TSA encounter at SAN(johnnyedge.blogspot.com)
johnnyedge.blogspot.com
TSA encounter at SAN
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html
161 comments
In all the TSA discussions on Hacker News, people seem to have settled on a procedure which is maximally inconvenient for the TSA but should still allow you to catch your flight: opt out of the backscatter scanning, request a supervisor to be present during the pat down to make sure you're not sexually abused, and make sure they do the pat down in the public screening area rather than a private room. You do get groped, but it makes an impression on the other travelers, slows down the system, and makes the groping agent uncomfortable, which are all positive outcomes in terms of protesting the system.
The notion that a TSA pat-down is in any way, shape, or form equivalent to "sexual abuse" is an insult to anyone who has been a victim of the real thing.
"Sexual abuse" is a very wide spectrum. Unwanted touching is where is begins. That is not to cheapen those who have suffered at the other end of the spectrum.
I disagree.
It's a spectrum that is as wide or as narrow as you wish it to be. I personally think it's more narrow than many others do here on HN, for example. I think a real lame effect that happens though is that the instant someone uses the word assault or abuse it suggests much more evil or sexually explicit or intimate acts than what an actual specific situation may have involved. The phrase "sexual assault" can start off being applied to a hand on the back or kiss on the cheek, and then as the description of the event propagates across many people or channels, suddenly it can morph into "rape" or "molestation" -- even though traditionally those words refer to much more serious and specific, intimate and/or violent sexual acts.
It's one of the things I think we as a society, in any general public forum, with no serious moderation or curation or participant filtering (like HN, in my judgment) cannot discuss intelligently or productively because it's always vulnerable to this particular thought error, among others.
It's a spectrum that is as wide or as narrow as you wish it to be. I personally think it's more narrow than many others do here on HN, for example. I think a real lame effect that happens though is that the instant someone uses the word assault or abuse it suggests much more evil or sexually explicit or intimate acts than what an actual specific situation may have involved. The phrase "sexual assault" can start off being applied to a hand on the back or kiss on the cheek, and then as the description of the event propagates across many people or channels, suddenly it can morph into "rape" or "molestation" -- even though traditionally those words refer to much more serious and specific, intimate and/or violent sexual acts.
It's one of the things I think we as a society, in any general public forum, with no serious moderation or curation or participant filtering (like HN, in my judgment) cannot discuss intelligently or productively because it's always vulnerable to this particular thought error, among others.
Unwanted touching is where is begins.
More specifically, unwanted sexual touching. I don't like people jostling against me in crowds but that isn't "sexual abuse."
More specifically, unwanted sexual touching. I don't like people jostling against me in crowds but that isn't "sexual abuse."
Beware of the big fat simile in that post. A personal impression does not an offense make.
The offense of "sexual assault" requires "sexual behavior" to take place. A security pat down delivered in the appropriate, formal manner is not a display of sexual behavior though it could become such. The mere touching of "intimate" areas does not make it "sexual" per se, however.
The offense of "sexual assault" requires "sexual behavior" to take place. A security pat down delivered in the appropriate, formal manner is not a display of sexual behavior though it could become such. The mere touching of "intimate" areas does not make it "sexual" per se, however.
And nor does voting this down change the letter of the law. Think about it for a minute. If any unauthorized touching of one's genitalia is "sexual assault", a surgeon performing an emergency operation could be in serious trouble. Thankfully the law in most nations distinguishes between sexual and non-sexual touching, even if the subject of the blog entry does not.
While I certainly agree with you that it's nowhere near as bad as rape or sexual assault, it's certainly something I'd go to jail for if I did it to someone. Heck, if a cop did that invasive a search without probable cause, he'd face repercussions and probably a lawsuit.
Note that "sexual abuse" does not equal "rape". It would certainly be an insult if one were to compare it to rape, but that's no the case.
This is a systematic invasion of what could only be described as MORE than just "privacy". It's a humiliating public encounter with someone touching your genitals. The fact that there could be worst executions of sexual abuse doesn't make what's going on in airports any better.
Do you consider the forms of cancer which are curable and treatable not a "real" form of cancer?
Do you consider the forms of cancer which are curable and treatable not a "real" form of cancer?
But the problem for me, and for many other people I'd imagine, is that when I'm at an airport, chances are I've paid a very large amount of money to be at a certain place at a certain time for what is probably an important reason
Freedom does not come cheap.
Freedom does not come cheap.
Imagine how difficult it would be if you had to fight for your liberties in the first place. Consider situations like these the cost of maintenance. If you don't have the financial means to bear risk like this man did, there are certainly other ways to participate like calling your representatives and writing letters.
I feel the same way. As a non-US citizen, I essentially have zero rights when it comes to many things in this country, and probably can look forward to seeing the inside of a cell if I tried asserting any peaceful disobedience at an airport (not to mention say goodbye to any chance of citizenship).
It does seem, however, that the dam is about to break on the TSA. The number of stories I see on the net seems to show dissent skyrocketing, although I admit this is a limited sample.
It does seem, however, that the dam is about to break on the TSA. The number of stories I see on the net seems to show dissent skyrocketing, although I admit this is a limited sample.
What I always wanted to know is whether non-US citizens (tourists, people with a visa) can opt out. The TSA website doesn’t seem to make any distinctions, it just says “imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers.“ [0]
[0] http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm
[0] http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm
I don't believe the TSA, at the routine level, make distinction between domestic and not (unless you fit a racial profile). It's when things heat up that the problems begin. Being arrested in the UK as a citizen of the UK is not a big deal IMHO, a night in a cell is a bummer, but not the end of the world. In the US, on a visa, I have no idea what is and isn't being recorded about me, and a reasonable amount of paranoia is required.
As the OP said, the other aspect is that you are flying because you need to be somewhere and flight is the only option. This more heavily biases international travelers towards compliance, because they have a lot more to lose in time/money if they don't board their flight.
As the OP said, the other aspect is that you are flying because you need to be somewhere and flight is the only option. This more heavily biases international travelers towards compliance, because they have a lot more to lose in time/money if they don't board their flight.
> It does seem, however, that the dam is about to break on the TSA. The number of stories I see on the net seems to show dissent skyrocketing, although I admit this is a limited sample.
The trouble is, increasing dissent by 100x still doesn't make much of a dent if it just means 99.9% of people are willing to be abused instead of the 99.999% it was before. From the comments by security staff typically quoted in these articles, it sounds like almost everyone sucks it up in practice, whether because they don't care or because they're too worried about not being able to make an important journey to protest the point.
The trouble is, increasing dissent by 100x still doesn't make much of a dent if it just means 99.9% of people are willing to be abused instead of the 99.999% it was before. From the comments by security staff typically quoted in these articles, it sounds like almost everyone sucks it up in practice, whether because they don't care or because they're too worried about not being able to make an important journey to protest the point.
I don’t think the percentage of people who won’t opt out is all that important. It would be a nice additional argument but it’s not really essential for the fight.
A few thousand outraged people with good connections, good stories and media that picks them up is sometimes all it takes.
A few thousand outraged people with good connections, good stories and media that picks them up is sometimes all it takes.
