stories filed under: "tsa"
TSA Molests Miss USA, Makes Her Cry... For Your Safety
from the feeling-safer? dept
Since the TSA "enhanced patdown" experiences started last fall, I've heard from a variety of people who came out of the experience feeling seriously violated, with more than a few asking about legal actions they could take after feeling sexually assaulted and molested by the experience. It really is a lot more common than you might think. Many of those I've spoken with have decided that they didn't want to go public with the story of their own experience and their own feelings, because it felt so intrusive and so personal, that having to "relive" it by fighting the TSA would be just horrible. This is part of what I find most nefarious about the TSA groping brigade: like many sexual assault victims, they're put in a position where after it's over, doing something about the assault only forces you to relive the experience.Thankfully, some people are speaking out. The latest is former Miss USA, Susie Castillo, who has posted an emotional video right after being groped by the TSA and feeling totally violated, leading her to break down and start crying:
In a blog post about the experience, Castillo notes that she's gone through the patdown before, but this one was much more invasive than previous ones:
Well, this pat down was completely different. It was MUCH MORE invasive than my first one at LAX, just a week before. To say that I felt invaded is an understatement. What bothered me most was when she ran the back of her hands down my behind, felt around my breasts, and even came in contact with my vagina! Honestly, I was in shock, especially since the woman at LAX never actually touched me there. The TSA employee at DFW touched private area 4 times, going up both legs from behind and from the front, each time touching me there. Was I at my gynecologist’s office? No! This was crazy!Yes, for your safety, the TSA needs to sexually assault Miss USA.
I felt completely helpless and violated during the entire process (in fact, I still do), so I became extremely upset. If I wanted to get back to Los Angeles, I had no choice but to be violated, whether by radiation or a stranger. I just kept thinking, “What have I done to deserve this treatment as an upstanding, law-abiding American citizen?” Am I a threat to US security? I was Miss USA, for Pete’s sake!
Filed Under: airports, patdowns, sexual assault, susie castillo, tsa
We've Trained The TSA To Search For Liquid Instead Of Bombs
from the feeling-safer-yet? dept
In the latest example of absolute insanity from the TSA and the way in which it conducts airport searches, "Patrick Smith," a pseudonymous pilot who writes about airline topics for Salon, tells the story of a ridiculous TSA encounter he had while flying as a passenger. It happened because Smith didn't put all his liquids into a ziploc plastic baggy, as required. He apparently never does this and rarely has problems (I've also found that I've never been stopped when I fail to produce the plastic baggy). However, this time he did. But it wasn't just that the TSA called him out for this, it was what happened after he obliged and put the liquids in a plastic bag:My carry-on goes through the scanner and comes out the other side. One of the guards squints at his monitor, then shoots me a hostile look. What's this, no plastic baggie? He pulls my luggage aside, opens it, and asks me to repack my liquids and gels "the right way."Smith does a good job highlighting the absurdity of all of this and pointing out, of course, that the guard is wrong. But later in the post he really keys in on the scary point of all of this: we've trained the TSA to look for unbagged liquids, rather than explosives. And they're doing that successfully:
I do as he wants. When I'm finished, I hand him the baggie so he can run the items through again.
To my surprise, he won't take them. "No," he says. "Just put them in your suitcase and go."
But ...
"Just put them in your suitcase and go."
I look at him for a minute. Apparently my having to repack them was a punishment exercise? All right, fine. Lesson learned, I unzip the approved, one-quart zip-top bag, and begin to dump the containers back into my toiletries kit.
"No!" interjects the guard. "Leave them in the plastic!"
"Huh?"
"You have to leave them in the plastic bag!"
"But I'm already through the checkpoint. You already screened them."
He shrugs. "They need to stay in the bag."
"No they don't."
"Yes they do."
"Why?"
"They need to stay in the bag. You should know better."
