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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 11:58am

    Tough Call

    So my choices are (A) Submitting to a cancer-inducing pornography machine, or (B) letting a high school dropout feel up my junk.

    Well, I guess if I'm going to be uncomfortable, I might as well make one of them uncomfortable too. Plus, you could always entertain yourself by making creepy statements while the pat-down was going on.

    "Just a little higher . . . just little higher . . . yeaaaah, that's it."

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:00pm

    All I can say is wow!

    So you decide not to fly but you must be search anyway? I cannot believe We the Sheeple have allowed ourselves to be subjected to this. You know, a government that cannot trust the people can itself not be trusted.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:04pm

    Buy a plane ticket, and as a bonus, receive forced confinement and sexual molestation!

    I will never fly.

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    have a feeling ill be driving come christmas...

     

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

  5.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Tough Call

    There's a great line about a population that isn't mobile being easy to control than one that is...

    I never really took it seriously until now. Osama is laughing his sorry arse silly over this kind of stuff.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:13pm

    This is bullshit because the guy insisting that the non-passenger must be screened or fined is basically implying that ignorance of the rule is no excuse for the non-passenger and therefore he must be fined if he leaves the security area without some agent copping a feel, but he allows the excuse that ignorance of the rule exempts the TSA agents, the local cop, and Mr. Silva from any penalty.

    If they escorted him out, they exempted him from the rule, whether they knew there was one or not.

    The irony is that no one needs to get on a plane to commit a terrorist act. You could kill a lot more people just by detonating a bomb on your person when you're in the security area. Why TSA hasn't thought about this is beyond me. Maybe we need pre-security area security areas to filter out would-be attackers from entering the security areas. Then of course we'd need pre-pre-security area pre-security areas too. We should just build out from the airport with security checkpoints on the road manned by TSA agents in riot gear and carrying assault rifles. Airports could be like little medieval fortresses where the fiefdom of TSA is safe from the terrorists (and the peasants who they opress).

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    Re:

    So... I'd step out my door (in the morning) to be greeted by a pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-security area, and go thru three more of those in the 350 feet from my place to the bus stop?

    Ick.

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    Re:

    I was just thinking this Christmas is going to be interesting. No one wants to fly any more and gas prices are climbing again (where's the public outcry this time?). I'm probably not even going to drive for Christmas this year.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:18pm

    Re:

    Also, is nudity a viable option?

    If I'm obviously naked and carrying no luggage, the only possible danger I might present is if I'm a world-class martial artist or bear-wrestler or something...

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymouse, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:27pm

    Won't somebody please think of the children...

    So my choices for my children are a) Allow them to be subjected to backscatter scans - essentially becoming victims of child porn, or b) allow some stranger to sexually grope them. Yeah, I don't be thinking so.

    The terrorists have won. The rest is just figuring out how Corp. America can profit from it.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    kramden88, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:29pm

    Purchasing a Ticket Doesn't Imply Consent

    Leaving aside the very obvious 4th Amendment issues that accompany airport screening (and have long before 9/11), the idea that a person complies to these increasingly invasive searches by purchasing a ticket is not right. While you do have to realize that security is part of the process, these new procedures were sprung on travelers very recently and people who bought their tickets even a couple weeks ago couldn't have known what they would be subjected to between the full body scanners and agressive pat downs.

    Common sense would argue that someone who bought a ticket under a different assumption of the security paradigm who does not want to have their personal space violated in the way that we're being asked to now should be entitled to a refurn of their ticket without question if they really don't want to be put through these screenings.

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Tough Call

    Addendum: For even more hilarity, stuff a pair of rolled up socks down your underwear before they cop a feel.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    DanVan (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:36pm

    I fly last week and noted to my girlfriend how the guy literally was touching my balls twice and it was the most uncomfortable situation I had been in for some time

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Zane, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:39pm

    Deal with it.

    Look, people. If you don't have anything to hide, then there is no reason that you should not be willing to go through the scans. Yes, somebody gets to see you naked. So does the guy who gives you your prostate exam when you hit 40, and your medical examiners when you're entering to join the military or play sports.

    If you're self-conscious about having tiny junk or something, deal with it. You're not the only frickin' one that has to go through it. I can understand flight attendants and pilots not wanting to go through the scan (I mean, after all--going through the X-Ray as often as they would could end in health problems), but civilians who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. It's not like somebody's gonna stop you after the machine and say "HAHAHA YOU HAVE TINY JUNK!"

    The fact of the matter is that this beef-up in security is pretty much required at this time, what with all of the turmoil going on in the Middle East, AND with the possibility of turmoil occurring right here in the US. Think about it--would you rather have somebody sneak explosives on board and send the plane crashing down? Be glad that you have the OPTION to CHOOSE to do the scan, rather than being forced to have a finger up your butt or get your groin pat down to check for hidden stuff there! If you'd prefer, TSA COULD just remove the backscatter scans all together and make patdowns mandatory--heck, why wouldn't they? It'd be a lot less expensive on their part!

    I don't care if this violates amendments, or what. I know that I--And NOT ONLY I--am losing NOTHING through this extra security. I'd rather face an implication of security that causes honest people like myself and others to lose nothing, and know that I'm that much safer, than to fight it for the sake of losing the safety and security to gain NOTHING.

    Also, to those of you here who are making comments like (and I quote) "Buy a plane ticket, and as a bonus, receive forced confinement and sexual molestation!", you're being ignorant. The patdown is an OPTION, for if you don't want to go through the quick and easy way.(Which is, by the way, easier and more pleasant for both the person boarding the plane AND for the people doing the patdowns. Do you honestly think that they ENJOY patting down every obese male that feels insecure about his junk?)

    Admittedly, the rule of having to be checked regardless of whether you're going to board the plane or not is more than a bit ridiculous. So is the idea of being SUED for not consenting to such if you're not going to board. In the end, for this PARTICULAR case, TSA is in the wrong. However, as a whole, they are generally doing this for the safety of your passage, and they're not even charging you for it! Maybe I'm just not as self-conscious as some people, but I'll take the backscatter scanner any day. If it means that I get to feel safe and secure on a plane ride, then I will HAPPILY subject myself to the scan--especially since I have nothing to hide. Do you?

    It's common sense. How much brainpower does it honestly take to comprehend the actuality of what's going on here!?

    Inb4"tl;dr"

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    kyle clements (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    Re:

    or, maybe the whole 'war on terror' thing is just a sham and there is no reason for any of the security in the first place.

    Just lock the cockpit and be done with it. The solution to aviation security is a $10 lock away.

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    J, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:42pm

    I think the TSA stating that this man is subject to fines is based on a 2007 9th circuit court of appeals ruling. I can't find any case info but I remember this ruling.
    The opinion was something along the lines of:
    'If we let people start the security process then stop it whenever they like, then terrorists will just do that until they succeed.'

    I can't believe that grown men and women think like that.

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:43pm

    Now I feel special because I got both the backscatter scan and the grope last time I flew. To be fair, I was wearing a cutout under my clothing in the shape of letters. There's nothing wrong with letters, right? So what if they coincidentally spelled "f*** the TSA" across my chest and abdomen...

     

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

  18.  
    icon
    imbrucy (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:44pm

    Supported by Appeals Court

    Unfortunately, the rule that once you enter the security area you can't leave without being scanned is supported by a ruling from IIRC the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They basically went through some tortured logic and concluded that if you could leave after being asked to go through a pat down then terrorist could just keep trying different airports until they were able to get through without the extra screening. It was ridiculous logic and the ruling actually said "in a post 9-11 world" which shouldn't matter because the 4th amendment was not modified post 9-11.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    Joe Magly (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    I would copy pasta the old tired quote about how giving up freedom for security gets you neither but based on your post it would seem you are quite happy to give up everything to protect yourself from the big bad bogey man.

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    Aitala (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Apparently, a lot since Israel has some of the best airport security in the world and does not have to grab anyone's testicles.

    Eric

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    imbrucy (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:49pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    This is the exact same argument you hear against warrantless wiretaps and it's just as invalid for this as it is for that. Just because I don't have anything to hide doesn't mean I should willing submit to every encroachment on my rights. The entire process that the TSA goes through is a sham. If someone competent wants to destroy a plane, they will, and no amount of security will be able to deter someone determined to do damage.

