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?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Derek Bredensteiner (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:58am

    Think it's bad now?

    From the linked fox news article:

    "The government has a lot of information on everyone who gets on a plane… so let’s integrate that intelligence into the checkpoint," he said. "Today the checkpoint is just looking for bad objects – like tweezers and shampoo, but the agent doesn’t know anything about the traveler."

    With a quick background check, Lott said, agents could better assess the risk associated with each traveler, then use things like scanners and pat-downs to further analyze those deemed high risk.


    Seriously, that's how these guys think. And the way things are going, they'll probably get that too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:59am

    I believe we use those same new scanners here in Canada now as well. I wonder how many other places have them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 8:59am

    I advise no one go to a "private" area with TSA thugs.

    Just allows them opportunity to plant something or claim you resisted. You *want* witnesses; remember *you* are not the criminal: the TSA thugs are, searching without suspicion, sexually molesting even children.

    And again, everyone should notice that *you* are on the DE FACTO NO-FLY list: if you don't submit to this invasive tyranny, you ain't getting on a commercial flight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:01am

    I hope they get the scanners banned

    I hope that states are successful in getting the scanners banned along with the groping. We are not safer with these methods. In fact, short of flying naked only after receiving a full body x-ray could we be safe. Even then, who is protecting us from the pilot?

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

    This quote applies to a very large chunk of what the Fed government does today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:07am

    Do you know what the most moronic thing about these "130 dangerous, illegal items"? I can almost guarantee you that every single passenger was still allowed onto the airplane.

    Just more evidence of your security theatre. I can just imagine a real terrorist or criminal:

    "Oh, gee, they stole my nailclipper. Guess I'll just sit down and enjoy my flight like a good little boy now."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:09am

    That didn't take long

    I was actually wondering yesterday while driving to lunch when we'd see the "porn-addict applying for a job at the TSA" video. Also, I was curious if/how the TSA would take steps to screen it's existing and future employees for that. Bravo.

    It looks like a lot of money is involved in Airport Security Theater, and as Irving Berlin's musical is quoted: "There's No Business Like Show Business"!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Hugo Chavez, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:10am

    Cost Bennefit Analysis

    Doing the math ( 130 items, 400 scanners @ $150K ea ) means it costs the TSA about half a million USD to find a nail file with their new hardware (without considering wages). I know I feel safer. snark.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:14am

    Where is plan B?

    I can't believe that the security of everyone is based on just strip searching people and groping.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:14am

    Surely not just 130?

    That seems pathetically small for the entire agency. I can think of a screening station in a rural community court that recovered some 20 items in one year, most of which were just accidents with otherwise legal items.

    Tell me we aren't giving up 3rd base for just 130 items nationwide. I'd rather just take my chances, thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:19am

    Re: Surely not just 130?

    Which court didn't have to grope people because their handheld metal detectors could scan accurately within a few millimeters to determine, for instance, whether or not a woman had a larger than average underwire in her bra without having to pat her chest. They had them BEFORE the TSA nipple-rip incident, too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    jilocasin, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:25am

    I agree stay out in public.....

    When being harassed by authority figures it's _never_ in _your_ best interests to go somewhere private.

    Sure it may be a little more embarrassing, but it's ultimately _much_ safer.

    If I were flying, I would;

    1. Make sure to opt out of any screening that you can.

    2. Where hard athletic protection (the kind you use for football or some other contact sport).

    3. When the confused / frustrated TSA 'agent' asks you to go to a 'private area' refuse. If they want to sexually assault me, I want as many witnesses as possible.

    #2 protects your 'junk'
    #3 almost guarantees that they'll end up sexually assaulting you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Steven (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:27am

    Not telling what we found

    I love how they're 'not telling' what they found... except this heroine we found... and things like ceramic knives and drugs...

    Of course there is zero chance of anybody bringing down a plane with ceramic knives and drugs. That and the 127 bottles of contact solution that make up the rest of the 'dangerous, illegal, or prohibited items'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:29am

    About the second video

    And what's scary is when he asked if he could opt out of groping kids, that the TSA rep doesn't see that that's a problem, that their HR office would point at a group of employees and say "You, you and you, you're cleared to feel young kids in the groin region"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Steven (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:30am

    Re: I agree stay out in public.....