Are we looking for liquids, or are we looking for explosives? A search for the former is not a de facto search for the latter. Not the way we've been doing it. Steve Elson tells the story of a test in which TSA screeners are presented with a suitcase containing a mock explosive device with a water bottle nestled next to it. They ferret out the water, of course, while the bomb goes sailing through.It's yet another case of where security theater is actually making us less safe. We've set up these rules that don't really help protect anyone, and yet the TSA folks are taught to follow the rules, rather than look for anyone actually looking to cause harm on an airplane.
Filed Under: explosives, liquids, security, tsa
TSA Says 'You Might Be A Terrorist If... You Complain About The TSA'
from the seriously-guys? dept
Ah, the TSA. Apparently among the "behavioral factors" that the TSA uses in determining who might be a criminal or a terrorist is... if you complain about the TSA. I guess that means I'm in line for some extra scrutiny. Honestly, though, this sounds a lot more like punitive action against people who complain, rather than a legitimate characteristic of someone who deserves extra scrutiny. Specifically, one of the factors is if someone is:"Very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures."An ACLU person quoted in the article wonders if this violates the First Amendment, in that it's going after someone for expressing their opinion:
"Expressing your contempt about airport procedures -- that's a First Amendment-protected right," said Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works as legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We all have the right to express our views, and particularly in a situation where the government is demanding the ability to search you."Honestly, you'd have to think that a real terrorist or criminal, hoping to avoid calling attention to themselves, wouldn't be openly hostile to the search procedure, but would try to be quiet and blend in. Perhaps the TSA will defend this latest ridiculousness by saying it's all okay because it's standard operating procedure.
"It's circular reasoning where, you know, I'm going to ask someone to surrender their rights; if they refuse, that's evidence that I need to take their rights away from them. And it's simply inappropriate," he said.
Filed Under: behavior, free speech, tsa
Companies: tsa
TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure
from the only-the-tsa-can-touch-you-this-way dept
There have been plenty of concerns about the new TSA groping procedures, especially when it comes to little children, who are properly taught from a young age that it's inappropriate for people to touch them in certain ways. Many people were quite reasonably horrified when the TSA suggested that agents tell kids that the patdown was just a game -- as that's the type of language used by child sex offenders.Apparently, the TSA remains completely tone deaf on this issue. Jonathan Adler notes "only the TSA can touch you this way," in referencing the anger felt by the parents of a 6-year old girl who broke down crying after going through the patdown process. The girl's mother, Selena Drexel, pointed out:
"We struggle to teach our kids to protect themselves, to say 'no, it's not ok to touch me in this way in this area. Yet here we are saying it's ok for these people."The family videotaped the incident, as you can see here:
Given the attention this story is getting, the TSA published a blog post, and in true tone deaf fashion, defended the patdown as being "standard operating procedures":
A video taken of one of our officers patting down a six year-old has attracted quite a bit of attention. Some folks are asking if the proper procedures were followed. Yes. TSA has reviewed the incident and the security officer in the video followed the current standard operating procedures.The TSA does not respond to the rather serious issues of how do you teach children that they shouldn't be touched in this manner... but it's okay if a stranger in an airport does it. Does the TSA truly believe that groping a 6-year-old girl and reaching into the waistband of her pants is making us safer?
TSA Boss: Naked Scanners Are Great At Stopping The Last Attack; Don't Ask About The Next One
from the it's-as-if-he's-not-even-listening dept
Last week, TSA boss John Pistole defended the use of the highly criticized naked scanners:"They are the best possibility we have right now of detecting Christmas Day ... type explosives."That's kind of amusing, since plenty of other reports have noted they wouldn't have actually detected the explosives used there. But, it really highlights the key point, that the TSA is always looking to stop the last attack, not the next attack. It's as if they don't realize that terrorists can adapt. Along those lines, Rep. John Mica pointed out how silly Pistole's argument is:
"The equipment is flawed and can be subverted.... Our staff has subverted it. [TSA Administrator] Pistole said 'GAO is very clever.' Well what the hell does he think a terrorist is?"Pistole's other suggestion was the already panned idea of letting people skip security if they give up a bunch of privacy.
