drugs, weapons, etc. onto planes with many thousands of passengers, both foreign and domestic traveling through your station a day.

Unfortunately, the world that we live in today, people use children for these sorts of things. There's proof enough of this if you give it a search. Wars, attacks, drugs, etc. People have used children to do their dirty work simply because they are young and innocent. They use them for the same reason many of you are crying and screaming outrage over this matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 6:18pm
  
  Re:
  "...the pat-down was done in a professional manner."
  
  No. Such. Thing.
  
  This is a 6-YEAR-OLD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jenna, 16 Apr 2011 @ 7:43am
  
  Re:
  Dude, you're a tool and a dink. You're suggesting that violation of civil rights and illegal search and seizure (on a child, no less) is A-OK so long as it's done in a professional manner?
  
  "I agree that pat-downs aren't 100% effective, but name one system that is." How about a dog? Dogs don't get high on authority and drunk on a power trip. Plus, they can do a better job of detecting illegal stuff WITHOUT TOUCHING ANYONE. Plus, they work cheap!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2011 @ 3:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually it seems they may not be as effective as you think.
    
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/j477277481125291/fulltext.html
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MBraedley (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:16pm

If the TSA (or the government at large) thinks that sexually assaulting 6 year-olds will make the skys safer, then the terrorists have already won. As a Canadian, it's disconcerting to see my neighbours to the south have their rights and liberties slowly whittled away in the name of national security. I'm also not ignorant that the same thing is happening here, but at the very least, things seem to be a bit more reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
teknosapien, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:28pm

Wonder what the fall out would be if
People just didn't fly for a specified amount of time
How much money would the Airlines lose before they demanded a different approach to airport security.

It has always amazed me that Israel has no such procedures in one of the most volatile area of the world yet they have one of the safest airports in the world. The whole thought of that makes me wonder if there is another hidden agenda - or have we Americans just gotten stupid with fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re: Wonder what the fall out would be if
  While I think the TSA is a bunch of morons, and I like the system the Israelis use, I do have to mention that they only have a few airports to guard, rather than the several hundreds we do, so it's much more economic for them to hire the highly trained (read: expensive) people to properly profile passengers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 6:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Wonder what the fall out would be if
    How many of those highly trained people could have been hired for the amount of money spent on expensive machines and thousands of slack-jawed gropers?
    
    Seems it would be money much better spent...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:43pm

All church going, boyscout pedophiles,
TSA, a new career path
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will Sizemore (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:02pm

I haven't seen the video, but I've read enough of the comments here to say that the procedure used was consistent with how the soldiers in the US Army were taught to conduct pat-downs when I was active duty. This is how we were taught to conduct these searches on DETAINEES/SUSPECTED INSURGENTS, not on obvious private citizens.

Those of us who cite facts here are missing, or omitting, something very important with regard to this issue. While these procedures are invasive and time-consuming, as well as taxpayer-dollar-consuming, they do impose the same inconveniences upon would-be smugglers of weapons and paraphernalia.

That being said, as time passes and new technologies and techniques are being produced, the methods by which we can detect them are going to have to also be advanced in order to remain comparable to the threats, or preferably a few steps ahead.

Pat-downs are so low-tech but fiscally inexpensive that they are accepted by the administration as a 'good' tool. Some would prefer that a checkup be conducted by a licensed medical professional, but how many cases have we seen in recent history in which doctors and dentists have molested their patients? Is it because they stand to lose more, by losing their licenses in addition to serving prison sentences that they choose not to do it? I say, "No."

In the Hollywood presentation that really is an increasingly valid look into our dark future that is known as "Idiocracy", the patients at the hospital were required to insert three probes to receive a proper diagnosis. In "Star Trek" they used a wonderfully non-invasive (at least not physically invasive) tool called a Tri-Corder. Every time people needed to be screened for ANYTHING, it isn't a far stretch to say that they also received a much more complete medical checkup, to include DNA screenings and brain-pattern matchings, at nearly every turn.

Personally, if I'm getting patted down by an attractive member of the opposite sex, a patting down might be fun, but I think I'd like something more like a Tri-Corder in the future. And as long as there are physical probes involved, I think I'd prefer the pat-down.

