Another Attempt To Make TSA Searches Open To Sex Offender Charges

from the touching-junk dept

Back when the TSA's new search procedures went into effect last year, there were a few efforts to subject TSA agents involved in screenings or patdowns to claims of sex offense or sexual assault laws. While I'm not convinced that this truly makes sense, I do know that I've now had conversations with a few different people who have had extremely emotional reactions to having to go through the patdowns, where they truly felt abused afterwards. Some of the accounts are downright frightening, of people who clearly were seriously impacted by the experience.

harbingerofdoom alerts us to the news of a proposed law in New Hampshire that would make the TSA search a sexual assault, where penalties would mark those convicted as Tier III sex offenders. The bill specifically "makes the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person's breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault."

I have to admit that I'm a bit torn about this. As mentioned, I know some people who certainly have felt sexually abused by the searches/patdowns. And I have no doubt that emotional abuse is real and horrifying. I also have serious questions about the usefulness or appropriateness of these searches, and think we'd certainly be best without them. But labeling a TSA agent a sex offender for doing what the TSA requires seems like a pretty extreme response. I recognize the goal here probably isn't to get TSA agents branded sex offenders, but to create a situation that leads to a policy change. But the whole "sex offender" list concept has been abused over the years in dangerous ways, labeling all sorts of people "sex offenders" and branding them for life, even if their "crime" wasn't what one would normally consider a traditional "sex" offense. I'm not convinced that expanding that list, even if to drive a policy change, is a good idea.

Filed Under: new hampshire, patdowns, sex offenders, sexual assault, tsa

TSA Likely To Face Multiple Sexual Assault Charges For New Searches

from the tipping-point dept

Think the complaints about the TSA are beginning to reach a tipping point? There's a whole bunch of new news on this front, starting with a California district attorney saying that he's ready to charge TSA agents with sexual assault if evidence is presented that the new pat downs go too far (apparently multiple DAs are now saying this).

Hopefully, some other DAs are willing to do the same, because some are ready and willing to file sexual assault charges. Richard Kulawiec points us to the news of how a nursing mother in Dayton feels she was sexually assaulted by the TSA. Contrary to claims from the TSA, she was not informed that her private parts would be touched (repeatedly, from the sound of it). She was not given the option of having it happen in a private area. And, she notes, this was not about her refusal to go through a full body backscatter scanner, since those aren't even in operation at that airport. The account is pretty chilling as the woman is clearly quite troubled by the experience (as she should be).

Along those lines, at the federal level, Ron Paul has introduced new legislation that would make it clear that TSA agents are subject to sexual harassment laws. You can see him speaking about it here: Separately, reports are coming out that TSA agents are not screened for psychological problems. In fact, the process doesn't take much at all:

TSA doesn't require much at all, it turns out. This government agency-gone-wild performs a background check to weed out applicants who are convicted felons, but TSA does not test at all for applicants’ psychological soundness.

These are low-wage government employees granted full authority to touch passengers however they like. There is no indication that TSA agents have selectively abused their authority, but as with all government programs: If there are no checks in place to limit power, authority will be abused. Forget racial profiling; if there no limits to officials’ power, what would stop them from claiming the most attractive powers need a more thorough patdown?

In fact, it's so silly that the parody video below, of a "porn-addict applying for a job at the TSA" really doesn't seem all that far-fetched these days: Meanwhile, a Congressman from Florida is telling airports they should ditch the TSA and find alternative options for security -- and it appears that Orlando Airport has decided to do exactly that. Of course, I'm not convinced that private security agents will be any better, and they still have to follow TSA guidelines, so I'm not sure it'll really make that much of a difference. But it does show the level to which lots of folks are fed up.

That said, apparently legislators in New Jersey and Idaho have introduced legislation banning the naked body scanners (oh and in New York as well). Of course, I'm sure the TSA will just claim that in the absence of the machines, they'll just have to do more groping.