     

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

  22.  
    identicon
    Zane, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:49pm

    Re: MrWIlson

    Y'see, there's one thing you're missing in that argument. Look at it from a tactical point of view--

    Thinking about it strategically, a terrorist actually COULD have more killing power if they got aboard a plane. If they timed it right, they could easily wait until the plane's trajectory would smash it into the next airport/landing zone--and that could easily kill MORE people than if they were to detonate in the security lines, not to mention cause MUCH more damage from an economic standpoint.

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:49pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    "It's common sense. How much brainpower does it honestly take to comprehend the actuality of what's going on here!?"
    None at all, we are obviously on the path to becoming a fascist oligarchic state.

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    This has nothing to do with having something to hide, and everything to do with wanting to maintain some bit of personal dignity (not to mention respect for the Constitution).

    Believe it or not, some people don't want to be (a) shown naked to strangers, or (b) groped by strangers, regardless of whether they have anything to hide.

    Is that really so hard to imagine?

     

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

  25.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Supported by Appeals Court

    If I read the decision correctly, it only applied to people who already went through security. That is, once you're inside, you can't refuse further searches. This guy didn't make it that far, so the ruling doesn't necessarily apply.

    Furthermore, the original case was an appeal arguing that the drugs found on the man were the fruits of an illegal search, which the ruling denied, and thus the guy went to jail for drug possession. Since the guy in this case wasn't found to have any contraband, the ruling doesn't seem to apply there either (what would they charge him with?)

    Of course that won't prevent the government from arguing that is does apply. After all, they'd probably like to search us before we get in the car to go to work every morning to if they could ("By buying a car, you implicitly agreed that that we could do whatever the hell we want to you before you get in it every morning!")

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    I hate to feed the trolls, but I just ate a good lunch, so here goes:

    You lose nothing by not having everyone searched. Nothing. Get over it, your life isn't worth much. Maybe to your friends and family it is, but overall you're not doing much to progress the species as a whole. Don't worry, almost all of us aren't (I'm certainly not). So forgive me if I'd rather not be hassled on my way to the giant tube with wings that is filled with explosive material. I accept the danger of flying, terrorism, and death. So quit with your scans and let me fly after I show up 10 minutes before my plane leaves.

    There needs to be a airservice that only flys planes that have cockpits you must enter from the outside (i.e. no connection to the passenger cabin). Then the only damage that can be done it to the passengers, or blowing up the plane. It costs $50 more per flight, and no security check. But when you board the plane you get a baseball bat. For $15 extra you can keep the bat.

     

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

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:55pm

    Viagra before patdown for the win.

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:56pm

    Could we just hire doctors as TSA agents? That way we can combine security scans with "turn your head and cough" exams. Two birds...one stone.

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Look, people. If you don't have anything to hide, then there is no reason that you should not be willing to go through the scans.

    Ah yes, that old fallacy. Tell that to this guy, who consented to letting the police search his car and ended up being railroaded by the justice system into a 7-year prison stint for following the law.

    But by all means, continue to be ignorant of the world around you; most statists are.

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    I would reply to this in detail but it's so obviously a stupid post trying to get an inflamatory response it's just not worth it. Or if you really are serious my advise is: Go join the government - you'd fit right in. I am of course referring to the government of the USSR circa 1950

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Zane, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Now y'see, there's a difference between what you're saying, and what the TSA backscatter scans are doing.

    When you're talking on the phone, you're alone. You're not around hundreds of people, and it really wouldn't have any effect on anybody. You're just leisurely chatting with somebody(unless you're doing a business call, of course). This is a true and utterly pointless invasion of privacy. THIS kind of invasion of privacy has no effect in any way on the safety of hundreds of citizens(or at least, is a LOT less likely to), and in that sense, is truly an absurd invasion that shouldn't be tolerated.

    I'm not saying that EVERY potential for damage should be solved with invasion of privacy, but if you don't have anything to hide, the invasion is minor, and the invasion can help in providing safety and protecting the lives of great numbers of people, I don't see what the problem would be.

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Gwiz, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    but civilians who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

    I fear losing my privacy.

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:00pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    I actually had to Google the last part. After that long, well written (though absolutely wrong) counterpoint, why would you put that line at the end?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again; I have nothing to hide, I have plenty to fear. Deal with it.

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Mike French, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:02pm

    TSA Idiots

    This has gone so far over the line it is just beyond stupid. When you have to give up your freedom because a few nut cases did bad things, that is just stupid. How many billions are spent now on security? Billions. I would say the bad guys made Corporate Security companies rich. The win - we lose. Bad people rob places like 7-11 but, 7-11 has no interest in playing grab ass with the customers.

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    I don't care if this violates amendments, or what.

    That's a telling statement. What if they start doing other things that violate amendments? What if they start violating the first amendment by not allowing people to print the truth? How would you feel? What if you were no longer allowed to own bear arms and hang them from your wall? Would that be alright? Start housing soldiers in your house all the time because they don't want to pay for barracks? We know you don't care about the fourth because of what you have already stated. Want to be denied due process or a speedy public trial because they don't like the way you look? No more trial by jury? Want your punishment for any crime to be 'He shall lose his testicles'?

    I could go on, but there is really no need to. If you lose your testicles because you spit on the sidewalk, that wouldn't be my problem. They're just testicles. You should just deal with it.

    As an veteran, some days I wonder why I fought. All of those 'amendments or what' were what I signed up to uphold and protect. Sure, the terrorists are bad guys and we should stop them. Groping people or sending them through radiation machines is not going to do that. They could put an explosive up their ass. How will you feel when they start doing cavity searches for anyone flying just to make sure there are no bombs in your ass? Will it still be alright to violate 'amendments or what'?

    You, sir, are the definition of douchebag. Please post your name so I can tell my buddies who are still serving to make their battle cry "This is for everyone in the US except ! He doesn't care about amendments or what!"

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    Steven (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Re: MrWIlson

    I don't think so.

    Can you just imagine the shock and hysteria that would follow the bombing of a security line?

    The mental damage it would do to a massive number of people really outweighs the economic damage another plane explosion would have (t least IMO).

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Zane, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    You're right, I shouldn't feed the troll I'm responding to right now, so I won't.

    Oh wait. Darn.

     

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

  38.  
    icon
    Aaron T (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Won't somebody please think of the children...

    Actually, they've already figured the profit part out:

    "Ex-Homeland Security chief head said to abuse public trust by touting body scanners"
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821_pf.html

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:05pm

    Turism

    There is a reason I do not plan to visit the USA anymore.

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Howard, Cowering, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Deal with it. #14

    "and they're not even charging you for it!"

    Try reading the charges and fees listed on your ticket purchase. You ARE paying for the privilege. And you're not guaranteed a safe flight.

    Read #26 - you're worth a few dollars in raw materials and minerals, and not much more than that. So what if your end comes in a spectacular cloud of smoke and debris, or in your bed? In 100 years, you'll be dead, and hardly anyone will (a) miss you or (b) remember your name, whether or not you had something to hide. You, individually, are not important; the world will go on without you just fine. Anything you have accomplished (or might accomplish) will either be done by someone else, or not be done -- and the world won't care at all either way.

    The only real value you have is to yourself. If you're willing to agree you don't deserve to be respected, then you probably don't warrant any.

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Zane, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson

    And there wouldn't be shock and hysteria and mental damage over a plane crashing into the airport and slaughtering countless innocent lives, due to a better-placed bombing?

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Sure, if they violate a few rights it's no biggie. It's not like they'll come back later and violate more once they realize they can, right? Right?

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    Qritiqal (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    You are my new personal hero.

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: Tough Call

    Or a banana! Especially if you're a chick.

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    Zane, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it. #14

    You're right, human beings hold little to no value to government officials--that's why we should be grateful for the possibility of the security we get. Sure, it's not an absolute, 100% chance "No terrorist will be on this plane--Guaranteed!", but it SIGNIFICANTLY lowers the chances.

    So I was wrong about the charge towards security--big whoop! I'd pay a few extra dollars to improve the chances of keeping myself alive, wouldn't you?

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:12pm

    When I refused the pat down, I wasn't groped. They used the back of their hands to go over my crotch, and they didn't even touch the zipper area of the groin.

