Woman Faces Felony Charges For Groping A TSA Agent

from the you-can-only-grope-in-one-direction dept

Mon, Jul 18th 2011 8:19am — Mike Masnick

Well, while it may be legal for the TSA to grope you, that doesn't mean it's okay for you to grope back. It appears that one woman is finding that out the hard way, after grabbing and squeezing the breast of a TSA agent. She admitted to "the crime," and now faces felony charges. It's not clear if she did this as any sort of protest against the pat downs, though it does strike me as an interesting way to make that point (if that is the case). After all, if it's okay for the TSA to do that to passengers, but it's a felony in the other direction, doesn't that at least raise some questions about the "reasonableness" of the pat downs?

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: groping, tsa

91 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:03am

"Police say she squeezed and twisted the agent's breast with both hands."

Ha! I think I'm in love w/this woman....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  Where I come from, a free grope is a free grope. Turnabout is fair play, and all that jazz.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jesse (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Precisely:
    
    On the one hand, it's a warrantless body search without probable cause. On the other, it's a warrantless body search without probable cause.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > On the one hand, it's a warrantless body
      > search without probable cause. On the other,
      > it's a warrantless body search without
      > probable cause.
      
      And the probable cause standard only applies to the government, not private citizens.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Butcherer79 (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 6:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      OR - IN the other hand is the other breast...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- out_of_the_blue, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
  Dark Helmet (profile), Jul 18th, 2011 @ 8:03am
  
  "Police say she squeezed and twisted the agent's breast with both hands."
  
  Ha! I think I'm in love w/this woman....
  
  That's a variety of icky:
  1) Trolling the site with inane trivia.
  2) Evidencing puerile fixation on sexuality.
  3) Evidencing inability to deal with actuality.
  4) Reveals shallow regard for but high need of "love".
  5) It devalues the site.
  6) The only reason it's not pointed out it is because you're of the "in" group here, among (equally low) peers.
  7) It's just plain icky.
  8) Shows utter lack of self-awareness of the above.
  
  On the one hand, I wish you'd stop -- I can find such comments anywhere -- but on the other hand, it proves the level of discourse here, completely undermines Mike's pose of urban sophistication.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:13am
    
    Re: Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
    what logical argument are you using to arrive at the conclusion that one person proves the level of discourse here, and moreover how that would undermine someone else's sophistication? Whatever logical argument you provide, i'll tear it apart because I can tell you there is no way to logically arrive at that conclusion based on the information you provided. That would be apparent to any logician, whether or not this is their first time here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg G (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:02am
    
    Re: Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
    6) The only reason it's not pointed out it is because you're of the "in" group here, among (equally low) peers.
    
    I can hear Garth Brooks singing Friends in Low Places now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
    U Mad?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
    Why do you even post here? I haven't seen a single insightful post from you. You seem to only be here so you can sling mud in Mike's direction.
    
    every out_of_his_mind post ever:
    "Well I am OBVIOUSLY UNABLE TO HINT THE OBVIOUS SARCASM OF COMMENTS ON THE INTERNET. You should be ASHAMED to post such FILTH ON THE WHOLE AND CLEAN SERVICE SUCH AS THE INTERNET. Mike CLEARLY hasn't banned and deleted you from time and space, So CLEARLY THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT MIKE IS FUNDED BY GOOGLE'S REPTILIAN SHAPESHIFTERS. for SHAME accepting such BRIBERY from the GOOGLE GREEN GAY ALIENS. If only I had enough TINFOIL to hide the TRUTH OF MIKE AND THE SLAB OF DIRT ON THE INTERNET KNOWN AS TECHDIRT. Spreading GAYLIEN FUD EVERYWHERE"
    
    There. now. Every time you see "out_of_the_blue" in the name field, read the previous paragraph five times and you can be easily spared having to read another one of his half-baked suppositions ever again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
      I think he just doesn't like me. Shame, really, because he seems like such a nice guy....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
      I lost it at "GOOGLE'S REPTILIAN SHAPESHIFTERS". XD
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Almost Anonymous (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 3:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
      Wow man, that was pretty epic, you win an internetz!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:27pm
    
    Re: Re: @Dark Helmet: always focus on trivial, especially sexual.
    > Reveals shallow regard for but high need of "love".
    
    What the hell does that even mean?
    
