10 ms·

TSA encounter at SAN

277 points by icey 16y ago

maukdaddy 16y ago
"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.
- jarin 16y ago
  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.
- danielharan 16y ago
  Judging from the audio, his tone doesn't seem to be mean or arrogant.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  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.
  - pyre 16y ago
    > I have zero problem with strict security checks at the airport, > so I'm completely polite to the TSA Because airports and airplanes are dangerous things, but outside of the airport we live in a world free of bad things and bad people (and the possibility of being killed).
- chacha102 16y ago
  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-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ 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...
- noodle 16y ago
  > 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.
- jambo 16y ago
  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.
- gnaritas 16y ago
  > 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.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    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.
    - gnaritas 16y ago
      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.
      - mkramlich 16y ago
        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.
        gnaritas 16y ago
        > 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.
- axod 16y ago
  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'.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  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.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  I'm sorry you're being penalized by the groupthink here. You're not alone though.
- dpatru 16y ago
  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.
jarin 16y ago
Good for him. Civil disobedience in defense of our liberties isn't just a good idea, it's a moral obligation.
- jseifer 16y ago
  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.
  - jchrisa 16y ago
    It's not the naked pictures, it's the being microwaved. If the machine is improperly calibrated, you'd be cooked.
sage_joch 16y ago
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.
- pyre 16y ago
  But "Everything Changed After 9/11" so it's ok.
- techbio 16y 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
  - sage_joch 16y ago
    Well the temperature is getting pretty uncomfortable; let's hope we start jumping.
acabal 16y ago
I wish I had the means to do what he's doing. 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. Risking losing that much money and the possibility of not getting to where I need to be, even for the noble goal of civil disobedience to protest a ridiculous and screwed-up system, is just too daunting for me. All it takes is one TSA officer having a bad day and misinterpreting something I've said to send me and my bags home--and even if they're in the wrong, the only thing that can decide that is an expensive court case, and I'll still have missed my flight. 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.
- jarin 16y ago
  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.
- noodle 16y ago
  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?
  - pyre 16y ago
    You could always inquire with the airline.
  - hfinney 16y ago
    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.
    - marze 16y ago
marze 16y ago
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.
- poet 16y ago
  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/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/
  - scott_s 16y ago
    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."
hfinney 16y ago
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.
- jarin 16y ago
  Doesn't the "reasonable expectation of privacy" rule apply in this case?
  - poet 16y ago
    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.
    - Lewisham 16y ago
      "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_privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priva...
      - poet 16y ago
        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.pdf http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez....
hardik988 16y ago
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.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  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...
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    > 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.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      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.
- koenigdavidmj 16y ago
  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.
lolwtfomg 16y ago
all that to get out of going to his in-law's
dotBen 16y ago
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.
- barrkel 16y ago
  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.
  - donohoe 16y ago
    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...)
- ahi 16y ago
  Inalienable rights. I can't consent to give them away.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
kyro 16y ago
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.
- fshaun 16y ago
  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.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  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.
  - techbio 16y ago
    That, and bottled water in the gift shop will cost you 8 times the equivalent volume of gasoline.
- andolanra 16y ago
  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.
bpm140 16y ago
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-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ 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.
- marze 16y ago
  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)
- philwelch 16y ago
  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".
- mkramlich 16y ago
  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".
  - orangecat 16y ago
    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.
vaksel 16y ago
i would imagine standing up like that is a good way to end up on the no-fly list
- jrockway 16y ago
  I would imagine that it's not.
icey 16y ago
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.
- shaddi 16y ago
  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).
- ghshephard 16y ago
  "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.
random42 16y ago
What does the US court(s) say on TSA security check?
- jrockway 16y ago
  We don't know yet. The TSA seems to be deathly afraid of anything resembling a courtroom, though.
wrs 16y ago
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/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/
- Silhouette 16y ago
  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.
  - hfinney 16y ago
    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.
    - wrs 16y ago
      Woops, sorry, my mistake. I live in the area of the 9th Circuit so it's sort of the same to me.
marze 16y ago
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/ http://www.thousandsstandingaround.org/ Folks experiences are consistent.
- epo 16y ago
  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?
  - andyv 16y ago
    Or maybe getting paid to watch a video feed of naked children?
marze 16y ago
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.
robryan 16y ago
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?
- rdtsc 16y ago
  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.
  - lancewiggs 16y ago
    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.
    - rdtsc 16y ago
      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.
jemfinch 16y ago
"Rosa Parks would be proud" indeed.
runningdogx 16y ago
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.
mkramlich 16y ago
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.
- PostOnce 16y ago
  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.
lurchpop 16y ago
Crazy. If you go to reddit every tsa-critical comment is downvoted and the story has over 2.5k downvotes as of right now.
hfinney 16y ago
What do you think are the odds that he'll actually get into legal trouble over this? Calibrate your model of reality!
- jrockway 16y ago
  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.
  - hfinney 16y ago
    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 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.
jnw2 16y ago
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.
stretchwithme 16y ago
"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.
chrischen 16y ago
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.
woodall 16y ago
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?