Pistole made the case for a proposed "trusted traveler" program, which allow frequent flyers to provide personal information in order to avoid long airport security lines. Under the proposal, passengers would provide fingerprints, credit information and other personal data. In exchange, they would receive an ID card they could show to bypass security lines on flights.Except, as plenty of people who actually understand security have pointed out, all this really does is change the target. Now terrorists can focus on the people in the trusted traveler program to get a bomb or other weapons through security. It amazes me that someone like Pistole can keep his job when it appears he can't think past each action to the obvious reaction. We want a chess player in charge of security, and it seems like we ended up with a checkers player.
Filed Under: john pistole, security, tsa
Want To Grope People At Random In Airports (Not Just At Security)? Join The TSA!
from the well,-you-look-kinda-cute... dept
The TSA's sexual assault-as-security theater continues. The latest involves reports from a woman, who, despite having already cleared security at LaGuardia airport, was approached by a TSA agent near the gate for her flight, and told that he had to give her a pat-down on the spot, ordering her to drop her things and assume a spread-eagle position against the wall, at which point, he "patted her down," grabbing her breasts, thighs and crotch. The woman claims that two other women were given similar "security treatments," which to most people would sound like a public sexual assault. The TSA was asked about this and said it could not comment "because of security concerns." Yes, so apparently, if you want to sexually assault women at will, the TSA is the place to be and they'll cover it up for you, due to "security concerns."Filed Under: airports, patdowns, sexual assault, tsa
Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
from the what-fourth-amendment? dept
Michael Scott points us to Bob Barr highlighting how Homeland Security, in its defense of airport scanners and patdowns, has said that, if it chose to do so, it could strip search every airline passenger, without any 4th Amendment scrutiny. I guess it's only out of their own kindness that they've chosen not to do so. Of course, this raises some pretty key Constitutional questions. If the TSA can strip search anyone with no reason at all, then does the 4th Amendment really exist? Yes, courts have said that the basic scanning of airline passengers is Constitutional, but it does not appear to have set any real limits on that scanning. And that's part of the reason why security theater at the airports just keeps ratcheting up. But at some point, shouldn't we step back and ask if such a scenario, in which everyone who flies is first strip searched, could possibly match with what the framers of the Constitution meant when they said:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.It's more than a bit troubling that we keep seeing more and more chipping away at the Constitution, as people (including judges and politicians) make excuses about how it's effectively "okay this time, because..." where the "because" can and will be stretched, twisted and distorted to the point that the original Constitutional keystones no longer really exist.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, homeland security, patdown, strip search, tsa
Guy Who Undressed For TSA Search (With 4th Amendment Written On Chest) Sues Over Airport Detention
from the this-won't-go-far dept
We've seen various ways that people have protested TSA searches, but for one guy who decided to undress (as he suggests, to help the TSA out) and, as a part of that, display the 4th Amendment written on his chest, it led to him being detained and told he was under arrest (though, he didn't miss his flight):
Maintenance Report Shows Radiation Levels On Some TSA Scanners 10 Times Higher Than Promised
from the uh,-whoops dept
At the end of last year, we pointed to some discussions that suggested the TSA was being totally misleading in claiming that the new naked airport scanners had been shown to be totally safe when it came to radiation. While the studies the TSA used to make that claim only said that was the case if the machines were working properly, there was no evidence that the TSA was actually making sure the machines were working properly, or how easily they might not be working properly. Well, it appears that this may have been a much bigger issue than originally thought, as some maintenance on these machines has shown radiation levels 10 times the amount that they're supposed to be emitting. The TSA has now agreed to retest all of the machines -- though it still insists that these new reports were "mathematics mistakes." Uh. Yeah.But, really, the issue goes beyond that. If it's so easy to make "math mistakes," how do we know that the original "lower" reports from these machines was accurate? Assuming these readings were accurate, how long were these machines operating at 10x the radiation levels? How easy was it for the radiation levels to get so high? How will the TSA prevent it from happening again? Honestly, though, the people who should be most upset are the TSA workers who run these machines. It makes you wonder how much radiation they're being exposed to on a daily basis.