    I love this. Everybody should wear a cup to the airport!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:30am

    TSA is just the following the natural extension of groping

    To combat terrorism, under the Patriot Act, I already submitted to have my financial records (including balances and transactions groped, telephone calls are groped, my internet is groped. Also, cell phone location, calls, picture messages, text messages are groped. Emails and Instant Messages are groped too.

    That's what I know for a fact. Am I missing anything?

    If they really can't find the terrorists after all that groping, I really don't know what to think, but I think it needs to be scaled back.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:32am

    I generally agree with what Ron Paul is saying but one thing I question is where he says it should almost only be the private sectors job to ensure safety.

    Public safety is one area where free market capitalism fails, just like with environmental protection. Free market capitalism only cares about one thing, profits, and if it's more profitable to reduce safety that's exactly what free market capitalism will do.

    To what extent will an airport be held liable for poor safety measures if a passenger exploited those measures to cause damage? Or should only the villain be held responsible.

    Usually in cases where private sector negligence has caused someone harm, for example, if I go to a store and something falls off a shelf and hits me, the store will be responsible. But if I go to a store and random non-employee at the store randomly hits me then the store isn't responsible for the damages because they didn't implement enough safety measures, the person who hit me is. and the store will claim that. Likewise, should airports be punished for the actions of terrorists because they didn't implement enough security measures to prevent their attack. A crowded store or mall is just as prone to a terrorist attack with a weapon or bomb as an airport.

    While I do believe the private sector does have a role to play to ensure safety, I also think the govt also has a role to play as well (both when it comes to ensuring certain safety guidelines and when it comes to investigating potential terrorists and stopping terrorists). While I think their current approach is not the right one, I do think the govt has an important role in ensuring our safety.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    BruceLD, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:36am

    Subject

    This article is correct to mention that someone with emotional and sexual problems; particularly those that may be prone to pedophilia or other sexual deviations; it seems that the TSA is the perfect job for you where the government gives you absolute power and control to grope and sexually assault men, women and children

    Amazingly, you may touch any body part, and if you are so compelled and if you find a woman, man, child or baby sexually attractive enough you may even visually inspect their anuses, breasts, penises and vaginas. But it gets even better for the perverts and pedos! The government allows them to actually touch and stick your fingers inside any orifice of any man, woman, child and baby!

    That's right. You do all that you can to try to protect your children from pedo's on the street, and you may even be preaching the importance of chastity and virginity until marriage. Guess what? A perverted or pedophile TSA agent can just rip your childs clothes off and is allowed to happily enter and invade your childs sexual organs. You can bet that the first person to ever touch and enter or violate your childs sexual organs will be a TSA agent.

    Absolutely amazing...and the government totally and completely sanctions this. I wonder how Obama would feel if TSA agents were taking turns sticking their fingers inside his virgin daughters vagina.

    On the other side of the coin; terrorists are always testing the weaknesses of security. It is not common for them to strap bombs to their women and children so they can blow themselves up to smithereens. They don't see lives as precious and valuable. Heck no; they'd blow up their own grandmother and/or child in a heartbeat.

    I'm all for bomb sniffing dogs and bomb puffers. Dogs naturally wanna sniff crotches and butts anyways, and I don't mind if a bomb puffer goes near my crotch or butt. I don't see how either of those would be harmful to children. I believe that form of screening is the most effective of all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Richard Kulawiec, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:41am

    If they really did find 130 items...

    ...then how many did they miss?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Mark, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:42am

    Re: Think it's bad now?

    Maybe not. I was pulled out of my car at a land-crossing a few days ago by multiple agents with guns on the basis that my name was on a watch list (my name is very common) even though the border agent (not TSA) had my passport and those of my entire family including my kids. If that won't help them keep things straight, I don't think that the TSA would do any better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:43am

    Thank you, Mr. Paul

    Way to go, Ron Paul. I don't expect the bill to go anywhere, but I'm all for exposing the truth and opening up discussion on the issue. Even if it doesn't come close to passing, hopefully the discussions and media exposure will force a change.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Ryan Stevens, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:46am

    Go Commando!