It's important from a practical point of view. If 99.9% of people will consent to a certain government abuse, even if they do not condone it, then the government can commit that abuse and deal offensively with the other 0.1%. If 9% of people will consent to the abuse, dealing with the other 91% offensively doesn't work. This is what civil disobedience is ultimately all about: enforcing a law that most people don't agree with is not a sustainable approach, because there are always a lot more people than law enforcers.
Civil disobedience is luckily not the only way to reverse policy decisions. The topic seems to pick up a lot of steam even without masses of people refusing to be scanned. (I was very surprised to see that Spiegel Online [1] – one of the most popular if not the most popular news website in Germany – has the planned Thanksgiving boycott as its top-story [2] at the moment. That’s irrelevant for the discussion in the US but it shows that it’s a hot topic.)
[1] http://www.spiegel.de
[2] Pilots and Passangers Revolt Against Check Lunacy: http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,729012,00.html
[1] http://www.spiegel.de
[2] Pilots and Passangers Revolt Against Check Lunacy: http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/0,1518,729012,00.html
Agreed. I think organized synchronized boycotts would be much more effective than doing "civil disobedience" and/or drama queen shenanigans at the airport. Hit airlines in their wallet (and the related travel industries), and that will have a larger effect. Money talks. Large amounts of money talk loudly, especially to Congress.
Get the cheapest fare you can get out of your local airport to where-ever. Go there, do this, go home. If you make it through, just don't get on the flight.
Be nice to the airline though, they're not a fault (in this issue, at least). Get there early, let them know (afterwards) that you're not flying. Don't trouble them with a refund. Keep in mind that you're probably violating the T&Cs by not intending to get on the flight.
Be nice to the airline though, they're not a fault (in this issue, at least). Get there early, let them know (afterwards) that you're not flying. Don't trouble them with a refund. Keep in mind that you're probably violating the T&Cs by not intending to get on the flight.
there's a real risk if you do this that you'll end up on the no fly. at least take a flight someplace, earn some miles and come back. Otherwise you may be seen to be performing surveillance, and that can land you in hot water.
And you know this because of the 0 documented cases of this happening, and your years of experience in counterterrorism operations?
That's tricky because there's a big possibility you won't even go through the backscatter. So anyone wanting to do this is not guaranteed to get their chance. Unless you have a printer toner cartridge with you. Fight on.
Donate to the ACLU so that when someone who does have the means to do something like this and gets taken to court, they get the legal help they need to win.
You don't have to be an activist to take action.
You don't have to be an activist to take action.
I'm in the same boat as you. I probably wouldn't go so far as to refuse both and get kicked out of the airport (although I would like to), but opting out of the scanner and going for "the grope" is probably the next best thing.
i travel every few months and do have the means to do what he's doing. my main concern is that if i get kicked off the flight and my ticket refunded, what will happen to my checked luggage?
The bigger problem, I think, is ending up on some black list.
So next time you want to fly and don't choose to participate in the "enhanced" version of the security theater, you might find yourself pulled out of the line "randomly" every single damn time.
Also there is no way to get off the black list, possibly ever. That is a pretty high price to pay.
So next time you want to fly and don't choose to participate in the "enhanced" version of the security theater, you might find yourself pulled out of the line "randomly" every single damn time.
Also there is no way to get off the black list, possibly ever. That is a pretty high price to pay.
[deleted]
Checked luggage will not fly on the plane without the passenger. Especially if he refused screening! They might want to search it some more but it will stay at the airport where you are.
Incorrect. If you get a bite to eat and miss the last boarding call (flying US domestic) the flight will leave without you but with your luggage.
The system would grind to a halt if this was not the case.
The system would grind to a halt if this was not the case.
I accidentally downvoted you (phone). You're perfectly correct, as anyone who's just missed a flight will attest.
I'm not sure, and it's an interesting question.
I've been on international flights where we've been waiting on the tarmac to depart and a flight attendent has announced on the PA system that "we're just waiting to have the bags removed of someone who missed their flight".
I've been on international flights where we've been waiting on the tarmac to depart and a flight attendent has announced on the PA system that "we're just waiting to have the bags removed of someone who missed their flight".
I believe the current policy is strict for international flights (no bag without a passenger, must remove it if passenger misses flight), but looser on domestic flights. Not 100% sure that's true, but digging in some air-travel forums comes up with airline employees claiming the same thing as of late-2009.
There are lots of cases where baggage gets delayed or waylaid, and so the passenger ends up flying without their luggage. They then send that luggage onwards on the next flight — obviously without the passenger.
Yes, it would be hard to engineer that to happen, so it's not very useful to someone planning to do something nasty with it — but it does mean there can't be a strict no bag without passenger rule.
Yes, it would be hard to engineer that to happen, so it's not very useful to someone planning to do something nasty with it — but it does mean there can't be a strict no bag without passenger rule.
I can confirm from recent personal experience that on U.S. domestic flights, luggage can and will be carried on the flight without the passenger on board.
1. Flying back to SF from the east coast on AA - got to JFK a trifle late and just missed the check-in deadline - mainly because the lady at the counter took an inordinate time and appeared to be flirting with the guy just ahead of us in line - yes I tried to check-in online but that wasn't possible because my outbound flight was on a different airline. Go figure. In any event, we were put on standby for the next flight but didn't get into the flight. I was resigned to take my luggage back and find a place to stay overnight in NYC when the gate attendant informed me that our bags were going with the flight and I could collect them at the SFO AA office ! We finally got back that night to LAX (after not making it through a wait on another flight) and then managed a Southwest flight back to SFO the next morning and sure enough our bags were waiting for us.
2. Last weekend, we were on a SW flight from SAN to SFO. Flight was delayed because of bad weather, and there was an additional delay close to the destination where we were not cleared for descent. By the time we were allowed to land, they had run out of fuel (!!) and landed the plane in SJC. Unbelievably they fueled up and took off and landed in SFO - about 3 hours later. Thankfully they let anyone who wanted to get off at SJC deplane and that's what we did. Gave us the time to get home, pick up my car from SFO, have lunch, etc. and went back to SFO to pick up our bags soon after the flight eventually landed. So in this case too, the flight took off with our bags and without us.
1. Flying back to SF from the east coast on AA - got to JFK a trifle late and just missed the check-in deadline - mainly because the lady at the counter took an inordinate time and appeared to be flirting with the guy just ahead of us in line - yes I tried to check-in online but that wasn't possible because my outbound flight was on a different airline. Go figure. In any event, we were put on standby for the next flight but didn't get into the flight. I was resigned to take my luggage back and find a place to stay overnight in NYC when the gate attendant informed me that our bags were going with the flight and I could collect them at the SFO AA office ! We finally got back that night to LAX (after not making it through a wait on another flight) and then managed a Southwest flight back to SFO the next morning and sure enough our bags were waiting for us.
2. Last weekend, we were on a SW flight from SAN to SFO. Flight was delayed because of bad weather, and there was an additional delay close to the destination where we were not cleared for descent. By the time we were allowed to land, they had run out of fuel (!!) and landed the plane in SJC. Unbelievably they fueled up and took off and landed in SFO - about 3 hours later. Thankfully they let anyone who wanted to get off at SJC deplane and that's what we did. Gave us the time to get home, pick up my car from SFO, have lunch, etc. and went back to SFO to pick up our bags soon after the flight eventually landed. So in this case too, the flight took off with our bags and without us.
