Swedish Occupational Psychologist First To Recognize The Debilitating Effects Of Heavy Metal Music

Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter

from the terrorism? dept

Thu, Jul 14th 2011 8:56am — Mike Masnick

A woman, who did not feel comfortable going through the TSA naked scanners, was arrested for disorderly conduct when she also refused to let the TSA molest and grope her daughter. I'm trying to figure out how this makes us any safer on airplanes.

"I still don't want someone to see our bodies naked," the mom is reported to have replied.

As for the pat-down option, the police report states that the mom didn't want her daughter to be "touched inappropriately or have her "crotch grabbed."

TSA agents say she became belligerent and verbally abusive. The woman was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

So, either your privacy gets violated, you get molested, or you get arrested. Where do we live again?

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: arrest, children, groping, scanners, tsa

183 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:04am

Once again, if there is molesting and groping going on, why don't they call the police? Oh wait, it's a valid and legal search.

Stop whining already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TDR, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  Wrong. The police won't do anything because the government won't let them. Also, you must not be familiar with the 4th Amendment. These are clearly in violation of it, shill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - txpatriot, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Why is it that anyone and everyone who doesn't toe the dominant TechDirt fanboi line is automatically a shill?
    
    If you and a friend ever disagreed on which movie to watch or which bar to go to, did that also make them a shill?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A shill by definition tells others to stop whining while whining. This clearly applies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, by definition, a shill is "a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's certainly an idiosyncratic definition you've got there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 2:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        lol Chill != Shill
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  Well, it looks like we won't be seeing any more molestation or groping convictions then, since molesters and gropers can just claim they were doing a valid and legal search.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:11am
  
  Re:
  Who says it is a "valid and legal search"? The TSA? Seeing as the searches are being conducted by a government agency their legality and validity is questionable. Accused criminals have more rights than air travellers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bas Grasmayer (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Air travellers ARE accused criminals.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bas Grasmayer (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Air travellers ARE accused criminals.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  Papers please! Be sure to never travel without your papers...you have nothing to hide do you, comrade?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2011 @ 8:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    I like how a judge dismissed that concern because, well, it's not the only way to travel. Nice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackwagon (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  You can take your your valid and legal search and shove it up your terrorist hole.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Probably not a good place to hide it, they'll find it there ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  You don't have kids, do you?
  
  And if you do, would you let strangers touch them and manhandle them in ways that (I hope) you taught them are inappropriate? What message are you passing to your kids?
  
  One last thing: that mother was arrested for national security. Do you feel safer? Or would you feel even safer if the kid got touch in inappropriate ways?
  
  Idiot. You and everyone else that supports this practice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    Here's the problem. Nobody touched their child inappropriately, it was the mother freaking out that it might happen. Read the story.
    
    Yes I have kids. I want them to live to be old. I don't want them on a plane that blows up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Better to die on our feet then live on our knees.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it was up to the AC, there wouldn't be The United States.
        
        "Uh, what? Revolution? Are you people insane!? No, no, no, no, a million times no! Let's just stay quiet and live peacefully, under the oppressive rule of the English. It's safer that way. I want my children to grow old, you know."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Doe, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I went to Philadelphia, the birthplace of our nation, a few weeks ago for a mini-vacation. It would do this guy and all of our governmental leaders some good to go there and learn about why and how our country was founded. It is a real eye opener to see what the founding fathers risked to build this country and understand why they did it. Something we have forgotten in the last 200+ years.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Jul 2011 @ 5:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Went to Philly several years ago. To see the Liberty Bell, you were required to go through a metal detector. Same with the Statue of Liberty.
        
        Don't have a problem with detectors. But it's only a matter of time until the TSA takes over. IMHO.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jul 2011 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A matter of time? You haven't read about their "mobile response units" have you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        2nd
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Might? Given TSA history of groping old ladies and babies, I believe her fears are justified. If you believed strangers wanted to touch you kids that way, wouldn't you freak out? (Please say yes. I want to believe that you are a human being, and not some heartless abomination).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        She chose to make a fuss. She chose not to take the scanning machine (nude pictures... oh noes!). Then she freaks out about what a screener MIGHT do to her daughter.
        
        Sorry, I have no pity for someone who clearly showed up intending to whine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There are three options when going threw an airport, 1) the backscatter scanner, 2) the pat down, 3) The metal detector. Sounds to me like she just wanted to take the just as effective (maybe more effective) but way less invasive method of the metal detector. So, there's no proof that she showed up intending to whine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 1:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not to mention the possible health risks of the "new and better" scanning machines...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        athe, 14 Jul 2011 @ 4:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what do you expect her to do - allow the search to go forward, then, let's say that they do touch her daughter inappropriately, complain (or "whine" in your parlance)? Chances are she would still be arrested for disorderly conduct.
        
        What would be your view after the event?
        
        Way to belittle a person for standing up for their constitutional rights (FYI, I'm not from the US, but I do understand how things work).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris, 17 Jul 2011 @ 8:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I could understand if she acting belligerent, but is there any evidence of this besides from the TSA. Because they wouldn't exactly be a neutral party in this situation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ccomp5950 (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:03am
      
      You play the lotto?
      There are roughly 25,000 flights each day (I'm using NPR's numbers) in the US.
      
      25,000 x 365 = 9,125,000 flights a year
      
      Since 2001 there have been 3 planes destroyed due to terrorist activities. and what a handful of failed attempts?
      
      3 to 91,250,000 odds your flight will be blown up by a terrorist.
      
      You are giving up your 4th amendment rights to odds that are worse then most state lotteries.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: You play the lotto?
        Per flight a 3 in 91,250,000 chance of getting blown up.
        
        With a 1 in less than 100 chance of being groped per flight.
        
        1 in 100 chance of getting groped, 100 ppl per flight or 1 person groped per flight. hmmm, er, it really seems the terrorist have won this one.
        