    I will be wearing a kilt and no underwear every time I fly from now until they discontinue these asinine "security" measures. If they want to grope my bits, they'll have to take the whole kit and kaboodle!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:47am

    Re:

    In other words

    I don't want the existence of public safety measures to be solely based on the economic efficiency of having such measures. We (should) value public safety much more than we (should) value economic efficiency. It's generally not the private sectors job to ensure the safety of individuals from criminals and terrorists, it's generally the governments job. Sure, malls may have mall security, but their role is very limited. It's the police's and the governments job to take care of more serious threats to public safety (ie: criminals and terrorists), it's not the malls or the private sectors job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Jeremy7600 (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:47am

    Re: Not telling what we found

    This. What the hell good is it to report 130+ items found when none of them pose serious harm to an entire flight?

    Drugs? I could care fucking less if they found drugs. The War on Terror is just as much grandstanding as the War on Drugs. I could also care less if they found toiletries or water or whatever the fuck it was they found. If it wasn't an actual incendiary device, I DO NOT FUCKING CARE.

    Since they didn't find any, in essence they are just bilking more taxpayer money for Security Theater, to show us who's in charge and to intimidate us. Well, they aren't scaring me.

    I wish I was flying this week so I could test the waters of the potential for a civil suit and a fine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:48am

    Re: Cost Bennefit Analysis

    Yes but how do we know the new scanners found the item not the "old-fashioned" baggage x-ray.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:48am

    Re: Cost Bennefit Analysis

    meanwhile the guy who has investments in the company who makes the scanners is laughing all the way to the bank.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:54am

    Job Opportunity..

    for convicted child molesters: work for the TSA and you can go back to grabbing children inappropriately.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:55am

    Re:

    "Public safety is one area where free market capitalism fails."

    Citation needed.

    To be fair, Ron Paul has always been a proponent of "freedom and responsibility." So, yeah, an airport or airline (more likely the airline would be responsible for the security on the boarding and the flight itself) is free to implement security as it sees fit. But, if it has crappy security, it would be opening itself up to massive civil damages. And, under Paul's philosophy, the government would NOT be there to bail them out.

    A track record of quality security combined with respect for the passenger would be a huge competitive advantage for an airline.

    The problems with the government solutions are many. They are politically motivated, rather than safety-motivated. They limit us to one solution, whether that solution works or not. They provide way too much power to government agents. They provide little recourse for passengers when the procedures are abusive or inappropriate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 9:56am

    Re:

    Germany actually did a video describing how they are ineffective to say the least. They even had a nude protest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re:

    A bunch of blonde-haired, blue-eyed German bombshells did a naked protest?

    ....where do I sign up for that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re:

    "But, if it has crappy security, it would be opening itself up to massive civil damages."

    But those civil liabilities themselves are a form of govt intervention. Who creates the laws that enable civil liabilities, and who enforces them? The govt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Howard the Duck (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:21am

    Israel

    No planes hijacked since 1968. How do they do it? Profiling?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Phillip Vector (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:21am

    I got caught

    "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? "

    I'm one of them.

    Last June, I was flying home from a convention in Ohio. A pair of items I brought with me was a pair of handcuffs (Don't ask if you don't want to hear the answer). I went through PDX (my home airport) easy. No issues (they did a manual scan of my bag and DID see them). On my way home, I was stopped by TSA and they took my cuffs (which were a gift. Again, don't ask).

    I recall them even saying that they were on the acceptable list. But the supervisor there was apparently allowed to break the TSA rules and force me to mail them back home (for $50) or dispose of them. Sadly, I didn't have $50 to spend (having just went to a convention), so I decided to have them disposed of. As I was actually boring the plane, they had me do a second check through my bag before I could board.

    Apparently, I was a danger to people because of them. I could have.. I dunno.. Hit someone? I mean, I also had my laptop and that couldn't have also been dangerous.

    Made the usual complaints and nothing came of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Punmaster (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:26am

    Re: Re:

    >> "Public safety is one area where free market capitalism fails."

    >> Citation needed.

    BP - the public safety aspect of offshore drilling is difficult, sure, but it didn't look like they cared much about PREVENTING the blowout.

    Ford Pinto - it was cheaper to pay the damages than to retool the production of the car to prevent the damage caused during a crash.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:26am

    Re: Re:

    "A track record of quality security combined with respect for the passenger would be a huge competitive advantage for an airline."