Now, see, that's insane. If they were serious about security, as opposed to security theater, they would never let baggage fly without its passenger. Even if they search everything, you can't tell me you couldn't build plastic explosives into the wheels of a suitcase or something.
That's a very good point, but I'm pretty sure that in response to Pan Am flight 103 a lot of work was put into making cargo holds and containers able to withstand a decent sized blast.
[Edited after fact checking. I know I've seen a documentary on this, but I can't find any further info at the moment. I've probably also been added to some watch list based on my searches over the last half hour]
[Edited after fact checking. I know I've seen a documentary on this, but I can't find any further info at the moment. I've probably also been added to some watch list based on my searches over the last half hour]
Like you, I can't find the exact info, but I'm pretty sure it was an episode of Aircrash Investigations. I saw a repeat with that episode a few months ago.
I didn't come away with the impression that they'd actually implemented blast-proof though, just that they'd redesigned so that some blasts wouldn't dramatically cause airframe failure.
I didn't come away with the impression that they'd actually implemented blast-proof though, just that they'd redesigned so that some blasts wouldn't dramatically cause airframe failure.
Well, but that's still pretty cool. I didn't know this at all.
indeed, and this is part of my worry. i know that all luggage will fly the path of least resistance. if you check in 2 hours early and a flight leaves before you (and there's room for your luggage), your luggage will fly on that earlier flight.
hell, it might get blown up by a bomb squad, for all i know. i'm not into that.
hell, it might get blown up by a bomb squad, for all i know. i'm not into that.
The only airline that I know of that will absolutely not flu luggage without a passenger is ElAl. From personal experience I know that US airlines will fly your luggage without you.
You could always inquire with the airline.
Good for him. Civil disobedience in defense of our liberties isn't just a good idea, it's a moral obligation.
The worst thing is that in this context, civil disobedience is not consenting to either having naked pictures of yourself taken or being sexually assaulted by government employees.
It's not the naked pictures, it's the being microwaved. If the machine is improperly calibrated, you'd be cooked.
If the goal of the new patdown is to make everyone so embarrassed that they opt for the backscatter machine(1), then I suggest turning the tables.
The next chance I get(2), I'll be pulling a When Harry Met Sally on the TSA employee checking my junk. Let's see how much he likes it when I loudly beg him to keep rubbing me just a little bit longer.
"Damn, that feels good, man. I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am."
(1) see http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...
(2) DEN has the machine and I fly out every week or two, so I'm sure I'll be reporting back shortly.
The next chance I get(2), I'll be pulling a When Harry Met Sally on the TSA employee checking my junk. Let's see how much he likes it when I loudly beg him to keep rubbing me just a little bit longer.
"Damn, that feels good, man. I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am."
(1) see http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...
(2) DEN has the machine and I fly out every week or two, so I'm sure I'll be reporting back shortly.
Either that or act like he bumped your testicles too hard and fall to the ground clutching them and writhing in pain. Soccer fans know this maneuver as "taking a dive".
Serious topic, but some humor.
Best response to give your TSA patdown-partner when he asks if he can feel around your crotch area:
"Who do you think I am, a U.S. Senator?"
(joke credit Adam Curry at No Agenda)
Best response to give your TSA patdown-partner when he asks if he can feel around your crotch area:
"Who do you think I am, a U.S. Senator?"
(joke credit Adam Curry at No Agenda)
You do realize that TSA workers are human beings too, right? It's not a video game. Messing with them is not going to do anything constructive, and will most likely make (1) their day worse, and (2) probably your day worse too, if your actions lead to more scrutiny and further "procedure".
will most likely make (1) their day worse
That's a feature. Like telemarketers, TSA agents assigned to grope duty have no justification for staying in their jobs. It should be unpleasant for them.
On the other hand point 2 is well taken, and for that reason I agree that antagonizing them is a bad idea.
That's a feature. Like telemarketers, TSA agents assigned to grope duty have no justification for staying in their jobs. It should be unpleasant for them.
On the other hand point 2 is well taken, and for that reason I agree that antagonizing them is a bad idea.
> It should be unpleasant for them.
I would instead worry that natural selection will make it so that the only people left are those for whom this sort of thing is enjoyable, with everyone else quitting or transferring in disgust.
I would instead worry that natural selection will make it so that the only people left are those for whom this sort of thing is enjoyable, with everyone else quitting or transferring in disgust.
Having the TSA staffed by perverts whom nobody likes will likely speed the demise of the agency. For example, if it become known that more than one of the agents who pat down children are convicted sexual predators of minors, the public pressure would force the agency to shut down.
I sincerely hope that you are correct, because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
You do realize that we are human being too, right? Those of us who feel that our rights are being violated by having to choose between going through a machine that creates a fairly explicit photo of us (and one which we don't know who sees, if the image is being stored, or if it could end up online or being passed around) or being groped have our day ruined every time we have to go through that.
I'm not going to feel bad for fighting back against people who are trying to do something wrong, and neither should anyone else.
I'm not going to feel bad for fighting back against people who are trying to do something wrong, and neither should anyone else.
Don't be shy. If you want a Happy Ending with your nut massage, just ask the TSA agent for one. ;-)
Also, common courtesy dictates that you should at least offer a reach-around. http://www.moviesounds.com/fmj/cowboy.wav
Also, common courtesy dictates that you should at least offer a reach-around. http://www.moviesounds.com/fmj/cowboy.wav
Everyone who is against this needs to understand that these are necessary preventative measures. What is stopping someone from replacing their testicles with 2 cherry bombs whose wicks are then threaded out the urethra? Wear some tight jeans and you'll generate enough friction to ignite the wick, resulting in an explosion that'll knock down the water cups of passengers across the aisle.
Poe's law in action. Given the level of response the TSA has to ridiculous scenarios, I'm almost entirely sure that a TSA agent would read this and immediately begin planning a program to defend against the very real, entirely probably threat of terrorist cojones transplants.
But would it do anything? Would the backscatter machine even see anything? What about something up the rectum. Knowing of these machines, terrorists will just find another place to stash the gear. If the backscatter machine doesn't protect against that, then what good is it, really? And, is that good sufficient for the invasion of privacy and health concerns?
I say it isn't.
I say it isn't.
What stops elaborate or clever contraptions getting by and inciting chaos? The fact that 99.99% of people are not terrorists.
Airport security checkpoints cannot be considered a last stand against threats. It is one link in a chain including intelligence, passenger awareness, and aircraft design. The chain I describe is not security, but safety. "Screen for every potential danger" is not a viable goal for airport security. I prefer a statement like "decrease the likelihood of death (whoever's you care to measure) by 10x". While still vague, it gives some framework for comparing costs. To make up numbers, suppose for the same cost you could install backscatter machines and get a 10x reduction, or better radar infrastructure and get a 50x reduction. I know where I'd want my money.
One externality here is the perception of safety. In some sense, it doesn't matter how good or safe flying is if people act (and spend...) as if every other plane were being bombed from the skies. But, I question if security gropes will really increase consumer confidence.
