TSA Told To Tell Children That Groping Them Is A Game... Horrifying Sex Abuse Experts

from the that's-not-a-game dept

Apparently TSA agents are being told that one way to handle the new groping pat downs for children is to try to make it out to be some sort of "game." This is apparently horrifying some sex abuse experts who point out that a common tactic in abuse cases is to tell the kids that they're just "playing a game." The TSA has said that the newer patdowns will not apply to children under 12, but the rules have been somewhat unclear -- leading to the statement from a TSA director, James Marchand:

"You try to make it as best you can for that child to come through. If you can come up with some kind of a game to play with a child, it makes it a lot easier."

He also said that the idea of making it a game would become a part of the TSA's training. Ken Wooden, who runs an organization to try to stop sex abuse of children was not pleased:

"How can experts working at the TSA be so incredibly misinformed and misguided to suggest that full body pat downs for children be portrayed as a game?" Wooden asked in an email. "To do so is completely contrary to what we in the sexual abuse prevention field have been trying to accomplish for the past thirty years."

Filed Under: searches, tsa

Why The TSA's Searches Are Unconstitutional

from the hello-4th-amendment dept

Law professor Jeffrey Rosen has an excellent analysis of why the TSA's new searches are unconstitutional. He notes that, even if the majority of people aren't too bothered by the searches, that doesn't change the fact that they appear to be illegal. This is even though the courts have generally been quite deferential to the government when it comes to claims of "national security" in doing things like preventing terrorism. He notes that, while the Supreme Court has not heard such a case, there are various appeals court rulings that set the standards for such searches:

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007, that "a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.' "

In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then, if they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands. He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search."

Of course, as Rosen notes, the new searches do not pass that test by a long shot. He also points out that an analysis of the machines suggests that -- despite claims to the contrary by the TSA -- new research shows that last year's underwear bomber would not have been caught with these machines, which suggests that such machines are not "effective" under the above basic definition. Perhaps the Supreme Court will finally weigh in on this topic... though, by the time it reaches that level, the TSA will probably have moved on to even more ridiculous security theater practices.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, constitution, searches, tsa
Companies: tsa

TSA 'Demonstration' Of Gropings Backfires In Congress

from the oops dept

Apparently the TSA went to Capitol Hill this week to "demonstrate" the new groping pat downs to prove to folks in Congress that they're really not so bad. The only problem? Those watching the gropings seemed to get exactly the opposite sense:

He said that several House staffers were uncomfortable and averted their eyes when the TSA demonstrated an enhanced pat-down in the room of 200 people.

"The dumbest part: they did two pat-down demonstrations -- male on male, and female on female," the House staffer said. And they used a young female TSA volunteer "and in front of a room of 200 people, they touched her breasts and her buttocks. People were averting their eyes. The TSA was trying to demonstrate 'this is not so bad,' but it made people so uncomfortable to watch, that people were averting their eyes."

"They shot themselves in the foot," the staffer continued.

Now, will those in Congress actually do anything about all this? It's really amazing how frequently the TSA and its supporters insist that the gropings "aren't so bad." It really suggests a huge disconnect between what they're doing and what people consider "bad" to be.

Filed Under: congress, groping, searches, tsa

Man Strips Down For TSA, Told He Still Needed To Be Groped; Arrested For Failing To Complete Security Process

from the grope-grope-grope dept

The TSA stories are coming fast and furious these days. The latest takes place (yet again) at the San Diego airport, where a guy first refused to go through the naked image scanner, and when he was told he had to be patted down stripped down to his bicycle underwear, which (as he noted) "left nothing to the imagination." His argument was that at that point, he shouldn't need a pat down, but the TSA ordered him to put his clothes back on so he could be patted down. He argued that they could just go through his clothes. End result? Guy in underwear gets arrested, handcuffed, and escorted through the airport in his underwear -- and is being charged with the same thing that the "don't touch my junk" guy was threatened with: "failing to complete the security process." Feeling safer?

Filed Under: arrests, privacy, searches, security, tsa
Companies: tsa

Pilot Sues TSA For Overly Intrusive Searches

from the and-here-we-go dept

Before the don't touch my junk guy, there was Michael Roberts, the pilot who, back in October, refused both the naked backscatter scan and the intrusive groping pat-down, was not allowed to fly his plane, and was put on leave by his company (ExpressJet). He's now suing the TSA over the search process:

"People are messed up because they touch your crotch," pilot Michael Roberts said. "They touch your bottom, your breasts, I mean, everything.

That said, I haven't seen the actual legal filing, so I'm not sure if he has much of an actual case here. It will be interesting to follow either way.