        US special forces 1, Terrorist 9,125,000 ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        David Liu (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:44am
        
        Re: Re: You play the lotto?
        Here's another way of thinking about it:
        
        Every time a person gets groped at the airport, that's another virgin for Osama to grope, in whatever terrorist hell he's in now. You don't want to support terrorists in terrorist hell do you?! TSA are terrorist supporters!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris, 17 Jul 2011 @ 8:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: You play the lotto?
        No see the TSA is making sure that no one passing through screening leaves as a virgin. That way Osama is screwed. Take that terrorists!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hugh Mann (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: You play the lotto?
        I'm not sure of your math re groping. If you opt out of the naked scanner, your chances of being groped are 100%. If you strike your submissive pose for the camera, your chances of being groped likely approach zero.
        
        And to the poster who noted that you have three choices (i.e., backscatter scanner, pat-down or metal detector), the availability of just the metal detector is being reduced, and you have no control over being directed through the naked scanner, at which point your choices are reduced to two: naked pictures or groping.
        
        HM
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 1:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: You play the lotto?
        My own thoughts are that the numbers are substantally higher than 1 in 100 ppl.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Bruce Ediger (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 4:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: You play the lotto?
        Only if you're female, busty, buxom, statuesque, or even merely attractive.
        
        Male, dumpy, balding? Much much less than 1 in 100 chance of a grope.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hugh Mann (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: You play the lotto?
        I'm not sure of your math re groping. If you opt out of the naked scanner, your chances of being groped are 100%. If you strike your submissive pose for the camera, your chances of being groped likely approach zero.
        
        And to the poster who noted that you have three choices (i.e., backscatter scanner, pat-down or metal detector), the availability of just the metal detector is being reduced, and you have no control over being directed through the naked scanner, at which point your choices are reduced to two: naked pictures or groping.
        
        HM
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - someone (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: You play the lotto?
        On average more Americans die from car/truck accidents each month than have died from all terrorist acts combined.
        
        http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
        
        I'm not afraid of terrorists, no one should be afraid of those losers.
        
        But I do look both ways many times before crossing streets because I am fearful of my fellow Americans ability to operate their vehicles.
        
        More people die each year crossing the street than have died from all terrorist attacks combined including 9/11.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris, 17 Jul 2011 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: You play the lotto?
        Or my favorite, you're more likely to be killed by those who "protect and serve" than any terrorists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 14 Jul 2011 @ 6:01pm
        
        Re: You play the lotto?
        The number of victims in the 11th September 2001 attacks was equivalent to about 3 weeks of traffic fatalities in the US.
        
        Even at the height of the Palestinian intifada, the average Israeli had more chance of dying in a traffic accident than in a suicide-bomb attack.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:08pm
        
        Re: You play the lotto?
        The usual stupid math.
        
        Let's get rid of the security people for 6 months, and check back with us when planes start dropping out of the skies or spend most of their time in Cuba after hijackings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ccomp5950 (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: You play the lotto?
        No one ever advocated getting rid of security. Mainly what is targeted here is the illegal searches. No one should have to be groped or photographed by a low-quality-cancer-inducing-porno-camera.
        
        Probably cause? Fine, send them on through. Just wanting to get from point a to point b? Check their bags, and let them on their way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris, 17 Jul 2011 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: You play the lotto?
        TSA has not decreased the rate that planes drop out of the sky, and they do that mostly without the help of terrorist. No, for that you can thank the FAA which instead of acting as a regulatory authority, treats the airlines as customers they don't dare piss off.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Eugene (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "it was the mother freaking out that it might happen."
      You just lost your own argument.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I don't want them on a plane that blows up."
      
      Do you drive in the car with your daughter? Because that is statistically *much* more dangerous than flying has *ever* been; even before 9/11.
      
      Bombs have blown up planes for many many years before 9/11 without this 'security theater' we have now. Why are we all of a sudden trying to prevent *anything* from happening *ever*?
      
      The odds of a plane being blown up are ridiculously small. 9/11 was a hijacking, bombs aren't hijackings. Period.
      
      We've stopped another 9/11 through exactly 2 things;
      
      1. Locked/reinforced cockpit doors
      
      2. Flight #93, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber - You and I are going to beat the living snot out of *anyone* who tries to hijack or otherwise do something to harm the plane we're riding in.
      
      The rules *have* changed. People will no longer just sit calmly and expect to be released at the end.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        2. Flight #93, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber - You and I are going to beat the living snot out of *anyone* who tries to hijack or otherwise do something to harm the plane we're riding in.
        
        So what are you going to do when the guy goes to the can, locks the door and blows the tail off of the airplane?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then you probably die along with everyone else in that situation. Do you really live your life in fear of what MIGHT happen? Do you really think a plane is going to be the next target/weapon for anyone wishing to do harm to America? We get groped and are no safer for it because of idiots like you who will give up everything so the crazy sand people don't get us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        GunSheep (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not to mention that planes are tough. The shoe bomber and underwear bomber could have blown a hole in the plane but it's unlikely they would have had enough explosives to actually have brought the plane down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > So what are you going to do when the guy
        > goes to the can, locks the door and blows
        > the tail off of the airplane?
        
        So what are you going to do when some guy careens across three lanes of traffic on the highway to make an exit and plows into you?
        
        'Cause that's a helluva lot more likely to happen than your bathroom bomber.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At least in that scenario, I'd have a fighting chance. And it's just the occupants of two cars.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Bruce Ediger (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 4:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're rationalizing, plain and simple. You lost the argument, so AC-up and admit it in a gentlemanly fashion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > At least in that scenario, I'd have a fighting chance.
        
        Everyone thinks that, but it ain't true.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        someone (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So what are you going to do when the guy goes to the can, locks the door and blows the tail off of the airplane?"
        
        What are you going to do when an asteroid knocks the tail of the airplane off?
        
        What are you going to do when the terrorists set off a bomb at the security checkpoint on a busy day?
        
        I can play what if games all day long too, but that does not really matter now does it?
        
        There is never a good excuse to exchange liberty for security.
        
        Especially when the security is doing nothing to stop the threats you fear.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what are you going to do when the guy goes to the can, locks the door and blows the tail off of the airplane?
        