    Sounds like someone stringing a bunch of words together in order to sound erudite and pretentious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HothMonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:26am

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:28am

Wow, talk about trying to justify almost anything to make a point.

Sad really that techdirt occassionally sinks this low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  No one said that what she did was justified, what we're saying is that what the TSA is doing without probable cause (and perhaps a warrant saying that there is probable cause) is also not justified.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:37am
  
  Re:
  You must have fun in that world of make-believe where make up all kinds of things that people didn't say!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Greevar, read the conclusion of the story:
    
    After all, if it's okay for the TSA to do that to passengers, but it's a felony in the other direction, doesn't that at least raise some questions about the "reasonableness" of the pat downs?
    
    Mike isn't beyond trying to spin this against the TSA at every turn. I think he does this because his biggest ever traffic spkie was during the TSA thing last year, and perhaps he is trying to pump the traffic back up, maybe get some sponsors back on the site.
    
    All I know is that a pat down for security purposes is significantly different from someone randomly sexually assaulting someone else. There is no reason to try to extract good out of a sexual assault.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - HothMonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "There is no reason to try to extract good out of a sexual assault."
      
      No reason? Not even "security"? Good to know, someone stop all these sexually abusive searches
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "No reason? Not even "security"? "
        
        Nope, because they don't increase security by any measurable amount.
        
        None of these measures do anything to thwart another 9/11, which last I checked, was the impetus for all of this security theater.
        
        If we're not trying to stop the very threat that hit us, the 'new' threat, then what are we doing? Bombs on planes have been around for literally decades. Why didn't we try to stop them like this before? hmmm?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Incoherent One (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Again, you seem to not understand so I will try one more time. Its not about spin, its not about groping. It about hypocrisy.
      
      I could simply be standing in line at an airport not doing anything suspicious or wrong, but yet I can be selected to have my dick groped by a 50 year old man. But if he does that to me and I turn around and do the same to him, I am somehow a felon and need to serve jail time.
      
      Granted the woman's move was a bit drastic, and not quite the same as an actual "approved" groping, the conclusion is still the same. I can do this to you, but if you do it to me it's sexual assault.
      
      What someone should do is have a class on the "approved" groping moves so that "we", the public, can be properly trained in how to show our benevolent TSA screeners what it really feels like to be treated like a law breaking piece of meat.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Mike isn't beyond trying to spin this against the TSA at every turn. I think he does this because his biggest ever traffic spkie was during the TSA thing last year, and perhaps he is trying to pump the traffic back up, maybe get some sponsors back on the site."
      I'm sure Mike posted this story because the Submit inbox was inundated by it. Hell, the only reason I didn't submit it was because I knew that just about everyone else that saw the hilarious irony here was already submitting it by the time I read it.
      
      But hey, don't let me get in the way of AC's trying to pump up their traffic since they aren't beyond trying to spin this kind of story against Mike and Techdirt at every turn.
      
      See, here's what's funny: you say Mike is trying to spin this against the TSA... but we all know the whole thing is a joke with a somewhat-applicable-to-reality punch line. You, on the other hand, actually believe in the addition of this to your anti-Mike campaign. And we all know that too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "All I know is that a pat down for security purposes is significantly different from someone randomly sexually assaulting someone else. There is no reason to try to extract good out of a sexual assault."
      
      Might I suggest you learn the meaning of pat-down, and the significantly more intrusive procedure of how the TSA performs theirs much akin to sexual assault.
      
      As has been pointed out time and time again, all the extra procedures being implemented by the DHS and TSA have done virtually nothing to help increase the overall security of airline travel. Quite frankly the only thing that has been produced by the DHS or any of it's lower organizations is to rape your rights.
      
      As far as I'm concerned any American working for these organizations is much more of a threat to our liberties than people seeking vengeance for how terribly our government has unjustly exploited, invaded, or destabilized their country. For as many civilian casualties our armed forces create it's quite hypocritical to expect we should never receive any ourselves. Neither is justifiable, but if you're going to wage war you should expect people to die.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have witness and been subject to the new tsa inspection, and I don't consider it a sexual assault. Perhaps people who shower with their clothes on and think that underwear is a naughty, naughty sexual thing might have a problem with it, but honestly, tracing along the straps of a bra to assure there is nothing in them isn't a big deal.
        