Filed Under: lawsuit, michael roberts, privacy, searches, tsa
Companies: 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

Australia Says No Warrants Necessary If Law Enforcement Thinks You're A Terrorist

from the well-isn't-that-nice dept

chillienet alerts us to some new rules for law enforcement regarding private searches down in Australia. Apparently as long as police think you just might be a terrorist, they no longer need to get a search warrant. I'm sure that won't be abused at all... The whole point of requiring warrants is to avoid abuse. Taking away that check almost guarantees that the powers will be seriously abused.

Filed Under: australia, due process, searches, terrorism, warrants

TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents

from the that'll-go-over-well dept

There's been a lot of talk lately about the new backscatter scanners at airports that take a "naked" image of the passenger, and how airports have now instituted newer and more invasive patdowns for those who refuse to go through the scans. Many feel that both of these practices goes way too far. A whole bunch of folks have now been submitting the story of one guy who refused to go through the backscatter scanner, and then told the TSA (in a slightly crude manner) that he would not consent to having his groin groped. Specifically, he warned the officer, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." This, of course, led to supervisors and supervisors and various reports being written up before he was escorted out of the screening area and told he would not be able to fly.

Of course, we've seen similar stories before. But where this one got even odder is that after he went to the ticket counter and was able to get his ticket refunded (even though it was a non-refundable ticket), he was approached by a man in a suit and two of the people who had both detained him in the security area and escorted him out of it -- and told that he could not leave the airport until he submitted to the invasive screening. If he tried to leave, he was told he would be sued and could face fines of $10,000:

At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn't know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents' supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area. When I asked why, he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined. I told him that I would submit to a walk through the metal detector, but that was it; I would not be groped.

With groups like EPIC and the ACLU fighting these machines, I'm guessing the guy has already been contacted by them and other such groups. The idea that buying a ticket and entering the screening area means you've agreed, no matter what -- even if you decide not to fly -- to go through an invasive screening process, seems like a pretty radical reading of the 4th Amendment that I'm sure some civil liberties groups would happily challenge.

You can listen to the audio of most of the encounter at the link above (there's video too, but it's mostly of the ceiling). Some have questioned why he was filming, and if he had set this up with a plan to get into a confrontation all along. You can see his explanation here which makes sense. He claims that he had checked online prior to flying and the TSA's website had said that San Diego Airport did not have the backscatter scanners, which is why he agreed to fly through there. Then, when he got to the security area, he chose a line that was a traditional metal scanner, rather than the backscatter lines. The person in front of him was told to go to the backscatter scanner, and after refusing he realized they might ask him to go instead, so he then turned on his camera, since he'd heard of numerous other incidents, and wanted a recording just in case. Throughout the experience he points out that 80% of the passengers are just going through the traditional metal detector, and he'd be fine if he could just use that same process, but they won't allow it.

It seems pretty clear that these new invasive scans and pat downs are going to end up in the courts. From my perspective, they certainly seem to go way beyond the "reasonable" standard, but who knows what the courts will say. That said, in this case, the security officials went way beyond even that level, by threatening to sue the guy for not consenting to go through with it, even after he had said he would no longer be flying.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, airports, privacy, searches, threats, tsa

ACLU Suing Homeland Security Over Laptop Searches... Even Though Other Cases Have All Failed

from the first-amendment-vs.-fourth-amendment dept

Well, here we go. As was widely suspected, the ACLU is now suing homeland security over its laptop search policies at the border. If you haven't been paying attention to this topic, Homeland Security's policy has been that it can search anything you're bringing over the border into the US, including electronic devices. Their argument is that this is just like searching your luggage. This argument doesn't make much sense, frankly, because things that you bring in your luggage, you put there by choice, with the express purpose of bringing it over the border. You make a positive decision to include it. Things on your laptop, however, are there because they're just there on your laptop. And it can include all sorts of stuff. The argument that border patrol is actually protecting the border here makes little sense, because you could just as easily send any data on your computer over the internet and no border control is going to stop it.

This issue has been challenged in court a few times, with courts repeatedly saying that the 4th amendment rights against unreasonable searches does not apply at the border, since you're not yet in the country. This challenge is a bit different, however. Rather than a 4th Amendment challenge, the ACLU is going with a 1st Amendment challenge, saying that these searches violate an individuals rights to free speech and privacy, and specifically highlighting reporters who need to keep information confidential. While it's a different legal argument, I still don't see it passing legal muster. You still have the same problem of not "really" being in the country yet, and thus, not really being protected by the Constitution.

What's really silly, of course, is that Homeland Security knows that border laptop searches are a bad thing. It's why they've issued a warning to travelers about other countries doing laptop searches at the border. Apparently, they don't feel the same way when it comes to them getting to go through your laptop, however.

Filed Under: aclu, first amendment, fourth amendment, homeland security, laptops, searches
Companies: aclu