        So what are you doing to do when he blows up standing next to you in the "security" line?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes I have kids. I want them to live to be old. I don't want them on a plane that blows up.
      
      So, even though you know your kids aren't hiding bombs in their pants, you're ok with your kids being searched this way?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David Liu (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Then don't let them get on a plane in the first place. There are so many more things that could go wrong than a terrorist on board. It is statistically more likely for a plane to crash due to pilot error or something going wrong on takeoff/landing than it is for it to even be blown up by a terrorist.
      
      I can't even recall the last time a terrorist actually blew up a plane (not attempt, but actually getting to go through with it) instead of hijacking it. And considering multiple multiple people have gotten through the TSA with guns or 4 foot long saw blades, or what have you, I simply don't see the point in the TSA. Hell, as it is, the American public has had a higher success rate than the TSA at thwarting terrorist threats.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Yes I have kids. I want them to live to be
      > old. I don't want them on a plane that blows up.
      
      Then you should be in favor of *actual* security. Not this TSA nonsense.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BigKeithO (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 3:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How come no one ever mentions the commercial air cargo in the hold of all of those passenger planes? You know, the cargo that doesn't go through any sort of screening at all?
      
      You want your kids to grow old flying on planes maybe you should be more concerned with getting the commercial cargo screened instead of patting down little kids.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JSF, 15 Jul 2011 @ 6:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and the home of the brave... and the not-so-bright.
      
      If you imagine that giving away the sanctity of your person to the high-school drop-outs on the TSA lines because you really think that groping a young girl is going to save you from terrorists, then you do not deserve to be free.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 10:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If only the groping would help to ensure that, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  "Once again, if denying women the vote is wrong, then why don't they call the police? Oh wait, it's valid and legal to stop women from voting.
  
  Stop whining already."
  
  That's a very good point you make.
  
  "Once again, if making black people sit at the back of the bus is wrong, then why don't they call the police? Oh wait, it's valid and legal to make black people sit at the back of the bus.
  
  Stop whining already."
  
  Can't argue with that line of thinking at all.
  
  "Once again, if rounding up Jews is wrong, then why don't they call the police? Oh wait, it's valid and legal to round up Jews.
  
  Stop whining already."
  
  You've certainly backed me into a logical corner there. I don't see any way to assail your iron-clad premise. Kudos to you, sir!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    you are so profound!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    you are so profound!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  successful troll is successful
  
  as someone who has been through the tsa screening on multiple trips, I can attest to the uncomfortableness of it, they are VERY thorough, to the point were I wonder what the hell they think I'm hiding up there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Crack?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What does copy-protection defeating software have to do with airport security?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      last i checked it would be very hard to hijack a plane with crack....unless you got everyone high on crack and convinced them to help! but I do not have enough room in there for that much crack...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - freak (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think he's making a pun there, friend.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you should turn on threading so you could see i was continueing the original joke not responding to the copy protection reply
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        . . . you were? Even now knowing it's supposed to be a joke, I fail to see you continuing the joke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        well i'm not very funny that might be why
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and you should look this thread over again to realize that "crack" was the pun :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greg G (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      uh huh huh huh... you said crack
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rfk, 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They're concerned you may be, uh, packing heat.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bruce Ediger (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 4:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's statistically more likely that the TSA "Agent" just wanted to touch his sac than it is that he's, uh, packing heat.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  Let's put it this way: if anyone touched my daughter like that, they would hit the deck so damned fast.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    eejit, you don't have a daughter :P you are only 12!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And she's nearly 5, which would make me the world's youngest father in history.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    !
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:35am
  
  Re:
  TROLL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:03am
  
  Re:
  @complacentsheep
  
  Ben Franklin once said "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." maybe you fall into this category?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 4:32pm
  
  Re:
  Ascribing the moral rightness of an act solely to the law is circular reasoning. The law exists to serve society, not the other way around.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:29am

To be fair, she was apparently arrested because she was cursing and being beligerent. Though, would her behavior have been considered "disorderly conduct" if she weren't objecting to TSA screening? Possibly not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  Your founding fathers would have been rounded up on disorderly conduct, declared a national security issue and sent to gitmo for indefinite detention. Ain't the USA great.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:39am
  
  Re:
  From the arresting officer's affidavit:
  
  Abbott retrieved her cell phone and was attempting to film her daughter being screened. I advised Abbott to put her cell phone away. Again, Abbott was verbally abusive.
  
  "Disorderly Conduct" can be translated as "contempt of cop" these days.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:39am
  
  Re:
  I don't see any statement in the stories as to her cursing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, I'm as anti-TSA as the next guy, but if she actually WAS being belligerant, the arrest might have been justified.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    you can be arrested for being belligerent? sure comrade, but who determines beligerence?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you're physically threatening or disrupting the security process, I think that might be a legitimate reason for arrest.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, we can't just let someone say things that annoy a cop. What kind of dangerous anarchist is this woman!?
    
    You lick the boots of authority, or the terrorists win. That's the deal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Finally! I'm glad one of you people finally get it. I hope the rest of you start to catch up with this fine, intelligent gentleman soon.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm not talking about being annoying (and TSA agents are not cops).
      
      If you want to complain or protest or dissent, I'm all for that. But disrupting the security procedures or being physically threatening is a legitimate reason to arrest someone, even if they have every reason to be upset.
      
      I don't know if what this woman did rises to that level, but, as a general rule, calm, rational protest is more effective than flying off the handle.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ninja (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 1:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Libya, Syria and the likes are good examples on how calm, rational protest are more effective. Always.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Yeah, we can't just let someone say things
      > that annoy a cop.
      
      Point of order: TSA screeners are not cops. Please don't tar us with their brush.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - athe, 14 Jul 2011 @ 5:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, they are not. But surely to be arrested, cops were brought into the situation. Could they not have used their own judgement on whether or not an arrest was required in this situation? Arrest in this case does seem to be an over-reaction, IMO.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PRMan, 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "You lick the boots of authority, AND the terrorists win."
      
      FTFY
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:44am
  
  Re:
  That's what bothers me most of all is the lack of perspective that can shine through in these situations.
  