        It sounds like this girl turned, grabbed, and twisted the TSA agent's breasts. No TSA agent is doing that to anyone. You know it, but you choose to ignore it because it makes a good story.
        
        It's more BS, want to bet this one has a wordpress blog to yap about it too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Anyone touching me in a way I find inappropriate is sexual assault. I don't like strangers touching me AT ALL, let alone in close proximity to such sensitive areas. These searches often go beyond what you are trying to describe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HothMonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I have witness and been subject to the new tsa inspection"
        
        I call bullshit. Having a grown man cup your nuts would be foreplay or sexual assault anywhere other than an airport. Just because he uses the back of his hand rather than a palm doesnt make it less of an assault especially when you are doing it to kids. I can think of other places were we require pat-downs for security(concerts, federal courhouse, ect), no where else do they think they can get away with this level of abuse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        mike allen (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        anyone touch my junk NO MATTER WHO there would be 3 hits me hitting them them hitting the floor and the ambulance hitting 90
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HothMonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "anyone touch my junk NO MATTER WHO"
        
        your wife must live in a very dangerous world
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Viln (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The average person isn't protesting being searched before boarding a plane as much as the incompetent manner, questionable methods and pervasive swagger with which the TSA approaches what is quite clearly a diminishing of the 4th amendment. This publicity stunt brings attention to that, and the dissatisfaction many people bear it. Sometimes you have to take something to an absurd degree or abstract in order to prove that a perversion, even if it's so minor you think it's "not a big deal", is still a perversion. Thank goodness there are activist fruitloops like this lady, because as much as TSA bothers me I won't be grabbing an agent's junk.
        
        AC, it's funny you question techdirt's reporting motives as sensational... because your strawman presence here and all its anti-Masnick devil's advocate vitriol drives more comments and bandwidth than probably any other poster. For a while I was convinced you were on the payroll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Derek Kerton (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 3:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The ONLY four things that have increased our airline security since 9/11/01:
        
        1) Re-enforced cockpit doors
        2) Pilots, occasionally armed, instructed not to yield the cockpit under any circumstances.
        3) Armed undercover agents
        4) The fact that passengers will actively attack and force submission of any potential hijacker with a weapon less lethal than a machine gun - even at the passengers' own peril.
        
        With these 4 factors, our risk of hijack from small weapons is almost nil. This means that the TSA on the ground should focus on big metal and explosives...but instead they have focused on your nail clippers, and octogenarian cancer patients breasts.
        
        These 4 factors, combined, increase our flying safety a great deal. Nut juggling and nude scans, not so much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How? Is it in the mechanism that a shiny piece of metal gives you? Is it in the name on the breast? Or is it just a theatre that someone decided to reverse?
      
      The poetry here is that, for one class fo citizen, it's a felony, but for everyone else, it's Mastercard.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:30am

Can't wait for the defense in this case
I'm just cracking up as I imagine what the defense is in this case.

I'm thinking some imaginative lawyer is going to come up with a cultural defense.

"Your honor, my client was just returning what she believed to be a form of greeting. In my client's culture, it is quite normal, after stroking of her labium to return the affection with a squeezing and twisting of the breasts."

Case dismissed.... footage on youporn.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:55am
  
  Re: Can't wait for the defense in this case
  She's Japanese.
  
  It's customary to give people a bow and a tittie twister.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pitabred (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re: Can't wait for the defense in this case
    It's worse than that. It's called kancho, and is apparently popular enough to not only be named but widely understood: http://www.tofugu.com/2009/07/22/how-to-defend-your-butt-from-japanese-children-kancho-survival-guid e/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:31am

Please Explain AC
How is it 'low' to point out that Person A performing action X on person B is a felony, while Person B performing action X on Person A is perfectly 'legal'.....