277 points by icey 16y ago

"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.

jarin 16y ago
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.
danielharan 16y ago
Judging from the audio, his tone doesn't seem to be mean or arrogant.
ghshephard 16y ago
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.
- pyre 16y ago
  > I have zero problem with strict security checks at the airport, > so I'm completely polite to the TSA Because airports and airplanes are dangerous things, but outside of the airport we live in a world free of bad things and bad people (and the possibility of being killed).
chacha102 16y ago
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-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ 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...
noodle 16y ago
> 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.
jambo 16y ago
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.
gnaritas 16y ago
> 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.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  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.
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    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.
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      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.
      - gnaritas 16y ago
        > 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.
axod 16y ago
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'.
mkramlich 16y ago
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.
mkramlich 16y ago
I'm sorry you're being penalized by the groupthink here. You're not alone though.
dpatru 16y ago
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.

jarin 16y ago

Good for him. Civil disobedience in defense of our liberties isn't just a good idea, it's a moral obligation.

jseifer 16y ago
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.
- jchrisa 16y ago
  It's not the naked pictures, it's the being microwaved. If the machine is improperly calibrated, you'd be cooked.

sage_joch 16y ago

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.

pyre 16y ago
But "Everything Changed After 9/11" so it's ok.
techbio 16y 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
- sage_joch 16y ago
  Well the temperature is getting pretty uncomfortable; let's hope we start jumping.

acabal 16y ago

I wish I had the means to do what he's doing. 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. Risking losing that much money and the possibility of not getting to where I need to be, even for the noble goal of civil disobedience to protest a ridiculous and screwed-up system, is just too daunting for me. All it takes is one TSA officer having a bad day and misinterpreting something I've said to send me and my bags home--and even if they're in the wrong, the only thing that can decide that is an expensive court case, and I'll still have missed my flight. 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.

jarin 16y ago
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.
noodle 16y ago
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?
- pyre 16y ago
  You could always inquire with the airline.
- hfinney 16y ago
  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.
  - marze 16y ago

marze 16y ago

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.

poet 16y ago
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/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/
- scott_s 16y ago
  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."

hfinney 16y ago

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.

jarin 16y ago
Doesn't the "reasonable expectation of privacy" rule apply in this case?
- poet 16y ago
  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.
  - Lewisham 16y ago
    "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_privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priva...
    - poet 16y ago
      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.pdf http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez....

hardik988 16y ago

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.

steveklabnik 16y ago
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...
- jemfinch 16y ago
  > 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.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    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.
koenigdavidmj 16y ago
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.

lolwtfomg 16y ago

all that to get out of going to his in-law's

dotBen 16y ago

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.

barrkel 16y ago
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.
- donohoe 16y ago
  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...)
ahi 16y ago
Inalienable rights. I can't consent to give them away.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

kyro 16y ago

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.

fshaun 16y ago
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.
burgerbrain 16y ago
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.
- techbio 16y ago
  That, and bottled water in the gift shop will cost you 8 times the equivalent volume of gasoline.
andolanra 16y ago
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.

bpm140 16y ago

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-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ 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.

marze 16y ago
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)
philwelch 16y ago
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".
mkramlich 16y ago
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".
- orangecat 16y ago
  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.

vaksel 16y ago

i would imagine standing up like that is a good way to end up on the no-fly list

jrockway 16y ago
I would imagine that it's not.

icey 16y ago

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.

shaddi 16y ago
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).
ghshephard 16y ago
"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.

random42 16y ago

What does the US court(s) say on TSA security check?

jrockway 16y ago
We don't know yet. The TSA seems to be deathly afraid of anything resembling a courtroom, though.

wrs 16y ago

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/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/

Silhouette 16y ago
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.
- hfinney 16y ago
  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.
  - wrs 16y ago
    Woops, sorry, my mistake. I live in the area of the 9th Circuit so it's sort of the same to me.

marze 16y ago

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/ http://www.thousandsstandingaround.org/ Folks experiences are consistent.

epo 16y ago
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?
- andyv 16y ago
  Or maybe getting paid to watch a video feed of naked children?

marze 16y ago

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.

robryan 16y ago

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?

rdtsc 16y ago
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.
- lancewiggs 16y ago
  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.
  - rdtsc 16y ago
    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.

jemfinch 16y ago

"Rosa Parks would be proud" indeed.

runningdogx 16y ago

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.

mkramlich 16y ago

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.

PostOnce 16y ago
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.

lurchpop 16y ago

Crazy. If you go to reddit every tsa-critical comment is downvoted and the story has over 2.5k downvotes as of right now.

hfinney 16y ago

What do you think are the odds that he'll actually get into legal trouble over this? Calibrate your model of reality!

jrockway 16y ago
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.
- hfinney 16y ago
  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 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.

jnw2 16y ago

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.

stretchwithme 16y ago

"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.

chrischen 16y ago

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.

woodall 16y ago

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?