  Sure, in my life I've seen people become belligerent and verbally abusive because their latte wasn't made to order. Some people just fly off the handle. Then again we're talking about some gov't agent saying it's not only a responsibility, but a requirement to choose by random and extensively pat down some kid like they're a coke mule. As has been pointed out here, it might be more unusual for a parent to NOT be belligerent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:52am
  
  Re:
  To be fair, she was apparently arrested because she was cursing and being beligerent. Though, would her behavior have been considered "disorderly conduct" if she weren't objecting to TSA screening? Probably...
  
  Fixed that for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:41am
    
    Sometimes it's right to be a hysterical mother.
    She had every reason to be beligerent.
    
    Today she's a hero to her friends, family, neighbors and co-workers. She had her "Braveheart Moment" and handled it admirably.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:35am

Somebody has to have taken a straw poll by now on to the effectiveness of this. Obviously there have been no terrorist attacks, but how about counting the stupid screw ups that have happened before vs after the new screening. For instance, the number of people being in terminals illegally or with invalid credentials. Not that that even makes us any safer because by the time people are at the airport its a finger in the dike situation anyways. But at least it could help the tax dollars vs effectiveness arguments. I think most people could understand that if *people* can still get into the secure areas illegally then it wouldn't be hard to get *things* into them either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:41am
  
  Re:
  No its impossible to get anything past the TSA.
  
  Unless of course you try to, then its apparently very easy
  
  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gabriel Tane (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Quoted from the article:
    
    "We took our shoes off and placed our laptops in bins. Schneier took from his bag a 12-ounce container labeled �saline solution.�
    
    �It�s allowed,� he said. Medical supplies, such as saline solution for contact-lens cleaning, don�t fall under the TSA�s three-ounce rule.
    
    �What�s allowed?� I asked. �Saline solution, or bottles labeled saline solution?�
    
    �Bottles labeled saline solution. They won�t check what�s in it, trust me.�
    
    They did not check. As we gathered our belongings, Schneier held up the bottle and said to the nearest security officer, �This is okay, right?� �Yep,� the officer said. �Just have to put it in the tray.�
    
    �Maybe if you lit it on fire, he�d pay attention,� I said, risking arrest for making a joke at airport security. (Later, Schneier would carry two bottles labeled saline solution�24 ounces in total�through security. An officer asked him why he needed two bottles. �Two eyes,� he said. He was allowed to keep the bottles.)" Little girls and old ladies, on the other hand... very much more dangerous than uninspected 12oz bottles labeled 'saline solution'.
    
    Hey "quit bitching" AC's... how does this make us safer?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:43am

Welcome to the New World.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:47am

TSA is good for nothing
They never miss the chance to touch a child or degrade a dying old woman, but ask them to find a taser and they are completely lost.

I have a two year old and I would certainly choose jail over letting some TSA agent feel here up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:19am
  
  Re: TSA is good for nothing
  They can apparently find ipads very easily.
  
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20077881-71/police-tsa-worker-put-stolen-ipad-in-his-pa nts/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 9:59am

The party is over!
You stupid freetards, thinking that...oh..crap. I think I'm in the wrong article. Let me see what else I have in my little bag here...oh!

The law is the law! If you don't like it you must be trying to sneak bombs onto planes in the no-no areas of children. More people die in terrorist related plane crashes every year than die by every other cause combined. Get your facts straight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re: The party is over!
  uh, what law requires us to submit to unreasonable searches? i missed that law. Why can no one show me this law
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Alan Levy (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:00am

The fact is, we just don't know what happened
The Consumerist story just reports the TSA version that the woman "became belligerent and verbally abusive." These are of course just conclusory characterizations; we don't exactly know what she actually said and did, and we don't know exactly what the TSA claim she actually said and did.

The underlying story from the Tennessean has this:

"[name omitted] yelled and swore at Transportation Security Administration agents Saturday afternoon at Nashville International Airport, saying she did not want her daughter to be �touched inappropriately or have her �crotch grabbed,� a police report states.

After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110713/NEWS01/307130115/Police-charge-mother-Nashville-airpo rt-altercation?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

The actual words reported do not include any swearing, and so not explain what she did from which she was supposed to "calm down." "yelled" comes closest to being factual, but some people fell they are being yelled at whenever they are reprimanded. Again, very conclusory. So, in the circumstances, it is awfully hard to form a judgment about whether the arrest was justified.

And chances are, we will never find out, because chances are the charges will be dropped
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:28am
  
  Re: The fact is, we just don't know what happened
  We've already established that you're probably a terrorist if you complain about TSA security procedures. She's probably a freedom-hating terrorist commie fascist... parent.
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/16173213915/tsa-says-you-might-be-terrorist-if-you-com plain-about-tsa.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Benny6Toes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:40am
  
  Re: The fact is, we just don't know what happened
  A reasonable analysis...
  
  ...until you get to the part where she took out her cell phone to record the pat down and was arrested when she refused to put it away. That specific conversation probably took, what, all of 30 seconds to happen (including her taking out the phone)?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - known coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:22am
    
    Re: Re: The fact is, we just don't know what happened
    look the woman by filming the TSA pat down was clearly creating child pornography. She should be jailed. We must protect the children from . . . the evil pornographers.
    
    G-D Bless the TSA
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Benny6Toes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The fact is, we just don't know what happened
      I hadn't considered the child pornography thing! Why, if she had uploaded that to youtube it could have gone viral and ohmygodwewouldallbepedophiles.
      
      The child porn thing makes sense though. She totally should have been arrested.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:03am

I agree with the approach taken by the woman, protecting a kid from getting molested and scanned like that is fair. (Anyone remember the movie Airplane! with the scanner lol...)

What I don't agree with is the verbal abuse stuff, which is probably why they arrested her in the first place.