If the action is offensive and a potential felony, please explain why it is okay or reasonable to expect that the public should have to submit to it (without the ... OMG Terrorists will win)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:33am

The penalties for assaulting a police officer are greater than the penalties for assaulting another citizen. If anything, it should be the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Clark Cox (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:12am
  
  Re:
  Irrelevant. TSA agents are not police officers, they should have zero rights above and beyond what regular citizens have.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:47am

Crime
Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. So, once again Americans want ultimate security as long as it doesn't involve them! I think my dad used to say something about having your cake and eating it too. I guess TSA will start employing mediums to read minds and perform psychic-searches on passengers since passengers don't want to be searched or scanned but perfect security must still be provided. TSA should provide Tyvek suits for people to travel in with a pair of recyclable flip-flops to wear. You come to the airport in it and leave in it. Oh, and no luggage allowed. Ship it some other way! I'd love to see those measures enacted!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:08am
  
  Re: Crime
  Damn you are dense. Isreal has the best airport security in the world, with no gropping, you can bring your liquids and keep your shoes on. It aint rocket science, its security theatre.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re: Crime
    Israel has always been a poor example. They have fewer flights world wide every day than even some of our medium sized single airports let alone JFK and the like.
    
    Sure it works but it doesn't scale to the levels we need in our system.
    
    I'm not defending the TSA, just saying that the Israeli system won't work here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - egghead (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crime
      I don't see how it wouldn't scale. You train people to look for suspicious activity, that's perfectly scalable. It would require a whole lot less time than running every traveler through a gauntlet of "security measures," so, that's easily scaled. More flights? More trained security professionals.
      
      The goal should be to earn the respect of travels, not their ire.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Crime
        The Israeli system works because they work on bias. Namely, if you're Palestinian, you're checked far more than if you're any other race.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Incoherent One (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 3:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crime
        And they say that profiling is wrong.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - HHH, 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crime
      I'm not sure there's a reason why the Israeli methods would not scale. It would simply entail replacing the,(for the most part), detached and disinterested TSA timecard punchers with perceptive and analytical employees, who would engage in actual background review and dialog. The Dutch now have a system more comparable to that as well.It's amazing that, for all the mindless punishment imposed travelers in US airports, the security inspectors are not even aware of the identity or destinations of those they're inspecting. There would be no significant cost overhead, other than more rigorous TSA hiring criteria, to replace this perfunctory bureaucracy with effective inspection.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:08am
  
  Re: Crime
  Damn you are dense. Isreal has the best airport security in the world, with no gropping, you can bring your liquids and keep your shoes on. It aint rocket science, its security theatre.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:20am
    
    Re: Re: Crime
    I know it was inadvertent, but that needed to be said twice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:11am
  
  Re: Crime
  As an American, I can say that I don't want ultimate security. I only want reasonable security. I certainly don't want this shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: Crime
  "So, once again Americans want ultimate security as long as it doesn't involve them!
  
  Any intelligent American can tell the difference between effective security measures and smoke & mirrors that only provide a false sense of it. Of the billions of airline passengers there has only been maybe a few hundred or so that have actually caused any sort of security risk, and violating the rights of 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the law abiding passengers is ludicrous.
  
  I'm an American and I own a gun, that is my security. Our government and its foreign policy is the real threat to our national security - we're quite good at making enemies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: Crime
  What's wrong with trying to have your cake and eat it too? Why would I want a cake I couldn't eat?
  
  I would be fine with psychic readings at the airport, but I damn well better be able to psychic them back!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - greg.fenton (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re: Crime
    It isn't that you couldn't eat it; it is that if you DO eat it then you WON'T have it (physical limitations of reality).
    
    You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
    
    Get it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - egghead (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crime
      Actually, it all depends on how you define eating and having. I can eat a slice of the cake and still have the cake available. Also, I can eat all the cake and I still have it, all in my stomach (not recommended in one sitting). I could also cut out a section of the cake from the bottom, eat that and still have my cake appear to be untouched.
      
      So, tell me again why I can't have my cake and eat it too?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dave, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Crime
      If I have my cake, but can't/won't eat it, then I effectively have no cake at all. I mean, who wants to just stare at their cake?
      
      Furthermore, if I do eat my cake, it becomes part of me. So really the saying should be: Eat your cake and you'll have it forever no matter how much you exercise.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:17am
  
  Re: Crime
  "I guess TSA will start employing mediums to read minds and perform psychic-searches on passengers since passengers don't want to be searched or scanned but perfect security must still be provided."
  
  I believe the TSA would be just as effective with this method as they currently are with the 'molest everyone' approach they are currently employing.
  