    So what about those who can not afford to pay for an airline with good security? Should they be provided with much less security? Should terrorists be allowed to target their airplanes for attacks on buildings who's owners aren't guilty of implementing poor security or choosing to fly or contribute to an airline with poor security?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    John, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:30am

    Re:

    Dangerous item # 123 (I'm guessing) a BOTTLE OF SHAVING CREAM. I'm pretty confident I was one of the 130, since I was detained for about 5 min and asked about it. So I threw it out and was let on the plane.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not saying that free market capitalism always produces poor safety, just that the quality of our safety shouldn't based on the extent that such safety produces economic efficiency. We value safety much more than profits or economic efficiency and we should be willing to sacrifice some economic efficiency for the sake of ensuring safety.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    shouldn't be based *

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:21am

    Re: Subject

    Burka-wearing women are exempt, apparently.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The courts. Contrary to uninformed belief, Libertarian philosophy does not equal "no government." It simply espouses keeping government in it's proper place.

    Laws would still exist, as would the courts to settle both criminal and civil disputes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    snatchmo, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:29am

    Re: Job Opportunity..

    Convicted child molesters are convicted felons.
    They are not eligible for federal employment.

    In contrast to the private contractors that the airports used to use for security, prior to 9/11. They didn't even have to be US citizens.

    Mr. Paul needs to review history before he proposes what he does. Governments that contract services give them to the low bidder, the contractor that will hire the cheapest labor. Who except child molesters will take those jobs?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    interval (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re:

    I enjoy a nice scotch from time to time, especially when I'm flying, so I used to bring a flask with me. $5 for a airliner bottle, give me a break. So soon after 9/11 and the institution of the TSA tyranny I forgot about my flask and this one punk tell me to pour it out. 10 year old scotch. I said "Christ, you can smell it and tell what it is..." the smell of scotch is pretty distinctive. Didn't matter. So I poured it out, and went ahead and paid for a airline bottle. Nice scam.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    What about those who can't afford plane tickets? Should they be forced to DRIVE???

    Oh, wait. That already happens.

    Besides, the point is that, if security were privatized, a highly publicized hi-jacking would destroy an airline's bottom line as surely as a highly publicized crash due to improper maintenance. Safety is a selling point, and no airline is going to want to risk damaging their reputation with a hi-jacking.

    Now, just to be clear, I am not entirely opposed to government security. There are pros and cons either way. My point was not to say that government security is always bad, but to counter your blanket assertion that private security is inherently inferior.

    However, creating a government agency with no oversight and giving them the right to do whatever they please in the name of security theater is not a proper way to go about it. Certainly, a privately funded security force would want to spend it's money more efficiently and effectively.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    BP - And look at the backlash. Look at their stock. It has cost the company dearly. I can promise you that they will be a lot more careful in the future. And why? Because the government exposed BP to the damages instead of shielding them with liability caps. Hopefully, it's only the beginning. Accidents will happen. Fully preventable accidents, like the BP incident, should be devastating to the company. Unfortunately, given our government's track record when faced with the bankruptcy of large corporations, they will cap BP's losses and give them retroactive immunity to civil suits.

    Again, the responsibility part is what's missing, not the government regulation. Regulation is really quite powerless. They can pass a lot of laws and create a lot of "inspection theater," but a corrupt corporation will find ways to sneak around the laws. Meanwhile, honest companies pay the price of increased regulatory costs, which they then pass on to us in the form of higher prices.

    Ford Pinto - And why was it cheaper? Because of liability caps. Not to mention that those "in the know" should have faced manslaughter charges. Again lack of responsibility, or accountability, if your prefer that term.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:54am

    Re: Re: Job Opportunity..

    Uh, if the government is doing the contracting, it's still a government service. Paul's point isn't that governments should hire private security firms. His point is that airlines should be responsible and accountable for their own security. With that accountability comes liability for screw-ups.

    Again, I am not completely opposed to a more reasonable government solution, but I want to point out your mis-statement of Paul's position.

    Also, didn't your statement just prove his point? If governments contract the cheapest services, don't you think they will also contract the cheapest employees? Especially when that government organization has no oversight or accountability?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Mark, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 12:08pm

    Boycott Flying!

    Don't just "opt out" of naked scanners only to be sexually molested/assaulted, instead. Boycott Flying COMPLETELY, until sanity returns! Please join us: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Flying/126801010710392

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re:

    "We (should) value public safety much more than we (should) value economic efficiency."