But that's my personal opinion. My wife doesn't want to be patted down. My 11 year old daughter doesn't want to be patted down, nor do I want her to be. My 4 year old and 4 month old sons don't need to be patted down, and I don't want them to be either.

So should I have to drive or take a train from Arizona to Georgia so my two older children can see their mother, but not be exposed to pat-downs or 3D nude imaging? That's hardly fair. I would burn up a week's worth of time off just to travel there and back, not to mention the gas money, wear and tear on my car, hotel stays, and fast food costs all of which are increased because it takes several days to make the trip, and we'd all drive each other nuts in the process. So no, I'll opt for the pat-down because I'm legally bound to let my cheating ex-wife spend time with the kids, and not because I think they are necessary for our safety, even if properly conducted.

We ARE slowly but with a rapidly increasing intensity, moving toward a police-state and as we do so, certain freedoms are being truncated in order to preserve others. Its sad. I think THAT was the motivation behind many terrorist attacks in the first place, because we Americans gloat about our many freedoms so profusely that others in this world become sick of us and decide to ram some humility down our throats, or up our rears, and our reaction to their misplaced hostility is to tighten our sphincters.

Remember my name, Mike, and you Techdirt fans should too. I am planning a move into politics, not because I like them, but because I'm not afraid to fight our government, from within, to preserve as many freedoms as we can.

I'm a conservative Independent with a STRONG idea of separation of church and state, freedom of information, and most importantly, I support government OF the People and FOR the People, and I will campaign against laws that make it illegal to observe and record government officials while they are acting within the confines of their duties. I will campaign against copyright and patent enforcement and I aim to help devise a new plan to inspire and protect innovation, that isn't self-defeating.

I hope this doesn't prompt any of you to label me a troll in the future. I do value this blog and many of the opinions stated here, even if I disagree with some. Mike, you can tend to be a bit one-sided and somewhat scathing in your titling, but hey, it gets readers, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 6:28pm
  
  Re:
  "I'm a conservative Independent with a STRONG idea of separation of church and state, freedom of information, and most importantly, I support government OF the People and FOR the People, and I will campaign against laws that make it illegal to observe and record government officials while they are acting within the confines of their duties. I will campaign against copyright and patent enforcement and I aim to help devise a new plan to inspire and protect innovation, that isn't self-defeating."
  
  Unfortunately, having this sort of ideals will ensure you don't get very far as a politician...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason Berk, 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:03pm

TSA Pervs
I wrote a letter to my usual airline and airport and informed them that I'm driving until they these practices stop. They don't care what we think but they do care about buisinesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jackie, 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:08pm

Creepy bonus
The "what pretty hair you have" dialogue from the TSA officer is word for word what a TSA agent said to me, a PTSD sufferer as a result of abuse, while subjecting me to a search (while I sobbed). I have a feeling this creepy talk is right from a TSA script, which takes my anger to a level I didn't think possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OC, 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:11pm

Let's see..
Let's see if I got this right...

If I take the bus the country is safe.
If I take a flight you can only determine if the country is safe by grabbing my penis?

What the fuck are your leaders smoking?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silver, 14 Apr 2011 @ 2:56pm

Why the hell can't the TSA be sued out of fucking existence? They don't deserve to be around, they need to be lawsuit-bombed into a smoldering hole in the ground.

If people would state their objection to NOT FLYING, and make the airports pay with loss of profits, you'd be damned sure they would do something about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will Sizemore (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 4:14pm

Man I love you guys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 5:52pm

To all the apologists....
Has anyone noticed the similiarities between the current USA laws for "safety & security" recently passed (or about to be) and the initial rise of the 3rd Reich??

I commend to you your history lessons - else you will be doomed to repeat them.

The very early indicators - rehtoric etc are remarkable similiar in effect on a populace that has a very strong "entitled" society with firm beliefs that it's way is best.