Airport security checkpoints cannot be considered a last stand against threats. It is one link in a chain including intelligence, passenger awareness, and aircraft design. The chain I describe is not security, but safety. "Screen for every potential danger" is not a viable goal for airport security. I prefer a statement like "decrease the likelihood of death (whoever's you care to measure) by 10x". While still vague, it gives some framework for comparing costs. To make up numbers, suppose for the same cost you could install backscatter machines and get a 10x reduction, or better radar infrastructure and get a 50x reduction. I know where I'd want my money.
One externality here is the perception of safety. In some sense, it doesn't matter how good or safe flying is if people act (and spend...) as if every other plane were being bombed from the skies. But, I question if security gropes will really increase consumer confidence.
Those water cups are extrodinarily dangerous. Clearly a few cups of water are enough to take down any plain, that's why the TSA needs to screen for fluids.
That, and bottled water in the gift shop will cost you 8 times the equivalent volume of gasoline.
or instead of cherry bombs why not some form of plastic explosive. The guys a suicide bomber - Someone convinced him of that and someone will convince him of this.
Or a step further and why not in the stomach cavity. Soon you will be getting full x-rays just to get on a plane.
Or a step further and why not in the stomach cavity. Soon you will be getting full x-rays just to get on a plane.
Great, thanks for sharing that idea. Next they won't allow testicles on the plane. :)
Another under-appreciated attack vector is flatulence. Load up at the airport Taco Bell and you could easily light a fart that could set guy next to you on fire.
Old news that I didn't know: You can opt out of the backscatter machine, but you can NOT opt out of finishing the security screening (i.e., the patdown), once you've put any luggage on the belt. So says the Supreme Court: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/
I'm not from the US, so maybe I'm misunderstanding your legal system, but that appears to be a ruling by an appeals court, not the Supreme Court. It also appears to predate the current security checks, where the alternatives of being virtually strip searched or sexually assaulted are each dubious on both ethical and, at least under other circumstances, legal grounds. It seems to me as a non-lawyer that such a ruling might be challenged on several grounds today, not least constitutional ones.
It's a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court, a step below the Supreme Court. The appellate courts have regional jurisdiction. As it happens, San Diego, where this incident occurred, is in the 9th Circuit, so this ruling would be the law unless or until it is overturned by the Supreme Court.
Woops, sorry, my mistake. I live in the area of the 9th Circuit so it's sort of the same to me.
One of my favorite quotes is "gradualness is very powerful." (Happens to be a PG quote.) It helps explain why most people don't seem all that phased by the latest TSA policy changes. Imagine how ominous this video would have been 10-15 years ago.
The frog will jump out when the temperature gets up there.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
Well the temperature is getting pretty uncomfortable; let's hope we start jumping.
But "Everything Changed After 9/11" so it's ok.
How idiotic:
As he was leaving the airport after being escorted back to the ticket counter, an official told him to return and be searched, "he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined".
So could anyone else who just walked into the airport in that area.
Everyone should explain to their TSA patdown-partner that they have a headache and aren't in the mood.
As he was leaving the airport after being escorted back to the ticket counter, an official told him to return and be searched, "he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined".
So could anyone else who just walked into the airport in that area.
Everyone should explain to their TSA patdown-partner that they have a headache and aren't in the mood.
These rules have a simple justification. If an attacker would like to breach airport security but is allowed to walk away once he has started the screening process, he simply needs to continue to try over and over again until he finds a vulnerable location. The Supreme Court has supported this idea [1] and I'm afraid that he may actually get legal action taken against him. :-/
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/
As someone else in this thread has pointed out, that was a decision by 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, not the U.S. Supreme Court. From the article: "The U.S. Supreme Court has never squarely addressed the limits of the Fourth Amendment in the context of airport searches."
I'm based in India and am relatively unaware of how American politics work. I have always acknowledged America to be the 'land of the free' , where individual liberties champion everything else, so it's hard for me to imagine this happening. But doesn't Barack Obama have any power as President to stop this (from what I read) illegal act? I also thought he was the President that could change what went wrong with the Bush administration.
It not necessarily illegal... it's unchallenged in the court system as to whether it is legal or not.
Obama has, for the most part, turned a blind eye to much of the Bush-era paranoia. A lot of what was introduced is, I suppose, "convenient" to have around (like the PATRIOT Act). The only real thing that seems to have changed is closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and trying detainees there in American courts, and that isn't going very well either.
Obama has, for the most part, turned a blind eye to much of the Bush-era paranoia. A lot of what was introduced is, I suppose, "convenient" to have around (like the PATRIOT Act). The only real thing that seems to have changed is closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and trying detainees there in American courts, and that isn't going very well either.
Obama's policies have always been in line with bush, he voted for the patriot act extension (2006). As for Guantanamo & civil trials it's complete bullshit -- he's protecting people who should be tried for serious crimes, which makes him just as guilt. As for the civil trials, even if found not guilty the position of the obama administration is that they will not allowed to leave prison.
But is there no law that outlaws groping. I understand that the passenger has to provide consent, but he/she is not exactly in a positive or healthy frame of mind about it. Like the other day I read about a rape victim going through emotional trauma when subjected to the pat-down. Aren't a collection of such incidents, along with medical reports and/or proofs enough to at least warrant challenging the existing law?
The fourth amendment:
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.
What unreasonable means is up for debate but the line is somewhere. And my understanding is that you can't even "consent" away the bill of rights as much as that is argued by the TSA.
My opinion is that groping someone's genitals is clearly unreasonable and that the gradualism of the TSA rules has made this pass by unchecked. You might disagree with that though.
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.
What unreasonable means is up for debate but the line is somewhere. And my understanding is that you can't even "consent" away the bill of rights as much as that is argued by the TSA.
My opinion is that groping someone's genitals is clearly unreasonable and that the gradualism of the TSA rules has made this pass by unchecked. You might disagree with that though.
No political party cares about anything other than getting in office or staying there.
If the Democrats put a stop to this then the Republicans will call them weak on security and unwilling to keep our country safe. There will be millions spent on attack ads saying this. The Democrats will lose the next election.
The only way that would change is if the majority care enough to do something about it, and few do. Most people do not know why anyone would not want to use the machines, so they go through them. And of the ones who do care, many of them paid lots of money for their flight, want to get to it on time, and are likely trying to go somewhere important.
Thus, it persists.
If the Democrats put a stop to this then the Republicans will call them weak on security and unwilling to keep our country safe. There will be millions spent on attack ads saying this. The Democrats will lose the next election.
The only way that would change is if the majority care enough to do something about it, and few do. Most people do not know why anyone would not want to use the machines, so they go through them. And of the ones who do care, many of them paid lots of money for their flight, want to get to it on time, and are likely trying to go somewhere important.
Thus, it persists.
The Democrats will lose the next election.
Yet somehow, they never manage to do enough right to win more than one in a row.
Yet somehow, they never manage to do enough right to win more than one in a row.
The president actually has fairly little direct control. The biggest thing he could do would be to get rid of the director, and I'm not even sure if he can do that directly, actually.
Also, you're assuming that Obama would actually do something like that if he had the power. He probably wouldn't. There's still a large constituency that thinks this is a positive change, and he couldn't lose all of their votes...
Also, you're assuming that Obama would actually do something like that if he had the power. He probably wouldn't. There's still a large constituency that thinks this is a positive change, and he couldn't lose all of their votes...