    Have they stepped up this procedure? It was far less invasive than I was expecting (thank God). I got the pat down in June 2010, because Las Vegas did not have a metal detector option either.

     

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

  47.  
    identicon
    Zane, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Again, as I've ALREADY SAID... Limits should be placed depending on whether or not the violations hold any significant increase in protecting human life. Is that so hard to understand?

    What I don't get is why people are in an uproar about something so minor that has the potential to save thousands--nay, tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives.

     

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

  48.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Tough Call

    Or run something more flexible down one pant leg. Instant awkwardness!

     

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

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Which is why we should let them come to our home and search it and any computer we might use prior to being able to fly . . .

     

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

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    The bill of rights is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government. You are essentially saying "Their powers should be limited, except when they feel like they shouldn't be." Genious.

     

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

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Limits were placed a couple of hundred years ago. Those limits are being pushed back every day. Why would they stop with the limits you have in mind?

     

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

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Why is tapping the phone of someone suspected of plotting terrorisms *less* likely to divulge useful information than scanning/frisking *everyone* who flies on an airplane?

     

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

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    First, I'm not convinced that the new scanning/frisking procedures are better suited to protecting life than less-invasive procedures.

    Second, a lot of people don't view being groped or seen essentially nude by strangers as "minor."

     

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

  54.  
    icon
    ppartekim (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Tough Call

    Nah, Just take some Viagra and then let the fun rise while being groped..

     

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

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Issue is that a scanner only solves the issue of a suicide vest, or components thereof worn on the body. Everything else is either already covered, or outside the capabilities of the machine. There are still numerous ways of defeating the security system in place and if you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself.

    The other issue is that it can be easily defeated by obvious means. There are less invasive means that do a better job, i.e., a trained K-9 is great at explosive detection and is not limited to external masses of explosives.

    So for this marginal benefit, you're groped or you have to let people look at you naked.

     

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

  56.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson

    Part of coming to terms with tragedies is figuring out what could have been different to prevent them. It gives people somewhere to channel their anger, usually.

    Crash a plane, and they tighten airport security more.
    Blow up an airport security queue, and . . . what?

    I would argue that the feeling of helplessness caused by bombing an airport security line cause much greater terror in the long run.

     

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

  57.  
    identicon
    JoeSchmo, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Wow. You are pretty delusional huh? First of all, comparing these new TSA procedures to a medical professional giving you an exam that you choose to initiate of your own free will is so beyond ridiculous I have trouble even addressing it calmly. Some drop-out TSA agent gets to grope me if I opt out of the scan because I don't like my personal privacy invaded? I don't think so. I really hope this causes a major issue for airports and the industry as a whole. If it costs them $ then they will rethink the procedures.

     

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

  58.  
    identicon
    Zane, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    You, sir, are the definition of ignorant. And I quote: "I don't care if this violates amendments, or what." THIS. As in THIS TSA, as in THIS backscatter scan, as in AIRLINE SECURITY THAT CAN SAVE ME GRIEF. Learn to read in context.

     

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

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14

    SIGNIFICANTLY lowers the chances.
    [Citation needed] (but not expecting one)

    I'd pay a few extra dollars to improve the chances of keeping myself alive, wouldn't you?
    I'm on dangling modifier patrol again and the asnwer is "No, I wouldn't."

     

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

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14

    It doesn't improve your chances though. It improves the chances of them catching somebody strapping something non-metallic to their body.

    There is nothing that requires an "evildoer" to do that though. Despite all the added security, there have been a couple, high-profile failures of the system. None of these scanners deployed by the TSA would have stopped them.

     

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

  61.  
    identicon
    Zane, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    At that, what exactly is HONESTLY limiting them at all? If they've already violated the amendments in some situations, then the fact of the matter is that they're not truly limited at all. So in the end, it really IS a matter of "They're limited unless they feel they shouldn't be".

     

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

  62.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    You, sir, are the definition of ignorant. And I quote: "I don't care if this violates amendments, or what." THIS. As in THIS TSA, as in THIS backscatter scan, as in AIRLINE SECURITY THAT CAN SAVE ME GRIEF. Learn to read in context.

    He understood your context perfectly. You find violating the bill of rights to be okay "in this particular case", which is idiotic, because if the government is allowed to choose when and where they can ignore the bill of rights, then why have it at all?

    Hence, his post.

     

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

  63.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    If they've already violated the amendments in some situations, then the fact of the matter is that they're not truly limited at all. So in the end, it really IS a matter of "They're limited unless they feel they shouldn't be".

    And some of us are trying to oppose the steady march towards a police state. But by all means, continue your "We've already gone this far towards fascism, why not just go all the way?" line of thinking.

     

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

  64.  
    identicon
    DCX2, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:29pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    You do lose something with this "extra security". It's all security theater, resources that were wasted in the pursuit of more marginal and diminishing returns for safety.

    They never caught a terrorist by groping American citizens. They never caught a terrorist by forcing us to use 8 oz plastic bottles for our shampoo. They never caught a terrorist by making us take our shoes off.

    Meanwhile, consider the cost to society of all this extra screening. You know, the externalities that you aren't accounting for in your hypothetical "I am losing NOTHING" spiel. The cost of the machines to develop, assemble, install, use, and maintain. The cost of training technicians to service them. The cost to build extra rooms so that the TSA agents can't see the people being scanned.

    All this, and the next failed terrorist attack might involve explosive eyeglasses. Then what, force everyone to wear contacts?

     

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

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:31pm

    Zane,
    The problem with your logic is there is no end to what you can conceive to "protect human life." At some point, you have to stop letting people take whatever they want from you or they will just keep taking.

    Is THAT so hard to understand?

    By your logic, once they figure out how to explode a plane by planting a bomb inside someone's anus, we should starting submitting to a cavity search every time we want to fly to Chicago.

    "Every time you think, you weaken the nation."
    -Moe Howard.

     

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

  66.  
    icon
    Shawn (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:32pm

    Re:

    yes they have. It even goes so far as sticking their hands INSIDE of sweatpants and other 'baggy clothing'

     

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

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    It also has the potential to cause cancer, an irreparable harm. So far as we're concerned, these backscatter scans and invasive pat-downs are already too far. Is that too hard to understand?

     

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

  68.  
    icon
    pringerX (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:40pm

    Ben Franklin says...

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    There's some contention as to the exact wording, but methinks that is about right.

    Philosophically, though, what constitutes "essential"? Absolute freedom is anarchy; government, as it exists today, is simply a compromise where we have given up some freedoms that we may protect the subset deemed essential. At least, that's what the Constitution and Bill of Rights is about. Personally I think the Founding Fathers did a pretty decent job of defining things. It may be a line drawn in the sand, but it is a line drawn with considerable thought poured into it. To change it on a whim in the name of "increased security" is to effectively discard what it means to be American.

     

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

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:40pm

    sorry, my earlier comment should read "when I refused the body scanner" (not refused the pat down)

     

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

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Yes, I'm ignorant because I believe they won't stop violating 'amendments, or what'. They've never, ever, ever kept pushing once they realized that they could start taking them away. Thanks for enlightening me.

    Do me a favor. Go find a very tall and steep hill that is covered with snow or ice. Take a single step down it. Just one. Surely it's safe. You wont end up at the bottom.*

    *I don't like using the term slippery slope. I prefer to tell people to go do things that will hurt them.

     

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

  71.  
    icon
    Jesse Townley (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:41pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    "All this, and the next failed terrorist attack might involve explosive eyeglasses. Then what, force everyone to wear contacts?"

    ^^^ This is the larger issue. Every time some would-be murderer gets caught, they institute procedures that *may* have caught them. It's the "closing the barn door after the horses have left" cliche. The TSA is in a bind though, because if they don't close the metaphorical barn door & the next terrorist is successful, they're open to a lot of justifiable criticism.

    That said, I think this is the limit. Insert George Orwell reference here. They've gone too far with this.

    I'll try to summarize one of the key points some have said vs. Zane's posts: Life cannot be made completely safe, and certain efforts have a larger impact on our freedoms than our safety.

     

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

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    I like you. Remind me to do something nice for you sometime.

     

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

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    I got this special rock that could "potentially" save thousands of lives from terrorists , wanna buy it?