(apologies to Godwin... I was too factual to invoke his law...and someone else beat me to it anyway - my point stands)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sparty, 15 Apr 2011 @ 7:12am

Get over 9/11
It's been 10 years. Your government has killed more than 200,000 people in retaliation for 3000 deaths. You've sparked un-ending wars in 3 countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan). Isn't your blood-lust sated by now? Stop crying and whining about 9/11 at the drop of a hat, and bringing it up to excuse and justify every crime on the planet commited under the name of "security".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymouse, 15 Apr 2011 @ 10:47am

Overton Windows
All this debate about "rights" and "inappropriate" and "how did this happen" and "does this stop terrorist attacks" is a distraction; a managed debate and smokescreen to obscure the bottom-line:

TSA is big business. The scanners, the procedures, the taxable pay, the huge employment... this country was set up to fall down hard with the S/L and home loan scandals by 2003-2005. The depression/"recession" was already on the horizon and those in the financial markets knew it.

DHS is not going to go away, and is going to only increase, for one simple and solid reason: it's employment for thousands of people and a moneymaker for hundreds of tech firms. It's the hottest business going now.

The poster above who compared this to the pre-3rd Reich was good, but I'd also point to pre-Mussolini Italy for a little pertinent and thought-provoking history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2011 @ 2:30pm

TSA pedophiles
TSA must be a haven for pedophiles these days
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cody Jackson (profile), 17 Apr 2011 @ 4:18pm

It could have been worse
Honestly, I didn't see anything wrong with the pat-down, per se. It looked like a standard pat-down that is done all the time on adults.

My only complaint is that, based on the pat-down procedures I learned as part of private investigation training, the back of the hand should be used. This is to prevent accusations of inappropriate contact and to protect the inspector's hands in case something dangerous, e.g. fishhooks in a seam, are found.

That all being said, I do think it is inappropriate to pat-down children. Well, I think the pat-downs are stupid period but doing it to children could conceivably be traumatizing, especially if they equate it to being under arrest or some similar situation.

Although, it does give children a good argument when "playing doctor": I was only giving a pat-down, Mom, honest! (Do kids play doctor anymore?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
truth seeker, 17 Apr 2011 @ 7:51pm

how many terrorist have the TSA caught? oh ya. . . . and we stil dont even know who the hijackers were?? hmm.......
those terrorist at the daytona flight school, ya there pilots for a saudi arabian airline.....hmm WAIT something doesnt make sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Realist, 18 Apr 2011 @ 12:52pm

People need to wake up
You know, there is a reason why they must do this. Don't get me wrong, I KNOW it looks bizarre to see a little girl getting a pat down. But that woman did nothing wrong to that little girl. She did her job, in full view of the parent in a professional manner.

I may think that things have gone a little too far myself, but you can't exclude anybody if you want the it to be fair. And working in the field, and having seen people sneak in all kinds of things on their children, YES some parents really are Scum Bags, even if its a one in a thousand chance, you still have to check.

I am not saying its going to be terrorists, or weapons of mass destruction on that little girl, but I have seen other illegal products such as drugs and alcohol. AND when you find that on these children, you are now able to phone child services on that parent, I mean do you really think a person who would smuggle in cocaine on their baby, should be raising that child??

Unfortunately the average citizen doesn't see everything that goes on, they just see a little snippit of a little girl who doesn't want a stranger touching her on the internet. They don't see or hear of the MANY times that that dirt bag parent used their child to traffic illegal stuff. It's sad, but it happens all the time!

Anyways, thats just my two cents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gerp, 28 Apr 2011 @ 9:19am

The bottom line is that these kinds of horrifying policies are set by an aged section of the populace that still fears boogeymen like Communists and Terrorists even though there is no reason to do so. These people are still so shell-shocked by the 9/11 narrative that they are willing to hold everyone's freedom hostage to get a tiny bit of security. When we are nailing the coffins shut on the last of the Baby Boomers I hope we will finally see all of this paranoia disappear. I REALLY hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ddt (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 10:53am

wtf
so now the can legally molest children...its bad enough that they can touch adults this way but to grope (molest) children they've gone way too far
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whitelightning, 3 May 2012 @ 7:05pm

outrageous
This is outrageous. Destroy the TSA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]