It reminds me of the story with the flight attendant and the photo (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/20381614979/us-airways-employee-handles-complaining-passe nger-tsa-way.shtml)

Alot of these type of protections while I understand that authorities think they are necessary are we really going to keep increasing them? I mean I honestly hate going through Airport Security to the point where I plan what I wear and what I carry on me so that I avoid as much hassel as possible. At the rate we going I expect airlines to give passengers sleeping pills or lock em in cages to make sure they don't do anything bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
panhead20, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:04am

And when the next would be bomber has a device in a body cavity will we have to submit to a body cavity search? I will not subject myself nor my family to needless radiation exposure nor TSA molestation. My family and I will not be flying until the TSA changes these procedures.

"They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays," Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, told AFP."No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner,"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/body-scanners-dangerous-scientists

http://www.aoln ews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Incoherent One (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:09am

Well
If this kind of thing continues then it would make sense for sex offenders and pedophiles to become TSA agents. Think about it. If they have yet to be convicted they can join the TSA and grope people with impunity. As long as they keep it at the "office" its not a crime. Those who protest will be arrested or cited, and the agent is then free to continue.

Now we here plenty of "protect the children" around here when it comes to new over reaching legislation. Here though is a real case where someone could actually be placing children in harms way, all in the name of protecting them in another way? It just doesn't make any sense to me how this reactionary security and touching my three year old is supposed to protect me from the next terrorist-ic act.

While there may not a smoking gun which I could link to, the premise The argument makes sense. I may be cynical, but I think its more of a matter of WHEN an agent is finally caught rather than if he does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eugene (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: Well
  In Psychology there's an understanding that people tend to take or aspire to job positions that most popularly fit their personality profile.
  
  In other words, yes. There are potential sex offenders working for the TSA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grae (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:22am

From the original article:

[...]

Andrea Fornella Abbott yelled and swore at Transportation Security Administration agents Saturday afternoon at Nashville International Airport, saying she did not want her daughter to be �touched inappropriately or have her �crotch grabbed,� a police report states.

After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail. She has been released on bond.

[...]

There's some detail missing here: what was done to "calm down" Abbott? Did they attempt to kick her out of the airport before deciding arresting her? How long did it take before the TSA agents decided to pull out the handcuffs? The report says she was "belligerent"; was she being physically menacing (which is how I'd take it since they already mentioned she was yelling and swearing) or were they just tacking that on there to make the TSA look better?

Having more info might make this look less bad, though perhaps it could actually make them look a lot worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:32am
  
  Re:
  Just a note. She was almost certainly arrested by the local police force that patrols the airport and not by TSA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:23am

Remember that old commercial in the 80s about a kid smoking pot and the dad catches him and he says he learned it from watching the dad? Cue 2011 when a child molester is caught and tells the government he learned it from watching them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:29am

So you're quite the keyboard tough guy Masnick. When you flew to Berlin, did you confront TSA security over the outrageous intrusion or did you meekly submit. Don't bother answering, it's apparent.

It sucks that such extraordinary security is necessary. Personally, I drive any distance under 500 miles just to avoid the nightmarish experience that air travel has become. If some jerk-off needs to put his hand on my unit to assure that I'm not carrying C-4, so be it. I don't like it but at least I'm not the guy whose job it is to pat down several hundred crotches a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Benny6Toes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:46am
  
  Re:
  So you'd be okay with the police or some federal agency examining your car every time you drive somewhere to make sure there isn't a bomb in the trunk?
  
  Didn't think so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think it would be fine, just so long as some jerk-off puts a hand on their unit!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    @Benny
    
    So you'd be okay with the police or some federal agency examining your car every time you drive somewhere to make sure there isn't a bomb in the trunk?
    
    Didn't think so.
    
    Are you really so stupid that you don't understand the difference? Why not ask your helper to explain it so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Benny6Toes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There have been more attempts at car/truck bombings in the USA than plane hijackings, and a greater number of successful ones too. By your reasoning (if you can call it that) we should be inspecting every car on the road in some manner or another every time it leaves a person's driveway.
      
      If you can't see a parallel, then perhaps you should take off the blindfold.
      
      As for being a fool, well, I'm not the one willfully giving up my 4th Amendment protections. You go ahead and feel safer because of this if it makes you feel better.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Are you really so stupid that you don't
      > understand the difference?
      
      There actually is no difference. Vehicle checkpoints can be just as essential to national security as airport gropings.
      
      In fact, unlike the crotch-grabbing TSA program, there have been actual verifiable terrorist acts stopped by vehicle inspections.
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ressam
      
      So if having your junk jiggled is necessary for national security, then certainly having your car searched at the whim of the government can't be argued with.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steven (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:14am
  
  Re:
  "necessary"
  
  I don't think that word means what you think it means.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:31am
  
  Re:
  Got news for you, they don't do these checks all the time.
  
  I flew to CA between Xmas and New Years. We went through the standard metal detectors but no groping or the new scanners.
  
  It wasn't that we weren't picked, NOBODY was being checked at all. I watched for 5-10 minutes and quite a number of people (100+?) went through before deciding my watching might attract suspicion and headed for the gate.
  
  This was at Dulles airport in DC AND at San Fran on the way back.
  
  Checks like these are *only* effective if done *every* time. And that's before you determine if the individual check has actual value (which it doesn't in this case). If you're only checking some of the time, people will just go at the times you aren't checking and then the 'security' is moot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:57am
  
  Re:
  So you're quite the keyboard tough guy Masnick. When you flew to Berlin, did you confront TSA security over the outrageous intrusion or did you meekly submit. Don't bother answering, it's apparent.
  
  I've flown probably 2 dozen times since the new rules were put in place, and I've never once had to go through the new scanners or had anyone ask to grope me. Why do you assume I put up with it?
  
  It sucks that such extraordinary security is necessary.
  
  Define "necessary," because I think our definitions differ, and mine is the English one. Which is yours?
  
  If some jerk-off needs to put his hand on my unit to assure that I'm not carrying C-4, so be it.
  
  The worst thing is when people give up their own freedoms for lies... and then spout the lies as truth. Such is the life of a professional liar, I guess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bruce Ediger (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 5:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike writes: "Such is the life of a professional liar,"
    
    What do you know that we don't? I really wish the on-line-shill phenomenon had a logical way out, that let people who ran the forums (who actually act ethically about anonymous comments) denounce the real shills.
    