     

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

  74.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:49pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    a certain Mr. B. Franklin would like to discuss your viewpoints on this matter with you.

     

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

  75.  
    identicon
    Dishevel, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    The beef up in security is required why? It is not like anyone could ever take over a US aircraft again with box cutters.
    Let people have shampoo and water. Let them have their pocket knives and fingernail clippers back.

    Bomb the fucking terrorists in their homes. If the Muslims do not like it they can wipe these evil fuckers from their ranks themselves. Heavy use of pre-screening people when the purchase tickets and good use of profiling should keep us relatively safe.

    That is all I want. All we can really demand. Relative safety. Not make it as safe as possible and fuck everything else.

     

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

  76.  
    icon
    A Dan (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Tough Call

     

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

  77.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    NO U

     

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

  78.  
    icon
    A Dan (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    The reason they're rights is that the government can't encroach on them. Is that so hard to understand?

     

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

  79.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:00pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Great comparison.

    You can't fly without being groped or having naked pictures of you taken.

    You can't have your prostate examined without having... your prostate examined.

    Yep, it's pretty much the same.

     

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

  80.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Pay it forward: Demolish a statist idiot on the internets. ^_^

     

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

  81.  
    icon
    Phillip (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:07pm

    Re:

    not always an option. especially when you have to travel to asia for work, can't exactly take a train there

     

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

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    not sure if a troll or just an idiot... how many terror plots started in the USA and where successful - 1 9-11... and one of the main problems (pilot doors) has been fixed...
    ALMOST every other problem occurs outside the USA...Underware bomber, current mail bombs and the like... doesn't sound like we need more security...

    and hey why not just keep trading your freedom for security... if the government just built us all jail cells you would be really safe, with meals and they will even let you out to work like a good little sheepel you are...you just come back to your safe, mandatory "apartment"/Cell block every night, no problem, your not doing anything wrong, nothing to hide right?

     

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

  83.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:12pm

    OPT OUT!

    Just watch this for a thought into what goes into a pat down.

    Meg Mcclain

     

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

  84.  
    identicon
    Les, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    No Zane, YOU deal with it.

    If you are so terrified of a hijacking, stay home. I don't want to live in a country where this sort of invasive searching is the norm.

    If that many people want to hijack planes to make a point, that the only solution is this sort of Nazi state, maybe we are being lied to by the gov't and maybe the gov't is doing things it shouldn't.

     

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

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:20pm

    Re:

    my hero...

     

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

  86.  
    identicon
    DS, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:24pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Too bad that profiling is considered 'racist' and 'anti-religion' in this country, because that means we have to resort to nut-touching.

     

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

  87.  
    identicon
    Retired Military, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Excuse me - but he who gives up freedom for security desires neither - Ben Franklin I believe -

     

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

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Only criminals complain about having their rights taken away. Only people with something to hide need privacy. And Heil Hitler to you too.

     

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

  89.  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:26pm

    We can do this all night...

    All I have to say about "Deal with it!", is the guy's entire argument is based on the possibility of saving lives.

    Exactly how many bombs have been smuggled on planes before 9/11/2001 vs after 9/11/2001?

    Because I actually think Ive heard more news reports about people smuggling explosives on planes AFTER /911. Seems the increased security has had the opposite effect.

    The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution for a reason. Those are some basic freedoms that need to be protected. I served my time in the military to defend those rights and I feel entitled to them. So Zane you can deal with it. The rest of us are ok would just be happy with our pass through the metal detector and getting on with business as usual.

    To be honest they miss my lighter 8 out of 10 times. Good job TSA. Wonder how much other stuff they miss. Maybe if I kept the lighter in my underwear they would catch it.

     

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

  90.  
    identicon
    Ryan Diederich, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:30pm

    just do a scan

    Jesus Christ, people get so worked up over this crap.

    Put me through a scanner. Ive seen them, they dim the body and light up anything that X-Rays cant pass through, such as your wallet, or keys, or gun, whatever.

    Unless your junk is made of lead, no one is seeing it.

    Unless your underpants are laced with steel, no one can see them.

    Its two colors (at least the one I saw) and it was green and orange.

    I would chuckle at the thought of someone checking me out in my obscured nudity in green and orange.

    Of course you HAVE to be checked, you people cant have everything! How are they supposed to check you, you are afraid of the scanners, you dont want to be touched? How should they make sure you dont have something on you.

    Do this country a favor and deal with it, you dont hear anyone complaining about strip searches in jail, or about the X-Rays that they bombard your poor little laptop with.

     

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

  91.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:33pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    I got a better comparison that you'll like:

    If a police officer hits me with his nightstick without provocation, it's okay because he's trying to do his job, which is to prevent crimes.

    It's the same as if two boxers punched each other, because they can't do their jobs without hitting somebody.

     

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

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:34pm

    He who controls the money makes the laws.

    - James A. Garfield

     

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

  93.  
    icon
    kyle clements (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson

    I agree with your point completely. The long lines to get though security have only created a new potential target.

    But I still fail to see what is so special about deaths caused by air planes.

    All the recent TSA horror stories inspired me to tweet this a few days ago:
    in 10 years, terrorists on airplanes killed 3,000 people. USA also had 150,000 regular murders. Yet no naked scanners to enter Detroit?

    Why is it such a big deal when people die from air planes?
    Where is the "war on gun ownership among inner city residents"?
    Where is the "war on Tobacco"?
    How many lives have been lost in Iraq? where is the "War on War in Iraq"?

    But no... let's ignore all this and make air travel invasive, inconvenient, and force people to go though potentially dangerous porno scanners.

     

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

  94.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson

    I totally agree.

    There are just so many different ways to terrorise a populace, that it makes me wonder if the various terror attacks in the US, UK and the like are legitimate.

    Look how it's done in places like Afghanistan. They blow up 200 people at a wedding, wait for the emergency services to arrive then blow them up. That's terror - going about your every day life and not knowing if you'll be killed.

    I'm 1000x more afraid of a planes engines falling apart (can anyone say A380) than a terrorist blowing one up.

     

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

  95.  
    identicon
    Nathan, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 2:48pm

    This is Spinal Tap

    A cucumber wrapped in aluminum foil down the shorts FTW!

     

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

  96.  
    identicon
    Thamios, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 3:34pm

    As far as why he was patted down before leaving, if you think about it, it makes sense. What happens when a terrorist decides to try to blow up a plane, then gets stopped for a search? He'll turn it down and walk away, hiding whatever he was going to use to blow up the plane. Know his next move? Come back later and try again when security is lower/when he doesn't get super-searched (pat-down, super-screener, etc).

    I don't agree with how they handled this situation, don't get me wrong. They could have easily avoided a good part of the issue by simply explaining WHY they needed to pat him down before leaving. Saying, effectively, "the other employees are idiots, and nothing will happen to them because of it" was a VERY bad thing to say.

    Now, how this SHOULD have gone (post walk-away):

    "Sir, we need to pat you down before you can leave because... (give reason)"
    "Well, they let me leave. it was your supervisor who said i could!"
    "I'm sorry about that sir, he shouldn't have done that, and I'll make sure he is informed of how to properly handle these situations. Will you come with me please? I do apologize for the inconvenience"

     

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

  97.  
    identicon
    RHWalden, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 3:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    The scanners are double plus good---

    If we don't start fighting for our rights, we are going to lose them. Rights are paid for with Blood and this is no different. I'll gladly take my chances on a plane without the invasive scans or the aggressive pat downs. This is nothing more then an unreasonable search without probable cause. This is the government, taking away a right which it will never give back!

    As for the greater good, argument, the greater good is served by upholding our 4th amendment right.

    "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. "

     

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

  98.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 3:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson

    If someone entered my back yard and killed my dog, I would assume it was random or a sicko and wouldn't do much to prevent it happening again.

    If I killed my own dog and did not wish to be blamed for the atrocious act, I would go all ballistic in ensuring that no one could kill my dog in my back yard again. Fences, video surveillance...

     

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

  99.  
    identicon
    Salsa, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 3:54pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Ever heard of personal space?

    I trust the doctor not to try and cop a feel. I don't trust a barely trained security guard to do the same.