    Why are you insistent that it is an either-or proposal? In most cases, especially for a transportation company, safety is an inherent part of economic efficiency.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Go Commando!

    It's called 'regimental' and is the proper way to wear a kilt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Except there is a very significant problem with Hegemon's argument and that is that the company would have to possess the means to repair/restore/compensate those damaged by their devastating accident and it isn't realistic to believe that companies can limit their actions to only those that could never cause more harm than they could pay to fix. The company will go bankrupt and sell off its assets and the investors (who could have been siphoning the profits out of this company as fast as possible before the accident) can just incorporate a new company and repeat the process causing incredible harm in the process. The free market cannot provide the public with adequate protection in these types of scenarios

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    lee8001 (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 2:34pm

    I work for tsa at chicago and I think most of us disagree with the new pad downs. You don't what your junk to be touched and we don't want to touch them. But we do what were told to do so we can pay the bills and put food on the table. And last time i checked tsa does not hire child molester or a rapist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Revi (profile), Nov 19th, 2010 @ 3:50pm

    "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."

    Does this mean they also don't look for links to terrorist organisations? "We've checked and you have never been found guilty - you are approved... as are your 12 cousins... you may all work on the same shift if you like..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Jana, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re: Job Opportunity..

    Well what if they are not convicted.. My father was never convicted... They can just go in there and have a GREAT time molesting the small children and women and men.. This is WRONG!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    MMI, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 4:23pm

    Re: Scanners in Canada

    Yes we do. I was scanned in Toronto several months ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    rawiswar, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 4:33pm

    not gonna pass

    well, this bill is so encompassing that i don't think even Ron Paul wants it. he just wants to pretend he cares. because this will take out the immunity to wiretapping. is he willing to go against the big 4 in the wireless and wired? i bet not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Rebecca Duncan, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 5:33pm

    Expensive scanners

    But you all don't understand what is important here. A big important company made these scanners, and now it is up to us to use them, so that the company will not lose money.

    One thing I have been wondering about- what happens to a woman who is using a sanitary napkin. Does the TSA employee remove it and check it for explosives?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    ee, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 12:09am

    TSA

    I am 5' 10" and weigh 360 lbs. Next time I go to the airport, I am going only in my speedo. Truely not a pretty image. Maybe someone will get the joke, but I suspect I will be asked into the scanner; because that's the rule. I will decline, so then they must pat me down, because that's the rule. But what is the point?

    But seriously, a terrorist bomber could do the exact same thing and still get on a plane with 30 pounds of TNT. His surgeon would have implanted it. Stupid processing is useless, except as a means to terrorize the population.

    Wake up and write your senators and congressman: the TSA theatre is no longer serving us. And everyone knows it; the real work must go on running background checks and profiles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    brady, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 6:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    and exactly how many people are still buying ford pinto's?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    brady, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 6:23am

    Re: Re: Re:

    actually , yeah.

    businesses should have to compete. If they do a crappy job, they should go out of business. If planes go down, they should go down. The way how it is, the more terrorism there is , the greater the funding the TSA will get. Thats insane.

    Statistically you have higher odds of winning the powerball TWICE than dieing in a terrorist attack, we need to stop being so freaking scared and have businesses think smart rather than having dumb TSA goons grabbing at our private parts. Airlines that are too dumb to put common sense defenses on their planes like locks on doors and guns in cockpits PLAIN SHOULDN'T EXIST.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Rwolf, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 7:49am

    TSA Over The Top, Over Your Body

    Could TSA Black Ball Americans Using All Forms Of Public Transportation?

    A song titled, TSA Boots Are Going To Walk All Over You, might make a great sequel to Nancy Sinatra’s “These Boots Are Going To Walk All Over You.”

    TSA’s mistreatment, humiliation and general abrasive handling of Americans at airports, may be a portent to Americans (next) getting a Boot in their face if they refuse to be stripped searched, molested or x-rayed before boarding—any form of public transportation; bus, train, cruse ship. It is obvious TSA intends to extend its reach beyond airports; that TSA will blackball Americans from using other forms of public transportation, including preventing Citizens from driving beyond highway checkpoints, for alleged security reasons. TSA appears headed toward shutting down Americans' Right To Travel Freely in their own Country.