> The president actually has fairly little direct control.
The TSA is executive branch. The president has all control. He tells the TSA to jump and it says "how high."
> The biggest thing he could do would be to get rid of the director, and I'm not even sure if he can do that directly, actually.
All he'd have to to do is make a phone call. Appointing a replacement requires congressional confirmation, though.
The TSA is executive branch. The president has all control. He tells the TSA to jump and it says "how high."
> The biggest thing he could do would be to get rid of the director, and I'm not even sure if he can do that directly, actually.
All he'd have to to do is make a phone call. Appointing a replacement requires congressional confirmation, though.
That's assuming the president in a given case (speaking generally) has any real power and wants to make the change. It's possible that a president is just a puppet beholden to the interests that got him elected, surrounded by staff who are loyal to those interests.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
I would say that most people agree this is not a reasonable search.
continuing:
"...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."
So even if a search is authorized, there has to be probable cause.
One might say that you submit to this as part of the deal to get on the plane. But if that were true, it would be between you and the airline, not the government. That means it really should be the airlines that decide how intrusive searches should be. And you would be free to choose an airline whose policies you agree with. And the airline would be free to reject you as a passenger.
I would say that most people agree this is not a reasonable search.
continuing:
"...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."
So even if a search is authorized, there has to be probable cause.
One might say that you submit to this as part of the deal to get on the plane. But if that were true, it would be between you and the airline, not the government. That means it really should be the airlines that decide how intrusive searches should be. And you would be free to choose an airline whose policies you agree with. And the airline would be free to reject you as a passenger.
I wonder how much it would cost to start keeping an armed guard on every flight. That's what the Israelis used to do and it seemed like it worked fine for them (they might still do it, but it's been awhile since I've flown through Ben Gurion airport).
Actually, the Israeli security model seemed like it made much more sense with a lot less theater.
When you check-in, your bags are unpacked on a table and the contents are inspected with you standing there.
You pack your bag back up, they tape it with security tape and send it down the conveyor. The ticketing agent then does a short security interview with you regarding where you're going, did you pack your own bag, etc.
You get your tickets and go through the security screen - metal detectors, x-ray, perhaps additional screening if they suspect something. No genital grabbing, no pornoscans (although, my brother did get semi-strip searched once, due to telling a white lie and getting caught at security).
There's an additional interview with customs / immigration before you get to the gate, but that's mostly for passport control issues.
Actually, the Israeli security model seemed like it made much more sense with a lot less theater.
When you check-in, your bags are unpacked on a table and the contents are inspected with you standing there.
You pack your bag back up, they tape it with security tape and send it down the conveyor. The ticketing agent then does a short security interview with you regarding where you're going, did you pack your own bag, etc.
You get your tickets and go through the security screen - metal detectors, x-ray, perhaps additional screening if they suspect something. No genital grabbing, no pornoscans (although, my brother did get semi-strip searched once, due to telling a white lie and getting caught at security).
There's an additional interview with customs / immigration before you get to the gate, but that's mostly for passport control issues.
Main issue is one of scalability: they get a few conscripts covering their one airport and they're done.
Given some of the crap I've seen/faced going through various Israeli checkpoints though, it's just not a system I would want to see implemented in my own country. Anyone can feel free to disagree, but personally I think people should be able to travel freely within their own country without being treated as criminals (or sexually assaulted to prove their innocence, of course).
Given some of the crap I've seen/faced going through various Israeli checkpoints though, it's just not a system I would want to see implemented in my own country. Anyone can feel free to disagree, but personally I think people should be able to travel freely within their own country without being treated as criminals (or sexually assaulted to prove their innocence, of course).
"No genital grabbing" - Ask any middle eastern individual who has managed to somehow cause El Al security to view them suspiciously what a _real_ pat down is.
The difference, though, is not everyone is subjected to the pat-down. But those who are, definitely go through a much, much more thorough experience than US travelers are enjoying.
The difference, though, is not everyone is subjected to the pat-down. But those who are, definitely go through a much, much more thorough experience than US travelers are enjoying.
These new policies should improve TSA recruiting efforts, at least among the pedophile fraction of the population. Anyone who thinks the stories are exaggerated should check out:
http://www.thousandsstandingaround.org/
Folks experiences are consistent.
http://www.thousandsstandingaround.org/
Folks experiences are consistent.
Do you even know what the word "paedophile" means? Hint: it involves "children", who would almost certainly be travelling with parents or an appointed guardian who would wish to be present at any physical exam.
You reckon that paedophiles would sign up just on the remotest off-chance that they get unattended access to a child?
You reckon that paedophiles would sign up just on the remotest off-chance that they get unattended access to a child?
Or maybe getting paid to watch a video feed of naked children?
People should be reminded that this is exactly how the terrorists erode freedom. They don't have to kill us all or take us over to take our liberty. They can simply scare us into giving it away but the solution is as simple as not flinching to the terror and keep going forward.
What happens if a passenger opts for the groping session, and then hits on the groper and insinuates loudly that the groper is gay? Is that arrestable?
Some people have to fly, but that doesn't mean they can't turn these situations into comedy highlighting the stupidity of the system.
Some people have to fly, but that doesn't mean they can't turn these situations into comedy highlighting the stupidity of the system.
all that to get out of going to his in-law's
What do you think are the odds that he'll actually get into legal trouble over this? Calibrate your model of reality!
1 in 45 billion.
One thing the TSA has shown again and again is that they definitely do not want courts involved in their affairs. They certainly aren't going to take this guy to court, because when the ACLU and every similar organization gets involved, it's unlikely to be good for them.
I think the penis-groping requirement is the beginning of the end for them. Something good has finally come out of our nation's irrational fear of anything that could remotely be construed as sexual.
One thing the TSA has shown again and again is that they definitely do not want courts involved in their affairs. They certainly aren't going to take this guy to court, because when the ACLU and every similar organization gets involved, it's unlikely to be good for them.
I think the penis-groping requirement is the beginning of the end for them. Something good has finally come out of our nation's irrational fear of anything that could remotely be construed as sexual.
Wow, 1 in 45 billion? Yet today TSA announced an investigation into this case, the first step towards a fine. Sounds pretty likely that they'll go through with it.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1911670
If it happens, you will be one of the wrongest people in history! I should have bet you one penny, then you would owe me 450 million dollars.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1911670
If it happens, you will be one of the wrongest people in history! I should have bet you one penny, then you would owe me 450 million dollars.
California is a "two party" state for audio/video recordings. He could get in trouble for posting these recordings made without the consent of all parties. And the records would not be admissible in court if he did get sued.
The audio/video recordings are only protect if the conversation taking placed is viewed as private. It is perfectly fine to record audio/video of something in a public place, especially if it is obvious you are recording it. This is why CCTV and TV camera crews don't have to get your permission to video tape you.
See this TSA webpage:
TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm
After that paragraph it does state that certain local laws may prohibit you from taping it, my above point about privacy comes into play here.
See this TSA webpage:
TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm
After that paragraph it does state that certain local laws may prohibit you from taping it, my above point about privacy comes into play here.
San Diego says you can't film anywhere in the airport, and goes on to make specific points on xray/security areas:
http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...