    You saying that is like you saying that the government has a right tap your phone lines without a warrant, or monitor your internet activity, or allow them remote or physical access to your computer's HDD. All without probable cause and without a warrant. Heck at this rate why not allow the feds to see us dress in the morning right after we get out of the shower! That's a bloody fantastic idea!

     

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

  100.  
    identicon
    Paul`, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 3:58pm

    Untill they are no longer required I won't be travelling to America or any destination that requires these subtle forms or rape. There are plenty of better locations on this fine earth.

     

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

  101.  
    identicon
    3Chords and an Attitude, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Re: Tough Call

    Yeah... show up wearing Spandex with a salami strapped to your thigh (inside, of course). Would be a hoot-and-a-half (maybe). Hmmmm. Would this be illegal?

    Ten years ago I was entering a coffee shop as a policewoman, a b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l (i.e., georgeous) policewoman was leaving, looking all butchy in her leather and blues. She was tall, stacked and racked. I almost said, "If I ask nicely, would you frisk me?" But then thought better of it.

     

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

  102.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 4:02pm

    A gov't that starts -- and continues -- illegal wars

    doesn't care about your rights. One or two of the 850,000 quasi-gov't spooks have dropped in with a new increment of brazen: doesn't care about amendments, and so on.

    It's about time that people dig in. The TSA position on this is hardline -- and on their website they just flatly LIE that they're not groping. This is another test of incremental police state.

    I expect that pilots and flight attendants will eventually be let out of the severe screening, and as I said previously, that begins dividing society into levels of the more and the less trusted, enforced by epsilon minus TSA thugs.

    As to the threat of a lawsuit, that's *quite* interesting, viewed right: a *civil* suit was threatened. First, proves the TSA is operating under "color of law"; it's not a gov't agency at all, just pretending to be. 2nd, if someone is merely threatening a civil suit, you *can* leave, you're clearly not under arrest. Just get the name of the thug and go.

    The bit about giving up your rights is also interesting. It means that you're considered to have someone accepted contract terms -- not true -- and agreed to various invasions that violate Constitutional protections. More "color of law", that's how they operate, *pretending* to be the gov't, in fact private -- for-profit -- corporations. That's fascism.

     

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

  103.  
    identicon
    Noah Callaway, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 4:10pm

    Re: Re:

    You think you'd get to your front door without a pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-security screening? Good luck!

     

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

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 4:13pm

    Re: Re:

    How many checkpoints do you pass before getting to one that does cavity searches?

     

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

  105.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 4:21pm

    The airline industry being destroyed and many thousands of people will lose their jobs.

     

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

  106.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Look who is talking, troll.

    Have an original idea yet?

     

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

  107.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 4:25pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    I just need the mini-bat from bat-night. Can I bring my own?

     

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

  108.  
    icon
    GeneralEmergency (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 4:46pm

    Re:

    You must be new to this whole TSA thing.

    "Please" is not a word that has ever, or will ever come from any of their over-fed government pie-holes.

     

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

  109.  
    icon
    GeneralEmergency (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 4:53pm

    The bottom like to all this is...

    ...that, to date, the TSA has destroyed more of my freedoms than Al-Qaeda has.

    Think about that for a while kids.

     

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

  110.  
    identicon
    Mark, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 5:37pm

    Boycott Flying!

     

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

  111.  
    icon
    vadim (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 5:52pm

    Tribute to Barack Obama

    Folks you're really have a knack to vote in joyful presidents.
    Clinton with his cigars, now Obama with his groping.
    At least Clinton did it with the girl. Well maybe this groping stuff is some kind of pro gar rights stint .

    :)

     

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

  112.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 6:11pm

    Re: Tribute to Barack Obama

    Nixon was a stalker.

    Regan was too flashy.

    Bush senior was small (remember backing out of Iraq)

    Clinton loved his girls.

    Bush Jr was compensating.

    And now Obama loves to touch.

    Gotta love our history.

     

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

  113.  
    identicon
    Keith, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 6:56pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    can my baseball bat have pointy nails in it? please?

     

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

  114.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 7:17pm

    Re:

    Please google "Security theater".

    Be amazed at the inanity that is humans.

     

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

  115.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 7:18pm

    Re:

    Well the good side is that they're saving a lot of fuel by stopping people from boarding planes.

     

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

  116.  
    identicon
    Michael Vilain, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 7:23pm

    Re: Tough Call

    If you have a favorite lube, bring that if this is going to be your strategy. I'm thinking you joke with the screeners, a cavity search is next. Might as well make it fun for everyone. Say you're allergic to the stuff they use and they have to use your mint flavored lube.

     

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

  117.  
    icon
    vilain (profile), Nov 15th, 2010 @ 7:47pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    The whole "nothing to hide argument" has been fought back and forth between legal scholars for years. I may truly have nothing to hide but that's none of your beeswax. And making the rational decision to opt-out of being scanned and being patted down should not be required. I think TSA is in for a fun time on Nov 24 when the "OPT OUT" crowd shows up at America's airports essentially shutting them down.

    Personally, I'd be happy to be patted down while wearing my kilt commando. Just so long as the guy doing it is hot. I'll even bring my own lube for a cavity search if it goes that far.

     

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

  118.  
    identicon
    I think I'm paranoid, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 7:47pm

    TSA is purposefully being abusive with opt outs and they want word of it to spread in the media. They want you to be more afraid of the treatment you will receive if you opt out than you are of the radiation exposure and embarrassment. That way you and everyone else will succumb to this and any other oppressive measures they can dream up in the name of security.

    It makes their jobs much easier.

    If they don't make opting out a horrible experience then more people will do it and they will not only be wasting too much of their precious time, but they won't be able to justify the millions spent on the body scanners.

    Remember: they are in charge -- and they will do whatever is necessary to make sure you remember that...even if they have to make up laws and violate their own "procedures" along the way.

     

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

  119.  
    identicon
    George, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 8:00pm

    Where Does It Stop?

    So what happens if there is an attack in some other public place? Am i going to be groped before I can enter the shopping mall?

     

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

  120.  
    identicon
    Canucklehead, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 8:08pm

    I'd rather have freedom and privacy over all this "safety"...

     

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

  121.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 8:44pm

    Re: Won't somebody please think of the children...

    > Allow them to be subjected to backscatter scans - essentially
    > becoming victims of child porn

    Unless your kids are also performing a sexual act while inside the machine, it's not child porn.

    The courts, up to and including the Supreme one, have ruled that mere nudity of a minor can't in and of itself be considered child pornography.

     

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

  122.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 8:48pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    > Civilians who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear... I don't
    > care if this violates amendments, or what.

    And with that simple statement, the American way of life gasps its last breath.

     

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

  123.  
    identicon
    btr1701, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 8:59pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    > Just because I don't have anything to hide doesn't mean I should be
    > willing submit to every encroachment on my rights.

    Whenever one of my fellow cops says this, I always like to pose a question back: if you stopped me on the side of the road and wanted to search my car, saying to me that I shouldn't mind if I have nothing to hide, what would be your response if I told you, "Okay, officer, I'll give you consent to search my car, but only if afterward, we go to your home and you let me look through whatever I want-- everything from your personal financial files to the browser history on your computer to your wife's underwear drawer. Would that be okay with you, to have a total stranger looking through your private things? I mean, you shouldn't mind if you have nothing to hide, right?"

    Funny how their tune always changes when presented with that scenario.

     

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

  124.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2010 @ 10:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    5 dollars for nails. 10 dollars to rent a hammer.
    CwF+RtB finally hits the airline industry ;P

     

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

  125.  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 12:07am

    A Business Opportunity-- City to City Taxicabs.

    I think there's a business opportunity here. Supposing you set up a national dispatching center, and you network with a bunch of local taxicab and limousine companies, and generally act as an intermediary in organizing long-distance taxicab service. In short, you do the kind of thing which Amazon does with small mail-order merchants. A long-distance taxicab starts with about a five or six hour head-start over an airliner, on a door-to-door basis, which means that it takes the airliner several hundred miles to catch up. You know, the tortoise and the hare... You "qualify" the sub-contractors, and make sure that they provide things like built-in satellite-phone installations, desks, etc., so that businessmen can catch up on their paperwork while being driven from one place to another. Once a driver has delivered his fare, you arrange for him to get a back-haul, paying a commission to a local firm. And so on and so forth.