    The Nazis used national emergency as a premise to repeatedly target, search and detain Germans boarding or taking trains considered political dissidents or morally unfit; Citizens were intentionally delayed by police/military so they would be late or miss work. As a result many Citizens lost there jobs and could not survive.

    TSA’s physical searches of air passengers’ private body parts, is intimidating passengers to submit to x-rays scans. Continued Low Radiation Exposure is Accumulative and believed to cause Cancer. Americans need to draw a line in the sand; Boycott airlines: that would get TSA's attention and stockholders of airlines. Meanwhile, not just pilots and flight attendants, “ordinary air passengers” should also be afforded privacy when physically searched at public airports.

    The government intends to invade your bedroom. The government purchased hundreds’ of X-Ray Vans that will travel our streets without warrants, x-ray scan, see Americans naked when walking, standing, riding their bike and may—retain your scan-photos.

    Government/police will use x-ray vans to peer though Citizens’ homes and vehicles, exposing Americans and their families to radiation; government will view Citizens in their bedrooms. Americans need to ask Obama if independent studies were conducted to determine if Citizens could develop Cancer, if (repeatedly bombarded) by police X-ray scans. It is expected government/police with or without a warrant, will repeatedly X-ray scan a person of interest, in his or her home.

    Obama’s X-Ray Vans can ALSO be used by the military or police to secure perimeters to control civil unrest and instances of revolt, to screen and stop Citizens carrying guns, cameras; any item. Does Obama expect Americans to revolt?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    dan, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 8:56am

    C'mon...get serious!

    I just heard your rant on the new scanners @ airports (WSCR in Chicago). You are WAY off base in more ways than I can describe here. Security IS important on aircraft. Pat-downs are not as invasive as many like to say...I have been getting them for years as my artificial hip sets off the detector. They are efficient, standard and very business-like. The new scanners are just as business-like...if you think the images are risque, well all i can say is you flatter yourself -- no one is that interested in the caricature of your human form. And the radiation scare...please don't perpetuate that drivel. Some scanners use microwaves at and others very low-energy x-rays. You receive more x-ray exposure in 2 minutes on the airplane at cruise altitude! Quite safe...no danger of growing a third eye (or a tumor). I realize the internet gives everyone the right and ability to voice their opinion in the total absence of facts or experience...but it is just as important to respond.

    There I feel better. Even if people will continue to hear your inaccurate and inappropriate rant.

    Dan HArris dharris@en-terpret.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    someone (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Progress?

    9/11 and we get our fingernail clippers taken away

    Shoe bomber comes along and we catch athletes foot and the security gate starts to smell a little less pleasant.

    The Pansy Panty Bomber fails and now we get subjected to porno scanners and groping.

    I predict the next step is the rectum bomber which is likely to result in your 'friendly' TSA worker singing and dancing as he asks "What what (in the butt)" as you bend over and spread before boarding:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU&feature=player_embedded

    This has been a presentation by your local Security Theater. Hope you enjoyed the show.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    THOUGHT, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 4:00pm

    NEODYMIUM N38

    NEODYMIUM N38 MAGNETS ARE GREAT TO HELP JOINT MOVEMENT (LIKE HIP MOVEMENT)BUT FOR SOME REASON MESS UP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT. THEY WOULD BE USEFUL TO ASSIST IN ALL THE WALKING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE WHEN TRAVELING. WOULDN'T IT BE TERRIBLE IF FOR THE PURPOSE OF A NAKED BODY MACHINE SEARCH THIS POWERFUL MAGNET WERE TAKEN OUT OF A PERSONS HIP POCKET AND PUT ON THE NAKED BODY SEARCH MACHINE. THE POOR NAZI PERVERTS AND SEXUAL ASSAULTERS OF THE TSA MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE WITH THEIR MACHINE AND WE WOULD ALL HATE THAT. TSA IS ONLY SEXUALLY ASSAULTING AMERICANS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SHOT THE TERRORISTS. THE TERRORISTS WANT ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT MUSLIM TO DIE. THAT MAKES THE TERRORISTS EASY TO IDENTIFY. (SEE THE MOVIE CALLED "OBSESSIONS: RADICAL ISLAM'S WAR AGAINST THE WEST") THEIR WORDS ARE THEIR UNIFORMS. SHOOT THE TERRORISTS AND LEAVE AMERICANS ALONE. WE SHOULD HAVE SHOT EVERY LAST INMATE OF GUANTANAMO, TREATED THIS LIKE A WAR (WHICH IT IS) AND ELIMINATED THE TERRORIST PROPAGANDA MACHINE AL JAZEERA JUST LIKE WE TOOK OUT THE GERMAN RADIO STATIONS IN WW2. WE SHOULD LOCK DOWN THE ASSETS OF SAUDI ARABIA, PAKISTAN AND EVERY OTHER TERRORIST COUNTRY, AND SEND THEM TO THEIR NICE DATE WITH 72 SULFUR STENCHED WHORES IN IN HELL. FORGET ABOUT FEARING THE VIOLENT ISLAMIC TERRORIST. MAKE THE TERRORISTS FEAR THE AMERICAN.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    THOUGHT, Nov 20th, 2010 @ 4:23pm