  If the TSA wants real security without the theatre, they should hire actual security experts and take a look at the level of airport security in places like Tel Aviv. You can't say that they don't have less reason for security, but when was the last time you heard about the level of stupidity in their airports? I saw a documentary on their security and they train their personel to actually identify suspiscious persons, not to grope every person and their 2 year olds.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: Crime
  >>So, once again Americans want ultimate security
  
  You must not know many Americans. All the ones I know don't want "ultimate" security. They want "reasonable" security. It's surprising how the average American truly, deeply understands the concept of ROI. What the TSA is doing these days isn't R'ing on our I.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Derek Kerton (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 4:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Crime
    Sadly...I have met many who do want "ultimate" security. I don't get it, but they do.
    
    You have a lot of faith in people. I think most of them don't have a clue what ROI is. Not just the acronym, but how to do a reasonable cost benefit analysis.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ken, 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:55am

Government oversteps its authority
If we the people do not have the right or authority to do something then we also do not have the authority to grant such power to the government. When the government takes on authority above what the people can grant we have tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hobo, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: Government oversteps its authority
  This is incorrect on many levels. It is the granting of rights or authority to the government that allows them (the government) to do those things and restricts us ("the people") from doing those same things. We gave up the right to arrest, hold, judge, and punish, to name a few, and gave those duties to the government.
  
  I do not have the right to tax you, but we could vote to raise taxes. We could grant the authority for DHS/TSA to grope, regardless of whether or not we as individuals have that right. Need I go further?
  
  "The people" or their representatives can grant any authority to the government. Seems silly as a law could be made that we all must carry around red licorice, but true.
  
  That said, I'm not defending DHS/TSA, I find it reprehensible and wasteful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - known coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Government oversteps its authority
    that is just it, a majority of americans are saying "f*ck no" to this stuff and it still just gets worse and worse. The american people have no say. If your representives represented you, this would all go away. Security theatre only benifits the people doing it.
    
    The Cheroff's of the world are making a fortune (http://chertoffgroup.com/cgroup/), and we the people are quite literally getting the finger.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 4:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Government oversteps its authority
      representative 'democracy' in any system with parties is a form of oligarchy. elections are not about representing the people, they're about maintaining stability and, by extension, the status quo (on a larger scale than the petty term by term back and forth they use to distract the citizens)
      
      without parties it may or may not be any better for any length of time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 8:57am

I thought she would could have argued that with such close personnel contact she received from the TSA agent that she felt a intimate situation was occurring and let her enthusiasms get the better of her self control.

After all if you start getting really turn on from the TSA groping is it wrong to try to fully engage the opportunity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ClarkeyBalboa (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:19am
  
  Re:
  She was just trying to reciprocate the enjoyment she was feeling! What a giving person.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    A good pat-down is like chinese dinner, its not over till everybody gets their cookie.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:02am

Eliminate commercial flying as a viable travel option. Only run private flights for actual needed reasons otherwise. Take the $$$ spent on the TSA and pump it into more efficient flights with smaller planes. Smaller planes are apparently not a "threat" so they can fly without TSA involved out of private gates. Let businesses actually USE teleconferencing and video chat instead of the archaic business model enforcing the wasteful spending on a trip just to schmooze someone so that they'll buy your subpar offering!

Let the TSA die and commercial airlines come up with a better business plan that's not reliant on a model that's 3 decades old!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:15am
  
  Re:
  There's a reason they ship livestock in a similar fashion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hoot, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:42am

Bad analogy
So if a cop tasers me it should be ok to taser one back according to your theory. Instead of pat down's let's ask everyone nicely if they have anything they shouldn't.

Down with pat downs and taking off shoes and security...it's SOOOO inconvenient!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Clark Cox (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:46am
  
  Re: Bad analogy
  You're right, your analogy is a bad one:
  
  TSA agents aren't cops.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:40am
    
    Re: Re: Bad analogy
    You're right, your analogy is a bad one
    
    Not to mention that the premise is wrong. If a police officer tazes you for no reason other than that they are going through the population and tazering 10% of them with no legal cause (or just because doing so makes the 90% of the public not tazed happy that the government is looking out for their safety,) you have every right to use the same or more level of force against them. Being a police officer gives you no right to break the law, and police officers are given certain privileges by the public (specifically use of force,) in order to do their job...but all citizens may use force to protect their own life. Use of force has limits and thank FSM that TSA doesn't have tazers...that is a nightmare given how badge-heavy they are without having weapons at their disposal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:14am
  
  Re: Bad analogy
  if cops tasered people at random I might agree with you, oh and the whole TSA agents arnt cops thing
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:17am
  
  Re: Bad analogy
  So if a cop tasers me it should be ok to taser one back according to your theory.
  