     

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

  126.  
    identicon
    Donald R Pierce, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 12:25am

    The only way forward

    Is take the time and drive. If you have to fly over seas well give them as much hell as you can. If you hit the airlines in the pocket this will all go away.

     

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

  127.  
    identicon
    MAC, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 2:38am

    TSA Searches

    Totally un-necessary. If anyone gets out of line on an airliner now the passengers will subdue them.
    As far as bombs go, dogs are the best defense. A dog, when properly trained, can identify practically all explosives, not just a few like these technological boat anchors that we’ve devised at a cost of millions of dollars per unit.
    The Israelis should know that's what they use and they don't need no stinking body scanners...

     

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

  128.  
    identicon
    MAC, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 2:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Searching my car is one thing, groping or viewing my privates is another. It is invasive and it does violate the 4th amendment.
    Like I said further down; dogs will work. I guess we are so stuck on technological solutions to problems that we have lost our common sense.
    Tell me, when you can't find it and you know it's there what do you do? You bring a dog; that's what you do...
    If we give up our freedoms then the terrorist have won.

     

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

  129.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 5:02am

    You touch my junk 'n it's on like Donkey Dong.

     

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

  130.  
    identicon
    Mike, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 6:03am

    Re: Deal with it.

    I say you are wrong, you ARE losing something here, you are losing your privacy and dignity. A doctor that sees you naked has a bit more trust than some random TSA rep, he is a DOCTOR and I get to CHOOSE whether or not he sees me naked. Truth be told, we are subjected to this kind of thing because people like you are afraid and perfectly willing to let your rights be trampled. I would honestly rather die than give in to the fear that the "terrorists" and politicians want me to feel. The airlines will lose enough money over this kind of thing that you will be bailing them out pretty soon.

     

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

  131.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 7:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14

    "but it SIGNIFICANTLY lowers the chances."

    You know, i was going to let all this go because everyone else already made many points I would echo about slippery slopes and the sheep-mentality of "it's ok for this one time" removal of freedom...

    But this? Come on... I don't actually expect you to follow this link since it would prove you wrong (and misinfomred): http://boingboing.net/2010/01/22/naked-airport-scanne.html

    so here's a recap: the device FAILS TO FIND EXPLOSIVE COMPONENTS in the guy's pockets. Not shoved up his bum, not strapped in his junk... in his pockets. So... if you're going to sell your freedoms for a warm cup of reassurance, make sure there's actual substance to it! Idiot.

     

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

  132.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 7:29am

    Re: just do a scan

    I don't care about the image it makes... I care about the TSA instituting new and more-invasive requirements THAT DON'T WORK. Again, see this link: http://boingboing.net/2010/01/22/naked-airport-scanne.html

    I am speaking out against the useless circus that this has all become. And all to make the sheep feel better. I am sick of being penalized and made to suffer indignities just because I'm not part of the lowest common denominator.

    But, instead of showing up naked to expedite the search (crossed my mind) or going in with a nice and highly-contagious rash to give back as a thank-you for the grope, I have decided to act with my wallet: I will never fly as long as the TSA is pulling this farce. But that doesn't mean that I won't continue to join my voice with the MANY more who think this is a BAD THING.

     

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

  133.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 7:30am

    Re: This is Spinal Tap

    What are you going to do when they turn the machine up to 11?!

     

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

  134.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 7:32am

    Re: The bottom like to all this is...

    Actually, go read the Patriot Act.... THAT makes the TSA weep with envy.

     

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

  135.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re: Tribute to Barack Obama

    One thing they all have in common is that they are all Republican or Democrat. I don't see anything changing until people move away from those two groups. Away from the rich.

     

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

  136.  
    identicon
    Zumbazu, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 7:48am

    Catch-22

    The guy could not return to the security area ... the airline had refunded his ticket so he no longer had a valid ticket/boarding pass.

     

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

  137.  
    icon
    James Ryan, Boston (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 8:23am

    Re: Deal with it.

    What an amazing jerk you are. I suppose when tell you that we must change to hospital gowns you will go along with that, too. You go along, get along idiots are a big part of what is wrong with this country.

     

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

  138.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 9:19am

    Re:

    In that case, we're going to have to sue you, too.

     

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

  139.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Tough Call

    There's a porn shop between here and the airport. Next time I fly I'll be stopping in. And I'd be sure to let the cashier know why it's a very reasonable request.
    "I've got a flight in three hours. I need the biggest dildo you have."
    Then just decline the backscatter machines on medical grounds so they have to send you through the grope line. When the agent walks in, crank the flame up to 11. Strike a pose and be all "do me big boy". Keep up a stream of commentary like, "If you were a hot asian chick travelers would pay extra for this."
    If it's their job to molest me, it's my job to make them question their career decision.

     

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

  140.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson

    "USA also had 150,000 regular murders. Yet no naked scanners to enter Detroit?"

    If you hadn't guessed yet, the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs" and not caring if poor people kill each other in the inner city as long as they don't step foot in my upscale suburban neighborhood is the American Way of Life™ that we're fighting to preserve.

     

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

  141.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Actually, no. The doctor won't be suing you if you change your mind.

     

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

  142.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 11:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Sadley enough, he could... wasted time and loss of business for tying up his appointment schedule then backing out. That's why some Dr.s will still charge a no-show fee.

    But even as silly as that is, it STILL makes more sense than the TSA being able to bring CIVIL action against this guy.

     

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

  143.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 11:28am

    Re: Turism

    You plan not to visit the US because of an obscure set Jewish religious rituals?

     

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

  144.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re: Turism

    *set of (apparently I fail, too).

     

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

  145.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 11:34am

    Draw the line....

    ...short of my _________.

     

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

  146.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14

    Please don't misread this as defending whathisface, but if you watch through that clip, the technician claims they would have had him remove his jacket and search that separately. Besides which, that isn't even the same kind of scanner. However, it didn't catch something he had in his mouth, and I understand the backscatter scanners don't either.

    PS I love that the comment starting all this was voted funny. We're laughing at you, not with you.

     

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

  147.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 11:57am

    Secure area /= screening area

    "He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. "

    It sounds to me like this all started in the screening area. That is NOT the same thing as a secure area. The defining difference being that everyone in the secure area has been screened already. Yes, unfortunately
    he'd be subject to further search if he was already past the screening area and thus in a secure area.

    The whole legal premise for these searches is supposed to be consentual search. If you don't consent, then you don't get to pass. If you pass, then you've consented. That's how they're supposed to work in order to stay on this side of the 4th Amendment. Changing the name of the screening area does not suddenly make it a secure area. That's why they have to describe it to you first, so that you can say no thanks and leave.

     

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

  148.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 11:58am

    Re: Deal with it.

    You are awarded 0/10 for use of tired right-wing wharrgarble. Three points are awarded for high yield.

     

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

  149.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 12:00pm

    Re: just do a scan

     

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

  150.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Re: Turism

    Huh? Google is as ignorant as I am on what Jewish Tursim is. Although apparently 'turism' is the way it's spelt in Romania... so maybe this is an Anonymous Romanian Coward.

     

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

  151.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Turism

    Just a backformation of 'Tur.' I guess I am more search than you.

     

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

  152.  
    identicon
    SLK8ne, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 12:57pm

    Waste of time for sure and other things

    First of all this is totally reactionary to a tactic that was already used. They are not going to try the same thing again. You shift tactics to what your opponent is NOT ready for. They are fighting a battle they already lost on 9/11. The new tactics would be blow up the security line (from the terrorists point of view a win win, you prove how powerless the TSA is) or hit a sporting event or an after Christmas sale. The objective is to make the population of the country you're attacking to feel powerless, and thus become more and more draconian, until it is ready for your revolution.

    And to the poster who said that groping children isn't kiddy porn: really? Go read some legal statutes on what constitutes child abuse and kiddy porn. Inappropriate touching is a criminal offense, anywhere but the TSA! You might get away with trying to pat me down, but, try and grope my kids and I will hurt you.

    And to the people who are willing to trade their freedoms for safety: If your freedom means so little to you why don't you move to a country that has none? We won't miss you, I promise.