    Unfortunately, I don't see a way out of it. So "Blogger Bob" gets to run his keyboard like a weedeater on rocket fuel under the anonymous coward flag, and everybody just gets to call him a shill.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 8:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Such is the life of a professional liar, I guess.
    
    Hahahahahaha.......So sayeth the author of "Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 1:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Once again, the professional liar doesn't respond to the key points raised.
      
      That's what a liar does when proven wrong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:40am

Or, you can walk... No one owes you an air flight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:46am
  
  PA revolutionaries....
  Actually someone does, or rather the US Government does.
  
  That's what they were created for.
  
  I am owed being secure from treatment that feels like it came from an 18th century monarchy.
  
  Someone else mentioned Philadelphia.
  
  One of the PA delegates had some choice words very appropriate to this very situation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:07am
  
  Re:
  except the airline you paid for a ticket
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TDR, 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re:
  Or, you can walk... No one owes you an air flight.
  
  What about international travelers? Last time I checked, only Jesus could walk on water.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    pssst... ever hear of a ship?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TDR, 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You ever hear of the 4th Amendment?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hank, 14 Jul 2011 @ 3:17pm
  
  Re: Yea, another industry we can float with tax ayers money
  Sure, and then when the airlines go bust again because people aren't flying, the taxpayers can bail them out... again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:41am

TSA = Transportation Security Assholes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AKP (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 10:47am

Surprised...
I flew recently and was pleasantly surprised I did NOT receive any pat-down at all, despite refusing the backscatter scan.

I'm not sure what criteria they're using to select people for "enhanced screening", but it's surely not everyone who refuses the naked scanning.

After I walked through the regular metal detector, and a TSA agent asked me why I refused the backscatter, I said I didn't want to be irradiated.

He told me with a straight face that I'm exposed to more radiation during my flight than I would be from the scanner. I told him "You're wrong," and walked away. I wanted to tell him to Google "Logan Cancer Cluster," but I decided not to argue with the guy...

I think TSA is starting to receive training to "manage objections," much like retail salespeople are. A sign that these machines are not going away.

On topic... There's always more to a story. It's just *possible* that TSA had no intention of treating these two people poorly, the mother jumped to the conclusion they would and acted poorly herself.

TSA is security theater, not actually protecting us any better than we were before, and yes.. In many cases acting like fascists. That doesn't give *us* the excuse to act badly ourselves.

Resist, but stay calm and carry on. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Doyle (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:04am

They are so close to falling down the slippery slope...
I don't think anyone has tried this yet, but I imagine it is only a matter of time.

When is the US government going to give law enforcement (not customs & immigration) the power to act as customs and immigration officials? If they did that, police could then perform pat-downs (also known as 'groping') on anyone taking a) public transit b) personal transit c) walking down the damn street because you will soon need a license for sneakers (but not loafers - we all know terrorists never wear loafers...).

And anything found on those people (weapons, drugs, Canadian Currency) will be able to be used against them in prosecution.

Just taking the next 'logical' step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jordan (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:25am

Just tell them that being groped is against your policy. TSA is all about compliance with policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ladyserenakitty (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 11:47am

Welcome to the Communist States of America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ladyserenakitty (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:10pm

TSA is all about falsehoods. I had a round-trip between SAT and SLC (San Antonio International and Salt Lake City). In SAT I totally forgot to declare my medication, and was able to go on about my flight.

SLC was a totally different matter. I remembered to declare my medication (as the sign suggests), and there was a group of Mormon missionaries. First, the missionary in front of me got flagged for having an explosive, which turned out to be the gold-foil lettering on his bible. WTF. Second, I was asked some interesting questions about my medications, such as what I was taking them for and what dangers my meds posed to the plane. This made no sense to me.

This makes me think the TSA is more focused on harassing passengers than finding actual threats. I mean, they let Adam Savage through with a pair of very long razor blades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Benny6Toes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 3:59pm
  
  Re:
  I hoe your response to being asked what you medication was for was along the lines of, "because it helps keep me healthy." They've got no business digging into your medical care.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ladyserenakitty (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:15pm

What are you going to do when an asteroid knocks the tail of the airplane off?

This isn't really avoidable, and planes can still fly without a tail, its just really unstable. An emergency landing is still possible in this scenario. I also think the oxygen masks would deploy since the cabin would be depressurized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re:
  @ladyserenakitty
  
  Planes cannot fly without a tail. The tail controls the yaw axis and pitch axis of flight. The loss of weight aft would but the plane into an unrecoverable dive, corkscrewing all the way in.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 5:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This is not necessarily true. The tailplane is more to balance the plane and provide control, but is not a 'weight' to 'keep the nose up.' Often it does the exact opposite, providing a nose-down force during gusts, and helping to stabilize center of gravity in flight. It is entirely possible to fly and land without the tail, but it would take a great bit of flying to do it.
    
    Also, corkscrewing? Not because the tail is missing...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 7:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Find me ONE single instance of a jetliner losing its entire tail structure (rudders and elevators) where it didn't crash immediately thereafter.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Any Mouse (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 1:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I said it was 'possible.' Honestly, do you just want to attack me, or do you want to go back and look at the physics of it like I have for nearly 30 years? Yes, as an amateur, but still... Besides, show me one instance where the tail falling off is the ONLY reason the plane crashed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:21pm

While I disagree with these TSA searches and scans, I think calling it molestation only derails the conversation and distracts people from the real issues. I think it's best for us to refrain from such hyperbola when discussing these issues if we want our message to be taken seriously. I say this exactly because I disagree with these scans and I don't want our message to be ignored thanks to this sort of irrelevant language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Benny6Toes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 4:02pm
  
  Re:
  So what would you call it instead? Outside of a TSA inspection, it would be called molestation or foreplay. I suppose we could call it foreplay, but then it would probably be even more difficult to argue against. In fact, I bet more people would ask for it in the first place; especially if it came with a happy ending...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jul 2011 @ 12:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "So what would you call it instead?"
    
    an invasive search. An unwarranted search. An unwarranted, invasive search. An invasive search without a warrant. There are other, more appropriate, things to call it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ladyserenakitty (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:35pm

Are you serious? I've driven through the El Paso checkpoints many times. Border Patrol checkpoints are a joke. Its usually just a guy asking "Y'alls American citizens?" There was only one time I got questioned with an odd series of questions.