  Wow. You didn't think that one through at all!
  
  First, cops don't randomly taze people waiting in line to get on a plane. Second, what the woman did IS NOT OK. Conversely, what the TSA does is also NOT OK, just because they are hoping it makes someone else feel safer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: Bad analogy
  What if the TSA tazed people at random. Oops, sorry, it was your turn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:59am
  
  Re: Bad analogy
  If cops where tasering everyone they stopped to check then that is another kettle of fish. You usually get so many warnings before they actually use the taser on you.
  
  Second off TSA agents are not cops so thats such a bad analogy.
  
  Finally, I don't even think anyone who read this article will say that what the passenger did was correct. It was very rude if you ask me but as Techdirt tries to highlight all the time. These are the problems with it and the question comes up are these regulations stopping any threats?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re: Bad analogy
  So if a cop tasers me it should be ok to taser one back according to your theory.
  
  Yes, if a police officer tazes you without provocation, I would find it reasonable to taze him back in self defense. The same goes for police officers shooting at you, by the by.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Bad analogy
    "Yes, if a police officer tazes you without provocation, I would find it reasonable to taze him back in self defense. The same goes for police officers shooting at you, by the by."
    
    you just better hope someone other than the police has a camera running
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Butcherer79 (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 6:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bad analogy
      Forgive me, but if you get 'tazed' doesn't that incapacitate you, making it somewhere between fairly difficult and impossible to 'taze' this person back?
      
      Unless you're waiting to be released from custody, aquire a tazer, hunt down the instigator of this "tazer tennis" game, draw and fire the tazer without being seen or heard (so you're not re-fired upon) and fire. Making sure, of course that you miss any body armour that might be being worn.
      Of course, this MAY be considered premeditation which won't hold you in fantastic stead when you're in court explaining the incident/assault.
      
      ALSO, if the original firer IS a cop, chances are you'll get 'tazed' again after delivering your cunningly thought out plan, thus resulting in more "eye for an eye" revenge attacks...
      
      Maybe I've strayed from the point
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re: Bad analogy
  """Down with pat downs and taking off shoes and security...it's SOOOO inconvenient!!!!!"""
  
  The bigger problem is that it's SOOOO irrelevant! Pat downs and taking off shoes have stopped precisely zero attacks, and furthermore will never stop any attacks, because the turrists KNOW ABOUT THAT CHECK so they WON'T USE THAT STRATEGY. It only affects all other travelers (which is basically all of them) in the form of aggrevation and, in your case, a false sense of security.
  
  Ever heard of closing the barn door after the horses have run away?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Pervert, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:52am

I just moan real loud and breath hard when they're groping me. Though it seems to make them quite uncomfortable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Vacuous Cloud (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:57am

The real issue here...
As both its victim and survivor, I can personally attest to the devastating horror of kancho. Please, spread awareness of this important issue --- for one dark and lugubrious day, those fingers very well may toll for thee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:28am

Law.com defines a felony as, in one sense, "a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death."

An interesting reading, indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:38am

She was being harassed by the TSA and she responded with the dreaded, felonious, purple nurple! Lock this woman up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfy, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:46am

"People who would give up liberty for security deserve neither" - a US Founding Father
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 4:12pm
  
  Re:
  ...who shall apparently remain anonymous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rez (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:50am

We could solve all the problems with two simple actions:
1) Disband the TSA and remove all the stupid naked scanners
2) Allow pilots to carry guns in a sealed and bolted cabin door.

Not all, but many commercial pilots today have military experience and even earned their wings flying planes and helicopters for the military. We already hold pilots responsible for the safety of their passengers, just arm them. Many other countries already have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
College Professor, 18 Jul 2011 @ 10:52am

Enough, already!
Cripes...if you want to travel, you have to make sacrifices. Let the American government do what they feel is needed to be done, to keep Americans safe. After all, they know best. That is why we voted them in. And if you don't like being groped, take the bus. Oh, wait......http://www.prisonplanet.com/surprise-tsa-is-searching-your-subway-truck-ferry-bus-and-plan e.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- egghead (profile), 18 Jul 2011 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re: Enough, already!
  "Cripes...if you want to travel, you have to make sacrifices. Let the American government do what they feel is needed to be done, to keep Americans safe. After all, they know best. That is why we voted them in. And if you don't like being groped, take the bus."
  