Which makes trying to protect your civil rights during a pat-down even harder.
http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...
Which makes trying to protect your civil rights during a pat-down even harder.
Doesn't the "reasonable expectation of privacy" rule apply in this case?
I'm not sure what rule or law you are referring do, but I'm guessing no. Illinois is a "two party" state as well and you cannot record audio of anyone with their consent, including a public official acting in a public capacity. However (at least in Illinois) this law does not apply to video. It is a relic from some wiretapping legislation that is being inappropriately applied to citizens attempting to document their experiences with public officials.
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is refers to whether you are performing something in public or not. I can take a video of you standing in Main Street shouting about Hell opening up and devouring us all, because you don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
However, Wikipedia [1] implies this is not civil, but in regards to the government's view of privacy to you, not yours to the government, and is highly unlikely to supersede areas where filming is expressly forbidden, and which is indicated to you when entering that area.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priva...
However, Wikipedia [1] implies this is not civil, but in regards to the government's view of privacy to you, not yours to the government, and is highly unlikely to supersede areas where filming is expressly forbidden, and which is indicated to you when entering that area.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priva...
That's not true for police officers in two party notification states; I'm not sure whether this applies to private citizens or not.
In Illinois and other two party notification states, you can't record audio of police officers in public places [1]. Video is fine, but since all video cameras record audio, it's a bit of a Catch-22. People get arrested all the time in two party notification states for video taping law enforcement and it's because of the audio function of their device.
[1] http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez....
In Illinois and other two party notification states, you can't record audio of police officers in public places [1]. Video is fine, but since all video cameras record audio, it's a bit of a Catch-22. People get arrested all the time in two party notification states for video taping law enforcement and it's because of the audio function of their device.
[1] http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez....
This has been a huge brouhaha lately. Most rational people would agree that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, but the courts haven't actually ruled that way. See this guy's story for more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ&feature=playe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ&feature=playe...
[deleted]
You're not allowed to film the TSA security check point at all. If TSA wants to take a hard line against the people opt-ing out of the back-scatter checks, then with these videos they can probably make a 'good' case to pursue the civil charges + $10k fine to make an example out of him.
EDIT: you are not allowed to film at TSA check points because of airport policy, not because the TSA policy. for San Diego see:
http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...
I'm not aware of any major airport that allows filming in screening areas, which is the point I'm trying to make.
EDIT: you are not allowed to film at TSA check points because of airport policy, not because the TSA policy. for San Diego see:
http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...
I'm not aware of any major airport that allows filming in screening areas, which is the point I'm trying to make.
Not only does the TSA website specifically state otherwise, there is no example to be made out of him because he didn't do anything wrong.
The TSA website states what exactly? If you enter the screening area you HAVE to comply and be screened based on what the TSA demands, with the only allowance being you can opt-out of metal detectors/back-scatter and be hand-searched.
If you don't comply you can be fined, see section C of:
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sanction_Guidance_for_Individu...
(refusing to be searched violates a number of those provisions which adds up to $10k)
And you're not allowed to record in TSA sterile areas, there are signs at airports that say so.
I'm not saying I agree with the law (note I wrote 'good' case above), but your point that the TSA website says otherwise isn't true, and it's a shame I've been downvoted for it. Perhaps you'd like to edit your comment with the url on tsa.gov you are referring to?
The whole point of what I was saying, which you missed, is that if the TSA wants to make this case into an example case to set a hard line against those who don't want to do back-scatter, those videos are going to be damaging to him.
If you don't comply you can be fined, see section C of:
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Sanction_Guidance_for_Individu...
(refusing to be searched violates a number of those provisions which adds up to $10k)
And you're not allowed to record in TSA sterile areas, there are signs at airports that say so.
I'm not saying I agree with the law (note I wrote 'good' case above), but your point that the TSA website says otherwise isn't true, and it's a shame I've been downvoted for it. Perhaps you'd like to edit your comment with the url on tsa.gov you are referring to?
The whole point of what I was saying, which you missed, is that if the TSA wants to make this case into an example case to set a hard line against those who don't want to do back-scatter, those videos are going to be damaging to him.
The TSA website states that you are allowed to videotape the security check points.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm
San Diego Airport Authority says you can't film anywhere in the airport and makes further points on filming xray equipment:
http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...
I'm not aware of any major airport that lets you film secure areas, which is the point I'm trying to make - and so that could just get rolled up into a civil case against him. Which is the point I'm making.
http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...
I'm not aware of any major airport that lets you film secure areas, which is the point I'm trying to make - and so that could just get rolled up into a civil case against him. Which is the point I'm making.
'Phil' contacted 50 airport to see what their policies are:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/938543...
Some allow it but I'm pretty sure none (or close to none allowed) photographing the xray monitors.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/938543...
Some allow it but I'm pretty sure none (or close to none allowed) photographing the xray monitors.
Incorrect - it's usually airport policies that prohibit this though
all I wrote was "You're not allowed to film the TSA security check point at all." - TSA, airport policy whatever, it doesn't matter.
The point is if this does go to court the videos will sadly count against him if they decide to throw the book at him.
The point is if this does go to court the videos will sadly count against him if they decide to throw the book at him.
Vote with your money, not your antics.
There will always be bad apples in the bunch. When I was in Europe there were some cameras set up to monitor an entrance. They hired local nationals to monitor these cameras. Just so happens, there were residences near the entrance; and the 100x zoom didn't help. The people in charge of monitoring the cameras were caught gawking at women undressing and houses had to be black-bared.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
There will always be bad apples in the bunch. When I was in Europe there were some cameras set up to monitor an entrance. They hired local nationals to monitor these cameras. Just so happens, there were residences near the entrance; and the 100x zoom didn't help. The people in charge of monitoring the cameras were caught gawking at women undressing and houses had to be black-bared.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The really crazy thing about this is the technology itself. Back in the day in the back pages of Popular Science, you could buy "X-Ray Glasses" that would supposedly let you see through cloths (I assume they didn't really work but never tried them).
Now, the technology actually exists to see under peoples cloths! It is crazy, and what is crazier is that it actually uses x-rays to do so. Who would have thought.
Now, the technology actually exists to see under peoples cloths! It is crazy, and what is crazier is that it actually uses x-rays to do so. Who would have thought.
Problem with this whole thing is, air security is only really as good as the weakest link. If I take an international flight to america from anywhere that doesn't have these scanners, doesn't that negate the effectiveness of the scanners.
If the scanners are effective in preventing a planned attack won't the attackers just choose somewhere that doesn't have them as a departure point?
If the scanners are effective in preventing a planned attack won't the attackers just choose somewhere that doesn't have them as a departure point?
Given that highschool kids and reporters have repeatedly sneaked liquids, knives and other prohibited items past security and TSA in all of its existence has _never_ stopping a terrorist red-handed. We all should acknowledge that is just security theater.
The real reason we have these machines deployed is that someone in the government knows or plays golf with someone who owns the company that makes these machines. It is basically a contract handout to "cousin Ed". That's just how business is done in DC. Everything else is just propaganda and cover-up.
The real reason we have these machines deployed is that someone in the government knows or plays golf with someone who owns the company that makes these machines. It is basically a contract handout to "cousin Ed". That's just how business is done in DC. Everything else is just propaganda and cover-up.