As for the TSA? Well, it's still trying to defend its position. Its latest is to claim that 130 prohibited, illegal or dangerous items have been kept off airplanes in the past year. What, like nail clippers and bottles of water? Where are the actual details? What has been caught? Who has been arrested? What happened to them?

Filed Under: ron paul, searches, sexual assault, sexual harassment, tsa
Companies: tsa

MySpace Still Not Liable For Sexual Assault Between Two MySpace Users

from the in-case-you-missed-it-the-first-time dept

Two years ago, we pointed to one of the more ridiculous lawsuits attempting to shift the blame and responsibility for certain actions away from those who were responsible, to those who had the money. A 13-year-old girl went onto MySpace, lied about her age, and struck up a relationship with an older boy. Eventually, the two agreed to meet, and the girl says that the boy sexually assaulted her. So, obviously, the mother of the 13-year-old girl sued MySpace. It seemed like such a good strategy that the boy accused of rape also considered blaming MySpace. Of course, as you should know by now, section 230 of the CDA (and basic common sense) protects websites from the actions of their users. And, in fact, that's exactly what the judge told the woman and her daughter in tossing out the case.

Rather than understanding the law (and basic responsibility), the mother of course appealed the decision, and even tried to come up with a novel argument for why this wasn't about section 230 at all, by saying that the company was somehow negligent in "policing its premises." Luckily (and not surprisingly) the judge isn't buying it. Eric Goldman lets us know that the appeals court has again sided with MySpace in pointing out that there is no liability for MySpace. They also tried to pull in the recent (somewhat questionable) Roommates.com decision, which was in a different circuit and argued that Roommates.com lost safe harbors because it specifically requested illegal information (which probably wouldn't even apply in this case). However, since appeals are only on the facts argued in the lower court and this was an entirely new argument, the court refused to consider it.

Either way, this still seems like a case where the girl and her mother are blaming the wrong party in trying to squeeze millions of dollars out of MySpace. The best summation of the situation probably comes from the transcript of the original trial court hearing, which the appeals court quoted:

THE COURT: I want to get this straight. You have a 13-year-old girl who lies, disobeys all of the instructions, later on disobeys the warning not to give personal information, obviously, [and] does not communicate with the parent. More important, the parent does not exercise the parental control over the minor. The minor gets sexually abused, and you want somebody else to pay for it? This is the lawsuit that you filed?

MR. ITKIN [Counsel for the Does]: Yes, your Honor.

Filed Under: liability, section 230, sexual assault
Companies: myspace

Mother And Daughter Still Blame MySpace For Not Protecting Her From Sexual Assault

from the go-after-the-money dept

Two and a half years ago, we wrote about a teenager who sued MySpace following a sexual assault, saying that it was the site's fault that she was assaulted. This despite the fact that she had signed up for the site, lied about her age and the actual assault (obviously) happened outside of MySpace. That's not to say that a crime didn't happen, but it's quite difficult to see how it could possibly be MySpace's fault. In fact, a judge made exactly that point in dismissing the lawsuit last year, noting that MySpace was protected under section 230 safe harbors, and even if it wasn't, it would "cripple" 3rd party communication systems if you could attach liability to them for every crime committed that touched on those services. The judge also pointed out that this seemed like a clear case of a parent trying to blame a big company for her own failings: "If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace."

Of course, that's not good enough for the girl and her mother, who have now appealed the case, still claiming that MySpace somehow is responsible. The girl's lawyers claim that MySpace still had a responsibility to protect the girl, even though he doesn't explain how it can protect a girl who lied about her age and then went off to meet with a much older guy in real life. It's difficult to see how that can possibly be MySpace's fault -- but the rule of thumb these days is always sue the big company that has the most money. As for the older guy accused of the sexual assault, he's been indicted, but last we heard, his lawyers were also thinking about blaming MySpace. After all, if the girl is blaming MySpace, then how could it be the guy's fault?

Filed Under: blame, safe harbors, sexual assault
Companies: myspace, news corp