  First, do these politicians go through the same security screening when they travel? Second, I only voted in the Senators and Representatives for Texas; unfortunately, they appear to be going against the ideals they projected during their campaigns and I have severely limited power to have them punished or removed from their position. Third, no politician is omniscient and therefore cannot know for certain what is best.
  
  I'd take the bus, but a bus is limited to the posted speed limits and typically unionized agreements on driver fatigue; thereby reducing the serviceable radius for a given block of time. They also are not very efficient at international travel, especially when the origin and destination landmasses are separated by vast expanses of water.
  
  Only when the TSA can definitively prove that such excessive security measures have and will stop every conceivable threat, will I voluntarily subject myself to the otherwise sexually abusive violations of the unalienable rights provided me by the very Constitution of these United States of America.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 18 Jul 2011 @ 2:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Enough, already!
    you should probably finish the post before you get all puffed up. Also check your sarc detectors they seem to be on the fritz
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 11:29am

So someone was fed up and gave what she got... plus a bit more perhaps. Was it right, not likely. Would the TSA get busted for it? Perhaps... if it was publicly noted enough. Will things continue to get more and more stressful "at the gate" and more people snap and respond like this? Of course they will. Is there a reason for it? Is safety REALLY better? Not really, as has been proven in testing. What it has done is make it less enjoyable, create more of a cash drain on the system, and had a ton of other negative effects. The system is full of loop holes and the TSA / gate side of things are the least of the worries.

I no longer fly commercially. Family vacations no longer include airlines although they do involve private flights from small airports. The commercial airlines no longer earn my support with money spent on them. I've noticed an appreciable savings in vacation money spent over the past few years and that's just fine with me. Over 20 years of my family outings with the children that would be approximately 360 tickets. Who does that affect more in the long run, them or us?

If the price I "pay" to avoid even one of my children to be subjected to a "patdown" is a bit more inconvenience and a lot more travel time, I'm willing to make that sacrifice! We've spent more times in trains, RVs, and autos than prior but it hasn't mattered at all. We spend the money we save on mobile entertainment in the form of handheld systems, portable dvd players, etc. and everyone stays entertained regardless. If more of the american public did the same and spoke with the only influence they've really got (where they actually spend their $$$) I'm sure the impact would be major. After all, that's all that the big corporations really care about in the long run.

There are more deaths by magnitudes in preventable auto accidents, medical conditions, cancers, etc. every year than have ever been lost to "terrorism" yet we continue to ignore simple statistics like that. When our government manipulates current "emotional" events to control the system we get this type of situation. The very fact that the TSA even exists as a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy that 9-11 really was is a completely illogical view of actual reality and the statistics of deaths in our own country.

Note: I'm not suggesting that it wasn't a tragedy, and that the loss of life was a sad and ultimately frustrating and emotional event, simply that preventing deaths is NOT what the TSA, Patriot Act, etc. are really about. An analysis of the most basic facts and statistics specifically prove otherwise. *shrug*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2011 @ 9:46pm

"Yukari was just checking to make sure the agent wasnt a terrorist!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lachlan Hunt (profile), 19 Jul 2011 @ 4:20am

The difference is that the TSA forces you to consent to the pat down. If you don't consent, they don't let you fly, whether you like it or not. The TSA agent never consented to the reciprocal pat down, regardless of fairness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 20 Jul 2011 @ 9:33am
  
  Re:
  So you are saying that 'forced' consent is ok, so long as it is a government minimum wage employee with a tin badge?
  
  This preserves rights and stops 'terrorism' how?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dude, 19 Jul 2011 @ 8:54pm

TSA (Total Sexual Assault)

I don't fly commercially anymore. They have no laws to justify the scanners or grope downs. The lady who groped the TSA scum is being denied her constitutional right to equal protection under the law. If they choose to charge her with a crime they should also charge the TSA scum. It is illegal for anybody to grope anybody without concent or a warrant....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]