     

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

  153.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Turism

    your search-fu is strong! -bows-

     

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

  154.  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 12:58pm

    Re:

    "As far as why he was patted down before leaving..."

    He wasn't patted down. He asked if he was free to leave and when they couldn't say no, he left.

    "If you think about it, it makes sense."

    It also makes sense to search the house of someone you suspect is a drug dealer, but it's not the same as having the legal warrant to do so.

    "I'm sorry about that sir, he shouldn't have done that, and I'll make sure he is informed of how to properly handle these situations. Will you come with me please? I do apologize for the inconvenience"

    "Ah, am I under arrest?"
    "No."
    "Then, I'll be leaving."
    And that's basically what happened.

     

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

  155.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 1:56pm

    Re: We can do this all night...

    Didn't you hear? You can carry lighters on flights again. The TSA confiscated so many of them, they didn't know what to do with them. It is too expensive to properly dispose of all the lighters, so they lifted the ban. That proved my point that it was never about security to begin with. My personal freedoms and privacy are worth way more to me than the TSA's power trip.

     

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

  156.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 2:14pm

    Fucking police state.

     

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

  157.  
    identicon
    Bob, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 3:00pm

    out of control

    The govt is out of control. They wont pat down or subject muslim women to their peep N Post machine, yet it was muslims that attacked us, continue to try and continue to threaten. it is time to boycott the airlines, until they allow us to protect ourselves. When I step aboard an airplane, I am no longer a citizen of the US, I do not have 1st amendment rights, nor am I afforded my second amendment rights, and when you talk to TSA, you dont have the 5th either, or any of the others that grant you ddue process. This govt is out of control

     

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

  158.  
    icon
    RobShaver (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 3:02pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Dear Mister I-Like-Living-In-A-Police-State,

    Just how far do they have to go before you'd draw the line? Full cavity search okay with you?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
    The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

    Why doesn't the fourth amendment apply here? They have no probable cause and no search warrant.

     

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

  159.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Nov 16th, 2010 @ 8:16pm

    Re: Tough Call

    "Did you know that the nation's airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints?"
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-scree ning-1576602-108259869.html

     

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

  160.  
    identicon
    Rwolf, Nov 16th, 2010 @ 10:07pm

    TSA Over The Top, then some

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

    Does the lawsuit by The Transportation Security Administration against John Tyne for refusing the X-ray body scan mean; that we don't dare buy a plane ticket unless we are prepared to submit to a body scan or be sued for $11,000? Pretty soon most persons showing up to fly will be those that will submit to X-ray scans, erroneously giving the impression the public has accepted being repeatedly radiated/scanned before flying. I would not want to own airline stock.

    If not stopped, Airports are just the beginning of Citizens being X-rayed / Stripped Naked by Government, having their Private Body Parts Touched, Squeezed and Patted-Down by Government Employees. It is problematic Americans (next) will be X-Ray Scanned and Physically Molested boarding trains, cruse ships, buses; when entering sports events and office buildings. Continued Low Radiation Exposure is Accumulative and believed to cause Cancer.

    Americans should 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 felt up, searched at public airports.

    Talk about government in your face. Recently the Obama government purchased hundreds’ of X-Ray Vans that will travel our streets without warrants, x-raying Americans, seeing Citizens naked when walking, standing, riding their bike. Government/police will use the x-ray vans to peer though Citizens’ homes and vehicles, exposing Americans and their families to radiation. X-ray vans are an affront to privacy, allowing government to view Citizens in their bedrooms. Americans need to ask Obama if independent studies were conducted to determine if Citizens could develop Cancer, if (repeatedly exposed) to police X-rays. It is easy to imagine government/police with or without a warrant every night X-raying a person of interest in his or her home. It is foreseeable some Citizens might install similar to smoke detectors, sensors that will set off an alarm, if their home or vehicle is being bombarded with X-rays.

    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 ]

  161.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Nov 17th, 2010 @ 6:54am

    Re: Re: Tough Call

    Well, at the risk of violating Nintendo's copyright [sic]... It's On Like Donkey Kong!!

     

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

  162.  
    identicon
    Pissed off flyer, Nov 17th, 2010 @ 12:59pm

    Re: f*** the TSA

    LMAO! I had planned on doing much the same this holiday season when I fly through SAN. I hope some enterprising folks make t-shirts with interwoven metallic thread that spells out slogans such as "TSA 'The Sexual Assaulters'" or "Using the 1st Amendment to protest the gross violation of the 4th Amendment... F*** You, TSA!"

    I plan to be wearing a radiation detection badge on my shirt and explain it's to be used as evidence in my suit against them so I won't remove it at their request. Also, if I get groped, I'll inform them AFTER that I'll be suing them and shout out loudly, "PERVERT! POLICE! POLICE! HELP! I've been sexually assaulted! Arrest this PERVERT! I want to press charges!" If they claim they're "authorized" I'll loudly remind them of the Nuremberg trials. Just because they're "following orders" does NOT excuse them of violating the Highest LAW of the Land; our beloved US Constitution!

     

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

  163.  
    identicon
    Francois, Nov 17th, 2010 @ 5:49pm

    TSA

    If they touch me or my wife, I will get their name and file a law suit against the TSA agent and the TSA for violation of the fourth amendment. Further, I will have the agent arrested for sexual assault. A citizens arrest is legal, if the officer refuses, he can be charged. So, TSA, if you touch me or my wife, get ready for a fight that will cost you your job and money. Don't think so? Try me.

     

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

  164.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Nov 18th, 2010 @ 6:19am

    Re: TSA

    Careful with that... the citizen's arrest offered by the United States itself is not binding for anything short of a felony. Each state has its own laws concerning breaches of laws that constitute misdemeanors and civil infractions (such as speeding in traffic).

    I know that in Florida, I can make a CA if I witness a felony or a misdemeanor, but if I'm wrong, I can be subject to quite a few nasty infractions myself, such as impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, and wrongful arrest. These dangers are compounded by the fact that as a citizen, I have NO authority to infringe upon an individual’s civil rights under any circumstances (except, of course lethal force response in self defense). As much as I'd like to sometimes, I can't force a speeder to pull over and detain them while the police arrive. Trust me, I've looked into it.

    I'm with you man, but be DAMNED careful before doing something like that.

     

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

  165.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 10:21am

    Re: They have thought about it.... they just don't care

    Detonating a bomb in the passenger screening area would cause some serious injuries and death, as well as damage to the screening area/airport. Loss of civilian lives and property damage to the airport (who isn't paying the TSA).

    Now if a terrorist gets onto a plane, and causes that plane to crash into a corporate office building. There would again be serious injuries and death, but the property damage would be felt by the corporations who were housed in the office building. I think we can assume from past events that they wouldn't target 'small' office buildings, so this would mean that they would be targeting some of the Fortune 500 corporations...

    Corporations can't stand for that, so they have purchased the current 'security theater' we have to try and mitigate or shift the risk (assuming that if the terrorists think they can't get the bombs thru security, due to new 'high tech' devices, they will decide to blow them up in the airport instead).

    To the corporations who are purchasing our laws, this is an acceptable outcome.

    Sure, I'm being sarcastic... or am I?

     

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

  166.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Ben saw... Ben Understood... You're no Ben

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

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ben did that too...

     

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

  167.  
    identicon
    Anon, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 5:55pm

    Re:

    You can complete a complaint form at the ACLU website about your experience.

     

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

  168.  
    identicon
    cls, Nov 22nd, 2010 @ 5:48pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Are you friggin serious, dude? That someone who does your prostate exam is a professioinal with years of college and a medical degree...If that was the case in the airport, who would mind? However, TSA???? seriously, its an invasion of privacy...WHEN the terrorist attempt another attack, whats next, a cavity search??? When does it end???

     

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

  169.  
    identicon
    capricornus, Nov 23rd, 2010 @ 10:49pm

    The way I was treated by Homeland Security in Atlanta last year, made me decide to spend my vacation time and money in a different way: this year, I will be visiting Marseille (1wk), Lisbon (1wk), Budapest (2wk) and Geneva (2wk). Add up: 6 weeks I will not spend in the USA. And next year, we might visit Canada, but we will again be avoiding the USA and its TSA scatter and brutality.