"Where ya headed?" "San Antonio."
"What business ya got there?" "I live there."
"Do you live in San Antonio?" "I just told you I live there."
"Is this your car?" "Damn straight it is!"
"Is this car registered in Texas?" *pointing to the Texas registration sticker* "Sure is!"
"Y'alls not a terrist, is ya?" *confused*
"Git on and have a good day."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re:
  I think I had that same guy LOL. He asked me the same set of questions, although we were on vacation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    OK, maybe not the last 2, but the rest are eerily familiar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ntroncos (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 1:01pm

Land of the Free Home of the Brave, amen.

Once you enter the airport you are a criminal, until you exit on the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cloksin (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 1:03pm

Who needs massage parlors anymore?
Reminds me of this.

... He grasped me firmly, but gently, just above my elbow and guided me
into a room, his room.

Then he quietly shut the door and we were alone.

He approached me soundlessly, from behind, and spoke in a low,
reassuring voice close to my ear, "Just relax."

Without warning, he reached down and I felt his strong, calloused hands
start at my ankles, gently probing, and moving upward along my calves,
slowly but steadily.

My breath caught in my throat.

I knew I should be afraid, but somehow I didn't care. His touch was so
experienced, so sure.

When his hands moved up onto my thighs, I gave a slight shudder, and
partly closed my eyes. My pulse was pounding.

I felt his knowing fingers caress my abdomen, my ribcage.

And then, as he cupped my firm, full breasts in his hands, I inhaled
sharply.

Probing, searching, knowing what he wanted, he brought his hands to my
shoulders, slid them down my tingling spine and into my panties.

Although I knew nothing about this man, I felt oddly trusting and
expectant.

This is a man, I thought. A man used to taking charge. A man not used to
taking 'No' for an answer.

A man who would tell me what he wanted. A man who would look into my
soul and say............

"Okay ma'am, you can board your flight now."

author unknown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prisoner 201, 15 Jul 2011 @ 3:20am
  
  Re: Who needs massage parlors anymore?
  Hey, who leaked the TSA recruitment video?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ladyserenakitty (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 1:06pm

@Cloksin, wow, just ... wow. That's disturbing AND creepy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 1:11pm

Wait, riding on a plane is not a RIGHT. You are purchasing a service. They can make any rules that they want. If you don't like it, freakin drive!

That being said, groping is totally unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re:
  They can make any rules that they want.
  
  If you mean the airlines, I agree. At least then we can decide to vote with our dollars and choose the airline who treats us the best.
  
  But if you mean the government, I think you're off base. Saying it's okay for them to violate your rights in one situation, because you can choose to put yourself in different situation instead is a slippery slope. The TSA is already starting to handle security for other forms of travel. What happens when they get around to all the other items on your list?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 1:18pm

Will no one comment on the blatant sensationalist style this post is written in?

"refused to let the TSA molest and grope her daughter"

Now, i'm not pro-TSA and i think a lot of the "security" changes are a bit heavy handed, but not once when i've flown have i felt like myself nor anyone around me was molested or groped.

The issue is such a tricky one to comment on, because while I don't agree that the TSA should have (or pretend to have) such a level of authority over US travelers, I also believe we do need to take (appropriate, whatever those may be) measures to safe guard airports.

I also believe that if you want to make a big bold political statement, which objecting to a pat down at the airport is these days (regardless of whether or not you think it should be), you need to be willing to accept the consequences. What this woman taught her daughter was that if she sees something she doesn't like, she needs to drop everything and make a spectacle over it, in the name of "Standing up for yourself".

I'd like to say if the woman made her case in a more calm, collected manner, she wouldn't have had this happen to her, but the reality of the situation is that any refusal is most likely going to be met with at least a detainment while they tried to scare her into cooperating (which is not the same thing as an arrest, for better and for worse).

At least if she took a more level headed approach, she would've set a better precedent for her daughter to learn from, especially if they were still detained. By teaching the child that in a lose-lose situation, the LAST thing you want to do is give your persecutors more fuel for their fire, she could've taught the girl how to better handle herself in a future situation: Stick up for your rights, but do so without giving the hangman enough rope to do what he does best.

Instead, shes taught the girl to be rude and confrontational, and gotten herself a real criminal record to boot.

However, my real problem is this:

The man wrote this is blatantly coloring this story with his own bias, and he should be held to a higher standard, considering his position within TD - I get that this site is meant to operate like a blog, but coming from the guy at the top? This paints an incredibly unprofessional view of the site, and shows how the author is pandering to a particular audience directly.

Thats a real shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ, 14 Jul 2011 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re:
  "The man wrote this is blatantly coloring this story with his own bias, and he should be held to a higher standard, considering his position within TD - I get that this site is meant to operate like a blog, but coming from the guy at the top? This paints an incredibly unprofessional view of the site, and shows how the author is pandering to a particular audience directly."
  
  If you were to read this post all by itself, I could see why you would say the above statement. But we've sat back and watched the TSA grope babies, remove adult diapers, explode colostomy bags, remove prosthetic limbs, embarrass fat asses, "search rape" people in wheelchairs.... and generally walk all over anyone that complained..... keeping that in mind, surely you can understand why someone may not be giving the TSA the benefit of the doubt when someone gets upset at them... just saying....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re:
  Instead, shes taught the girl to be rude and confrontational
  
  I want more people to be confrontational towards the assholes in government who think they own us. You won't change anything by knuckling under now and then complaining after the fact; the people who you are protesting are the same people who will hear your complaint and decide its merits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 4:37pm
  
  Re:
  The man wrote this is blatantly coloring this story with his own bias, and he should be held to a higher standard, considering his position within TD - I get that this site is meant to operate like a blog, but coming from the guy at the top? This paints an incredibly unprofessional view of the site, and shows how the author is pandering to a particular audience directly.
  