We can take it as given that potential bad guys have been stopped by the combined efforts of the TSA and other agencies. The questions is whether it's been the barbaric security theatre by a cast of hundreds of thousands or hard work by a few people based on human intelligence.
TSA does not have a track record of stopping a single bad guy. It was meant to do that but it hasn't, in all the years of its existence.
It wasn't designed to conduct surveillance, gather intelligence, produce scary propaganda, it was designed to catch the guy with the bomb red-handed, as in "Oh look, there is a bomb in an x-ray machine!" kind of situation. That that has never happened. So what do they do? As a proper and decent US govt. agency that they are -- they increase the number of rules and ask for more funds...
But no politician will ever dare dismantle it. Nobody wants to be "soft on terrorism". In case of an attack they need the TSA as a scapegoat so they can point to it and say "look, we are spending all these money, we have all the people groped and x-rayed, there is nothing more we could have done, it is _not_ our fault"
So I'll agree that FBI, CIA, NSA, air marshals, the flight crew, and just regular citizens have stopped bad guys. But not the TSA.
It wasn't designed to conduct surveillance, gather intelligence, produce scary propaganda, it was designed to catch the guy with the bomb red-handed, as in "Oh look, there is a bomb in an x-ray machine!" kind of situation. That that has never happened. So what do they do? As a proper and decent US govt. agency that they are -- they increase the number of rules and ask for more funds...
But no politician will ever dare dismantle it. Nobody wants to be "soft on terrorism". In case of an attack they need the TSA as a scapegoat so they can point to it and say "look, we are spending all these money, we have all the people groped and x-rayed, there is nothing more we could have done, it is _not_ our fault"
So I'll agree that FBI, CIA, NSA, air marshals, the flight crew, and just regular citizens have stopped bad guys. But not the TSA.
I recommend submitting comments about this via the ``Contact us'' page on whitehouse.gov
I also think we should be encouraging the White House to put Bruce Schneier in charge of the TSA.
I also think we should be encouraging the White House to put Bruce Schneier in charge of the TSA.
Crazy. If you go to reddit every tsa-critical comment is downvoted and the story has over 2.5k downvotes as of right now.
I'm not in favor of the back-scatter machines but it is my understanding that once you enter the security area you are consenting to any kind of search the TSA deem necessary (even cavity if they had reason to feel the need to do one). While you can opt-out of the back-scatter you can't opt-out of any search, which he has done.
The law maybe an ass but he's probably on shaky ground, esp as you can't film or record the security checkpoints either.
The law maybe an ass but he's probably on shaky ground, esp as you can't film or record the security checkpoints either.
If he's facing civil penalties, I doubt that's correct.
And you can definitely film and record in the security area as long as you aren't interfering.
And you can definitely film and record in the security area as long as you aren't interfering.
Not so. Filming is generally forbidden, not by the TSA itself but by airport policy - so most do. I was surprised to hear this myself (figured it would be the TSA...)
Inalienable rights. I can't consent to give them away.
"Rosa Parks would be proud" indeed.
[deleted]
Ingredients:
1. drama queen
2. passive aggressive behavior
3. poor TSA workers just trying to follow procedures and do their jobs
4. people being imperfect, making mistakes, getting cranky -- on all sides
Folks: have y'all gotten the memo that they do security stuff at the airport? Seriously, they do that now. Deal. And if you want to change anything about this fact, the way to do it is not by going to the airport and doing this kind of thing. The way to do it is through political action and Congress. And heck, through better engineering.
1. drama queen
2. passive aggressive behavior
3. poor TSA workers just trying to follow procedures and do their jobs
4. people being imperfect, making mistakes, getting cranky -- on all sides
Folks: have y'all gotten the memo that they do security stuff at the airport? Seriously, they do that now. Deal. And if you want to change anything about this fact, the way to do it is not by going to the airport and doing this kind of thing. The way to do it is through political action and Congress. And heck, through better engineering.
Many bad things are "just someone's job". I don't want to invoke the Nazis here, but it applies.
Congress isn't the only way to get things done, nor even the best. Assault on all fronts may be more effective than on one. Flanking was invented for a reason.
You're welcome to kid yourself into believing that this is just the way things have to be, and you can put up with people grabbing your kids and making them cry, and accusing your toddler of being a terrorist and/or explosives mule, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to stand by and tolerate that shit.
Congress isn't the only way to get things done, nor even the best. Assault on all fronts may be more effective than on one. Flanking was invented for a reason.
You're welcome to kid yourself into believing that this is just the way things have to be, and you can put up with people grabbing your kids and making them cry, and accusing your toddler of being a terrorist and/or explosives mule, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to stand by and tolerate that shit.
"I looked him straight in the eye and said, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."
I stopped reading there. Way to be a douche and instigate trouble.
Edit: There are far more constructive ways to handle dislike of the policies than verbally assaulting front-line TSA workers. They're working hard to make a paycheck. They didn't implement the policies and certainly don't need people treating them like shit because of it.
I stopped reading there. Way to be a douche and instigate trouble.
Edit: There are far more constructive ways to handle dislike of the policies than verbally assaulting front-line TSA workers. They're working hard to make a paycheck. They didn't implement the policies and certainly don't need people treating them like shit because of it.
We've already been down this path, and it isn't a yellow-bricked road.
Some argue that you should make it unpleasent for TSA agents to work there because technically they do have a choice for who they work for, and if they choose an employer that is trying to infringe on your rights then showing your upsetness to them might get them to quit and send the message to their employer about the policies.
Frankly I see no problem with what he did. Not only did he stand up for what he believed in, he was persistent and what he asked of the TSA was perfectly reasonable. I point to the following article from The Atlantic:
This past Wednesday, I showed up at Baltimore-Washington International for a flight to Providence, R.I. I had a choice of two TSA screening checkpoints. I picked mine based on the number of people waiting in line, not because I am impatient, but because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...
If the someone gets to the airport with explosives, they can do their job of holding up airline traffic without even stepping through a metal detector. The TSA know this, and all of this security theatre is getting out of hand. I mean, they banned ink cartridges last week!
Eventually they might get the message and spend time on developing better ways of catching the terroists than inconviencing the American public.
Or they might just ban humans on airplanes. That would certainly stop the attacks...
Some argue that you should make it unpleasent for TSA agents to work there because technically they do have a choice for who they work for, and if they choose an employer that is trying to infringe on your rights then showing your upsetness to them might get them to quit and send the message to their employer about the policies.
Frankly I see no problem with what he did. Not only did he stand up for what he believed in, he was persistent and what he asked of the TSA was perfectly reasonable. I point to the following article from The Atlantic:
This past Wednesday, I showed up at Baltimore-Washington International for a flight to Providence, R.I. I had a choice of two TSA screening checkpoints. I picked mine based on the number of people waiting in line, not because I am impatient, but because the coiled, closely packed lines at TSA screening sites are the most dangerous places in airports, completely unprotected from a terrorist attack -- a terrorist attack that would serve the same purpose (shutting down air travel) as an attack on board an aircraft.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...
If the someone gets to the airport with explosives, they can do their job of holding up airline traffic without even stepping through a metal detector. The TSA know this, and all of this security theatre is getting out of hand. I mean, they banned ink cartridges last week!