     

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

  170.  
    identicon
    Youknowuknoww, Nov 24th, 2010 @ 9:24am

    The TSA is counter-productive.

    It's disgusting how the TSA is terrorizing American citizens. They're making a joke out of terrorism - and it's no laughing matter.

    I just don't see how groping young children and old women and inspecting your grandmother's underwear is going to help stop terrorism. In my opinion, it sounds like terrorism.

    The obama administration really needs to keep the TSA on a leash they are way out of line.

     

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

  171.  
    identicon
    Youknowuknoww, Nov 24th, 2010 @ 9:29am

    You know what they're doing

    They're trying to capitalize on terrism - turn it into a business, so to speak. Create a panic, create more TSA jobs. Tell the public they aren't safe unless they do what you say and pay more tax money.

    Until now, I actually thought the government was serious about hunting down and stopping terrorists. Now, I think they're sitting in the oval office with them laughing and smoking cigars. It makes me sick.

     

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

  172.  
    identicon
    Kevin Randall, Nov 26th, 2010 @ 3:03pm

    Scanners can be re-configurable

    I have not had to fly since they have add the new scanners. But have been reading up on them. From what I have read they configured the scanners so the face can not be seen or some to that effect. Any software that is configured not to do something can be reconfigured to do it all you would need is the know how. Not that I know just that it can be done. Also I have three kids 7, 11, and 16, for which I do not want anyone looking at they PRIVATES(which is why they are called privates) seeing their faces or not this is child porn. If my 16 decide to send pictures of himself to his girlfriend (16 also) they can be arrested for send/have child porn on their phones. I am not saying sexting is ok in the least, but whats to stop the person doing the scans from sending the no face images via whatever means email, cell, cameras, etc. But you get the point. I just don't agree with these scanners and what I saw on youtube from cnn http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBByDlgrd5A. I know that we are fight "a war on terrorism" but until they say that the scanner prevented a bombing or something I will not be convinced.

     

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

  173.  
    identicon
    a, Jan 26th, 2011 @ 5:30pm

    Re: Deal with it.

    Your a fucking pussy and a coward. Eat a dick.

     

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

  174.  
    identicon
    Haha, Jun 6th, 2011 @ 7:27pm

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Deal with it? I know you like your junk being touched by another dude faggot but not me muhfugga.

     

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

  175.  
    identicon
    Richard, Jul 19th, 2011 @ 8:48pm

    Wife got groped today.

    Said she was wearing the wrong kind of blouse.
    I have no respect for this Government, it is out of control.
    The terrorist have already won we just don't know it yet.
    Everytime one of them sneezes our great Government creates another police force and passes more laws that take away our freedoms.

     

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

  176.  
    identicon
    Thomas Jefferson, Jul 22nd, 2011 @ 11:34am

    F YOU, FASCIST!

    If you don't lose your privacy and your dignity by being electronically strip-searched or groped, then you don't have any to begin with.... and from your talk, it's clear that's the case.
    Likewise, you clearly are a sheep who trades liberty for security; next thing you'll say "they're just de-lousing you, so shut up!"
    Moron, that's how Hitler did it, i.e. through idiots like you trusting the government and forking over their rights because it was "just for national security."

     

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

  177.  
    identicon
    Thomas Jefferson, Jul 22nd, 2011 @ 11:35am

    F YOU, FASCIST!

    If you don't lose your privacy and your dignity by being electronically strip-searched or groped, then you don't have any to begin with.... and from your talk, it's clear that's the case.
    Likewise, you clearly are a sheep who trades liberty for security; next thing you'll say "they're just de-lousing you, so shut up!"
    Moron, that's how Hitler did it, i.e. through idiots like you trusting the government and forking over their rights because it was "just for national security."

     

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

  178.  
    identicon
    Thomas Jefferson, Jul 22nd, 2011 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    Or the Weimar government circa 1933.

     

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

  179.  
    identicon
    Thomas Jefferson, Jul 22nd, 2011 @ 11:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14

    >>"we should be grateful for the possibility of the security we get."

    Notice how the idiot talks about "security," since the word FREEDOM clearly isn't it its (very limited) vocabulary.

     

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

  180.  
    identicon
    Thomas Jefferson, Jul 22nd, 2011 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    He loses nothing, because he never had it to lose-- dignity, privacy or freedom. He's a slave to the state, and proud of it; and as Maslow said, "there is no such thing as a well-adjusted slave."

     

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

  181.  
    identicon
    Thomas Jefferson, Jul 22nd, 2011 @ 11:50am

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    I very much doubt that my good friend Benjamin would have had anything to discuss with a complete and utter fool.

     

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

  182.  
    identicon
    Thomas Jefferson, Jul 22nd, 2011 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Deal with it.

    The beef up in security is required why?
    Because the US government is an expert in closing the barn-door after the cows have gone... as well as putting iron gates on it. It's all show-- the government fucks up, so WE have to pay the price for their incompetence.
    What, you think the PEOPLE own the country? Think again!

     

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

  183.  
    identicon
    Thomas Jefferson, Jul 22nd, 2011 @ 12:15pm

    Re:

    No, it should NOT have "gone that way"
    There should BE no touching, no nude imaging, NOTHING.
    Buying a plane-ticket does NOT void the fucking CONSTITUTION, MORON!

    Air travel IS a right, ever since it became a standard mode of transportation; anyone who said otherwise is a moron who needs to go live in third-world country.

     

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

  184.  
    identicon
    Fred, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 7:49pm

    Criminal Coercion?

    If the guy had a right to leave, and if the TSA drone didn't have a right to sue, then the statment "If you leave, we'll sue you" constitutes CRIMINAL COERCION (check your state's statutes) and the guy could have arrested the TSA drone on the spot.

     

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

  185.  
    identicon
    Anon, Dec 18th, 2012 @ 2:39pm

    Re: just do a scan

    Of course we can't have everything, we sold our freedom a long time ago.

     

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

  186.  
    identicon
    Hugh Hughley, Dec 21st, 2012 @ 1:31pm

    Only Way It's Going To Change

    If you make a solid commitment not to fly, and enough people do it, maybe the airlines will get involved. This is an issue of Federal Law, but if it begins to affect the bottom line of the airlines themselves maybe they will consider forming a better customer experience instead of acting like part of the Gulag.

    I mean, come on.....it's like no one has a soul at all. The airlines don't have a soul, the screeners don't have a soul, TSA as an agency is soulless, D.C. doesn't care, and the passengers themselves seem to like it they keep subjecting themselves. In all of this hasn't the Marketing Customer Relations Departments of ANY of the airlines considered improving this experience?

    I thought the U.S.A. was about innovating and improving and not just sitting pat when something wasn't working for us.

    Jesus H. Christ.

     

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

  187.  
    identicon
    Angie B, Sep 6th, 2013 @ 4:38pm

    TSA violates my Constitutional Rights everyday I go to work!

    I work at an international airport- at a restaurant inside the airport. Everyday I have to go through TSA. I have worked at the airport for many years and I am very well-liked by my restaurant, other restaurants there and by certain TSA agents who know me. Lately, TSA has incorporated "random searches". When people walk through the scanner one is chosen "randomly" every so often... this includes people who work at the airport.


    Today, I had a verbal altercation with TSA because they "chose" me to "randomly" search. I objected on the grounds they were violating my Constitutional Rights to travel freely unmolested, to provide a living for my family- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and search and seizure. I carry a "Freeman's Writ of Right to Travel" with me all the time. I also carry an "Affidavit of Reservation of Rights", which clearly STATES anyone who violates my rights will be charged a violation fee of my liberty in the amount of $250,000 per incident. I showed that to them, and the TSA manager, Greg, said he didn't have to read my "paper". I also told them verbally I reserved all of my rights under UCC 1-308 and I did not enter into any verbal, imaginary, assumed, or silent contract with them, and that they could be sued under that law. It did not matter. The TSA refused to let me into the airport to work and are trying to have my badge revoked, which means I will be fired without reason.

    I have been told I need to file a "Notice of Injury" and "Violation of Human Rights" on them and I plan to do so.

    I have left a message for a Civil attorney today and hope to speak to him soon. I am also planning to send each individual involved (as I wrote down names and titles) a Commercial Affidavit and a Notice and Demand that they have violated my Constitutional Rights.

     

    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