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

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

Apparently TSA agents are being told that one way to handle the new groping pat downs for children is to try to make it out to be some sort of "game." This is apparently horrifying some sex abuse experts who point out that a common tactic in abuse cases is to tell the kids that they're just "playing a game." The TSA has said that the newer patdowns will not apply to children under 12, but the rules have been somewhat unclear -- leading to the statement from a TSA director, James Marchand:
"You try to make it as best you can for that child to come through. If you can come up with some kind of a game to play with a child, it makes it a lot easier."
He also said that the idea of making it a game would become a part of the TSA's training. Ken Wooden, who runs an organization to try to stop sex abuse of children was not pleased:
"How can experts working at the TSA be so incredibly misinformed and misguided to suggest that full body pat downs for children be portrayed as a game?" Wooden asked in an email. "To do so is completely contrary to what we in the sexual abuse prevention field have been trying to accomplish for the past thirty years."

Filed Under: searches, tsa


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Wayfinder (profile), 3 Dec 2010 @ 11:09am

    Jeffrey: "People can choose a doctor".

    True, and valid point. But we don't object to an unknown emergency room doctor do we?

    Anonymous: "A doctor is a trained professional"

    And if the TSA is going to employ these devices... so should be ALL security personnel. They should go through intensive training, not only in use of these devices, but in ethics as well. They should go through aberrant personality tests to insure they are relatively stable individuals to start with. If that is NOT being done... then that is a problem, to be sure.

    "Security or freedom folks; we can't have both." "Why not?"

    Because this is a well-known situation. The more security a society insists upon, the more personal freedoms it must be willing to abandon to obtain that security. Since airplane security is bordering at this point on obsessive... the loss of personal freedoms are going to be proportional. If we don't like this... then Americans need to stand up and make it known that too many freedoms are being impacted-- and then be willing to accept lessened security. We have to choose. We can't have total security with no loss of freedom. We can't have total freedom without loss of some security. Myself, I opt for reasonable security, and reasonable freedom. It's a matter of balance.

    Jilocasin: "That simple sentence sums up the entire reasoning behind these _over_the_top_ 'pat downs'."

    Agreed... and let me re-state my actual intention. I am *personally* willing to go through a scanner, period, if it means it will eliminate the chance of someone sneaking a bomb aboard a plane. I don't see a scanner as being that intrusive. I think the pat-downs are inexcusable any way you look at it. An alternative: if you don't want a scan... you don't fly. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it to. There is very seldom any perfect solution.

    I do agree, 100%, that the TSA seems to have some kind of God-complex and is so out of touch with reality it's inexcusable. But then, that describes government in general, world wide. I didn't mean to imply that I am willing to undergo a scan instead of a virtual rape (although that is certainly the case). I mean I don't personally find a scan all that unreasonable. (Someone mentioned potential health problems. I know nothing about that-- have these things been thoroughly tested?)

    I seriously have to question this whole concept of "we have a solution and it's going to be implemented nation wide, right now, and the American Public has no say in it whatsoever. LOL. When did we become a military state, anyway?

    A friend of mine mentioned something else interesting: So okay, a guy doesn't sneak into a plane with a bomb on his belt. Instead, he walks into a much more crowded airport and takes out 1000 people instead of 200. Or he walks into a mall at Christmas rush hour. Or he detonates in a crowded hospital waiting room or... or.. or...

    What are we going to have next, checkpoints at local grocery stores? Just how far does "security" go... and how much are we empowering people that really do not need to be empowered any more than they already are?

    Just because a person is in charge doesn't mean he's sane.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.