    NEODYMIUM N38

    OH, BY THE WAY, REMOVING NAIL CLIPPERS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE SAFETY SITUATION. ANY GOOD MARTIAL ARTISTS SHOULD KNOW THAT WITH NO WEAPONS WHATSOEVER, BEING CLOSE ENOUGH TO TOUCH SOMEONE IS THE ONLY CIRCUMSTANCE PHYSICALLY NECESSARY FOR A PERSON TO BE ABLE TO LOOSE THEIR LIFE. IT IS THE WILL OF THE TRAVELER THAT MAKES US SAFE OR IN DANGER, NOT THE ABILITY OF THE TRAVELER, WEAPONS OR NOT.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    BamaGirl (profile), Nov 20th, 2010 @ 11:08pm

    Re:

    Check again. TSA does hire child molesters and rapists. See this news article from the Boston Herald: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1238602

    TSA is apparently also hiring illegal aliens with forged documentation and clearing them for airport security jobs. See the following: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/dec/tsa-clears-illegal-aliens-work-ny-airport

    These actions do not inspire confidence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Nancy Reagan, Nov 21st, 2010 @ 1:58pm

    Just say no

    Stand up and just say NO to these Nazis. These are NAZI tactics. Wake up people, they don't care about you, they just want to control you. WAKE THE HELL UP

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 21st, 2010 @ 3:41pm

    Re: Israel

    I was going to comment on this further down but as you bring the subject up......

    The CBC did an interview with the former (?) head of airport security who said in no uncertain terms that the backscatter xrays are worse than useless. I think the term was fraud, I was only half listening up to that point. And that the pat down wasn't a whole lot better.


    What they do do is what any well trained security person does is watch the behaviour of the person to see if they're unusually nervous or amxious, check their flight itinerary for flights and connections that simply don't make sense and a number of other subltle give aways that a person in this position does.

    Yes, it's profiling in a sense but it's the same kind of profiling police detectives, customs agents and countless others in security have been doing for a long long time.

    Yes, they do use standard xrays mostly at or near the airport entrances which picks up anyone with a belt made of C-4, restrict access to the working areas of the airports such as flight path aprons, baggage and any other place they identify as needed strict control of who gets where and when they do.

    Anyway, in my case they can stuff they're back scatter xray (or any other xray that I know of) because I have a programmable pacemaker whose operation could be negatively impacted by too much xray exposure. For example I could have a heart attack right then and there.

    They want a pat down they can do it right there as well, in front of everyone which really ought to cut down on the shenanigans or having to explain in front of people who want nothing more than to get on their plane.

    And has it occurred to anyone other than this fella that "The Terrorists" (tm) have probably already figured out how to get by these silly things? That is to say the ones that really do know what they're doing?

    In the meantime a backscatter xray picture is damn poor porn, if you ask me!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 11:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Okay, and the government can? How's that been working out lately? Oh, yeah, the government is beyond bankrupt, and we still had oil billowing out into the Gulf.

    There is no magic bullet to prevent disasters. However, I tend to believe that the ingenuity of 350 million Americans is more likely to find effective solutions than a few appointed government bureaucrats with no actual stake in safety, but with a definite stake in accepting money and favors from the most corrupt lobbyists.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 2:58pm

    Re: C'mon...get serious!

    Apparently you haven't read very well. The pat downs recently changed to open-palm manual contact with the genitals.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    lola, Nov 24th, 2010 @ 7:05am

    TSA are child molesting perverts!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This