  Thats a real shame.
  
  BOOM. Headshot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 6:03pm
  
  Re:
  There is a huge stretch between teaching someone to be 'rude and confrontational,' and teaching them to stand for what you feel is right. How do you know she wasn't level-headed in the beginning? Were you there?
  
  And we have two versions of how she reacted. Either she 'stated firmly and loudly,' or she 'screamed obscenities and verbal abuse,' depending on who wrote it. The first sounds like they are taking the woman's side, the second sounds like the TSA 'CMA' version.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 1:49am
  
  Re:
  The man wrote this is blatantly coloring this story with his own bias, and he should be held to a higher standard, considering his position within TD
  
  Huh? This is an opinion site. Yes, I express my opinion. I have since day one. What higher standard do you want me to hold? I should suppress my opinion?
  
  Sorry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMan, 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:20pm

So much for the "Land of the Free".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:42pm

Flip the script on them. Naked scanners promote child porn. Think about the kids!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 2:48pm

The TSA...
Sometimes I think some of the TSA employees are convicted child molesters who now have both gainful employment plus an opportunity to practice their perversions on unwilling children.

If you don't want your minor children groped, then you need to find another mode of travel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ian, 14 Jul 2011 @ 3:01pm

Meh, if you don't like the screenings then don't fly, it's as simple as that. This is privilege, not a right.

I'm sure the same people who fear their own government would turn about face and immediately blame the government for not doing enough to protect our airlines should another terrorist attack occur.

The attitude reminds me of being in an IT department; If they're doing their job, everyone whines that its too expensive and redundant. But when something goes wrong, it's all IT's (government's) fault.

Very convenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re:
  > Meh, if you don't like the screenings then
  > don't fly, it's as simple as that.
  
  Fine, so long as the airlines don't go whining to the government, demanding they dip into my pocket to bail them out (again) when their customer base dries up.
  
  > This is privilege, not a right.
  
  So is making money running an airline. Remember that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Benny6Toes (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 4:38pm
  
  Re:
  Or, you know, you could actually understand that the freedom to travel about the country is a right, not a privilege, and doing so by air has been recognized as a Right in the US Code (not to mention the Supreme Court has upeld this view):
  
  http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VII/A/I/401/40103
  
  (a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
  States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
  United States.
  (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
  through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the
  Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural
  and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
  section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792)
  before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure
  that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of
  commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
  handicapped individuals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FuzzyDuck, 14 Jul 2011 @ 3:14pm

Disorderly conduct?
> TSA agents say she became belligerent and verbally abusive. The woman was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

That's probably not true, they just made that up to have an excuse to arrest her. We have seen plenty examples of such false accusations by the police, I am sure the TSA would do it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 4:12pm

That's what's so great about us Americans, we want it both ways. We don't want to be inconvenienced in any way, but as soon as a plane gets in the hands of a terrorist, we will be rushing to stand in line at the complaint dept. to yell at someone for not doing anything to protect us.

If "groping" was really the issue, I would agree with the woman. But that's something we'll never know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 6:23pm

I know how to kill you all!!!!!!!
Firstly I get a terrorist with half a brain (literally) to plant plastic explosives where the missing hemisphere would be.

THEN (muhahaha) I get him to the airport and phone homeland security and tell them what I've done!

Then the TSA will have to cut the heads off random passengers and open their skulls with hammers just to "ensure no-one is killed on this flight".........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btrussell (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 6:40pm

I know I don't want a child of mine growing up believing figures of authority can molest you just to travel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frost, 15 Jul 2011 @ 3:38am

You're living in a fascist or proto-fascist state.
It's not conclusively so that America is a fascist state, but it is at the very least a nation teetering on the edge and headed that way. The parallels between America of today and, say, Europe in the 1920s-1930's are legion.

Something to be concerned about. For now, at least there are still a few people who are outraged at the thought of having their fourth and fifth amendment rights abridged. Pretty soon it will be par for the course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul OFlaherty, 15 Jul 2011 @ 10:59am

Terrorists Are Smarter Than This
Oddly enough, the behavior of the TSA and the ever increasing lines at airports provide terrorists with a much juicer target than an aircraft with perhaps 250+ people on-board.

The *smart* terrorist will just detonate a device in the queues near the security screening areas and get far, far more people in the process...

But now that I've said that, I'm probably marked as a terrorist for pointing it out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 7:43pm
  
  Re: Terrorists Are Smarter Than This
  It is the planes they wish to protect, not the people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
1amWendy, 17 Jul 2011 @ 11:40am

Freedom to Travel - we WANT it
We are Freedom to Travel USA, an organization dedicated to regaining freedoms taken away from us by the TSA. We believe that suspicionless unwanted touching should not be a condition of travel. We believe that being subject to the equivalent of Peeping Toms without cause should not be a condition of travel. We believe that exposing ourselves to radiation, however small, should not be a condition of travel. We believe that merely the presence of medical metal, in and of itself, should not constitute "probable cause." h t t p : / / fttusa . org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
klompenmaker, 18 Jul 2011 @ 7:12am

We are all accused criminals, don't you see?
TSA gropings have little or nothing to do with security - it's all about demonstrating to the world that that all Americans are not just accused, but convicted criminals.

We must all be groped because we are all convicted racists guilty of profiling dark-skinned Middle Eastern Muslim males and oppressing people from poor countries.

For this reason:

1. We must grope children and grandmothers to provide constant ongoing evidence that we are not racial profiling.
2. Being groped makes some small atonement for our past sins of being racist oppressors.
3. We need to be taught a lesson that America has been a force of evil, oppression, and greater unfairness in the world.

Anyone who doesn't accept, even embrace being groped willingly is obviously a bitter clinger to outmoded values and should be placed on a watch list.

And if a TSA agent is able to grab a few iPads and other goodies to stuff down his own pants in the process, that just helps advance the cause of punishing the guilty oppressors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]