Eventually they might get the message and spend time on developing better ways of catching the terroists than inconviencing the American public.
Or they might just ban humans on airplanes. That would certainly stop the attacks...
Last I checked, "I was just following orders" isn't a valid excuse. I understand that they're at the bottom of the totem pole in this whole thing (and as good human beings many of them are probably secretly against it as well), but as long as dissenters don't cross the line, actions like this may be what it takes to get the TSA workers to speak out against it as well and get it changed.
Some people probably thought the same about Rosa Parks. I'm not saying you're racist, just that you're wrong. It is his right to speak. "Instigating trouble" is one way to change things, and the front-line TSOs _are_ implementing this policy, much like the bus drivers in Montgomery who were just doing their jobs.
What if the behavior of the TSA worker is reprehensible? The fact that they are working hard to make a paycheck wouldn't excuse their actions. And yes, I would make anybody who engaged in activity that I thought was morally unacceptable clear that I thought they should be ashamed of their current occupation.
Ironically, I have zero problem with strict security checks at the airport, so I'm completely polite to the TSA. But I understand, intellectually, how others could be offended at their activity.
Ironically, I have zero problem with strict security checks at the airport, so I'm completely polite to the TSA. But I understand, intellectually, how others could be offended at their activity.
> I have zero problem with strict security checks at the airport,
> so I'm completely polite to the TSA
There is simply no way I would ever subject myself or any of my kids to being patted down in this way, or going through a porn-scan. I think it's more than fair to state clearly, as he did, that if the operative sexually assaults him, he will take action. Even if it was to go fly out to Google to be acquired, I'd simply say no.
People need to take a stand. For all the time and energy 'security' are wasting on 'obviously not terrorists', they could be actually concentrating on 'might well be a terrorist'.
People need to take a stand. For all the time and energy 'security' are wasting on 'obviously not terrorists', they could be actually concentrating on 'might well be a terrorist'.
> They're working hard to make a paycheck. They didn't implement the policies and certainly don't need people treating them like shit because of it.
So when a thug is being paid to assault you, it's not their fault? You should be nice to them because they're just doing their job? I hope you're kidding.
So when a thug is being paid to assault you, it's not their fault? You should be nice to them because they're just doing their job? I hope you're kidding.
Except the case we're talking about had neither a thug nor an assault. Just a guy trying to do his job at the airport, following procedures that somebody else devised.
A job which requires he regularly assault (grope) people. That someone else devised the procedure does not make any difference whatsoever, and it makes him a thug.
Again, not assault and not a thug. If frisking is assault, and anyone who does it as an employee of some organization, then by your logic all police commit assaults, and all police are thugs. Clearly, they are not. If a police officer frisks you, under normal circumstances, that is both legal and expected. It's a security measure.
A thug would be somebody who carries out a simple violent crime under orders of somebody else, who is also not legally allowed to do such activity (say, a gang leader or organized crime leader.).
A fundamental basis of government is that it is the only socially authorized entity who can commit violence and/or otherwise restrict a person's movements. We as a society give government the right to do that.
A thug would be somebody who carries out a simple violent crime under orders of somebody else, who is also not legally allowed to do such activity (say, a gang leader or organized crime leader.).
A fundamental basis of government is that it is the only socially authorized entity who can commit violence and/or otherwise restrict a person's movements. We as a society give government the right to do that.
> Again, not assault and not a thug.
Again, incorrect; if a person feels assaulted because you grabbed their junk against their will, then they've been assaulted.
> If a police officer frisks you, under normal circumstances, that is both legal and expected.
Fist off, ex cop here. No, it isn't expected. Cops require cause to frisk you and generally only do it if you're suspected of something and we make an exception for police because we all agree they have to be able to do it. There is no such agreement that the TSA needs such power.
Secondly, they'll generally have a member of the same sex do the frisk because they recognize people do see being groped as being assaulted. Most people let it go because they're happy to not be in trouble, not because they like it.
> We as a society give government the right to do that.
Correct, however, the TSA is not the government. They're private thugs. And yes, many cops are thugs as well, it's why I left the profession. It's a career field full of power hungry ex jocks who think bullying people is their current sport. Most have little understanding of the law, they do whatever they're trained on the job to do with little thought of whether or not they should.
Again, incorrect; if a person feels assaulted because you grabbed their junk against their will, then they've been assaulted.
> If a police officer frisks you, under normal circumstances, that is both legal and expected.
Fist off, ex cop here. No, it isn't expected. Cops require cause to frisk you and generally only do it if you're suspected of something and we make an exception for police because we all agree they have to be able to do it. There is no such agreement that the TSA needs such power.
Secondly, they'll generally have a member of the same sex do the frisk because they recognize people do see being groped as being assaulted. Most people let it go because they're happy to not be in trouble, not because they like it.
> We as a society give government the right to do that.
Correct, however, the TSA is not the government. They're private thugs. And yes, many cops are thugs as well, it's why I left the profession. It's a career field full of power hungry ex jocks who think bullying people is their current sport. Most have little understanding of the law, they do whatever they're trained on the job to do with little thought of whether or not they should.
> Correct, however, the TSA is not the government.
http://www.tsa.gov/
http://www.tsa.gov/
Doh, why did I think the TSA was something the airlines were doing. Hm, I'll have to rethink it, I don't want the government doing it either because just like the cops, they're abusing it.
> There are far more constructive ways to handle dislike of the policies than verbally assaulting front-line TSA workers. They're working hard to make a paycheck. They didn't implement the policies and certainly don't need people treating them like shit because of it.
what was the alternative, then? he could've worded it less aggressively initially, but do you really think a TSA agent would've responded to a polite "i don't want you to pat me down"? its their job to pat you down.
what was the alternative, then? he could've worded it less aggressively initially, but do you really think a TSA agent would've responded to a polite "i don't want you to pat me down"? its their job to pat you down.
Judging from the audio, his tone doesn't seem to be mean or arrogant.
No one should be able to excuse their bad behavior by saying, "But it was my job!" Each person is individually responsible for their actions.
Upvoted you because I felt it was one of the most adult and mature reactions I've seen in this thread so far.
Exactly. That precise moment and action he took was clearly a really stupid idea, and would do nothing constructive. It would only make things worse due to the fact that he's saying that to a human being, one who has emotions, and is just trying to do their job. And is very very unlikely to want to actually try to "touch his junk." The guy voluntarily went to the airport, and did so in the context of any reasonably connected citizen would know about the sorts of security procedures to expect there. And he acts like a passive aggressive drama queen. Sad. And lame.
Exactly. That precise moment and action he took was clearly a really stupid idea, and would do nothing constructive. It would only make things worse due to the fact that he's saying that to a human being, one who has emotions, and is just trying to do their job. And is very very unlikely to want to actually try to "touch his junk." The guy voluntarily went to the airport, and did so in the context of any reasonably connected citizen would know about the sorts of security procedures to expect there. And he acts like a passive aggressive drama queen. Sad. And lame.
I'm sorry you're being penalized by the groupthink here. You're not alone though.
I applaud people like this who remind the system that it works for us and not the other way around. I sadly can't take the risk of doing it myself.