9 ms·

I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

144 points by mfukar 16y ago

lukestevens 16y ago
For all the understandable outrage, this seems like a genie that will be very hard to put back in the bottle. What politician is going to risk canning a security protocol when there's a not-unreasonable chance of a civilian airplane being blown up in the next few years? Who wants to be the politician that has to explain, after several hundred people died, why they canned any device or protocol which may have helped stopped the attack, however remote the likelihood? I'm not saying it's rational or appropriate, I'm saying it's politically untenable, regardless of the horror stories like the one posted. Perhaps airlines should offer 'enhanced' or 'standard' security flights, and people can choose whether they fly on a plane where everyone has pat downs or scans, or whether they don't. At least that way there would be a choice...
- hyperbovine 16y ago
  I cannot recall a similar issue sparking as much across-the-board outrage since the "war on terrorism" began. However taboo it may be to discuss relaxing security requirements, that may turn out to be the lesser of two political evils.
  - ericd 16y ago
    I agree. I think any politician could reasonably trot out a counter to the "he took out our line of defense" with a "I stopped your kids from being x-rayed or groped by getting rid of something that would have been ineffective in stopping this attack".
- siculars 16y ago
  What is politically untenable are stories like these. This is an absolute nightmare.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  It's too late to get rid of this ridiculous security theater but it's not too late to get rid of invasive and utterly ineffective procedures that are just getting started.
jonafato 16y ago
The thing that sets this post apart from others of the same category is the fact that the author was not given a choice in the search. This is exactly what a lot of discussion around here has been about (though admittedly the opposite of the expected outcome). The fact that it was a pat down, not a pat down or a scan is new. In most situations, the TSA could claim the the pat down is a choice, but here that is obviously not possible. As for the assault claims, I am not surprised. I can't imagine TSA agents always remember to explain exactly what is going to happen. Pat downs are invasive and uncomfortable, but unexpected invasion must be much worse.
- siculars 16y ago
  >I can't imagine TSA agents always remember to explain exactly what is going to happen. Flight attendants are required by law to run through a pre flight safety instructional for every flight - even though we have all heard it many times. Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights. TSA agents should be very well versed in all options afforded passengers under the law and be very well capable of relaying that information to any passenger without being prompted. If the flying public is expected to be treated like terrorists you better believe I expect TSA agents to know exactly what they are doing.
  - jonafato 16y ago
    I'm not saying they shouldn't be expected to follow SOP, I am saying that I'm not surprised that it doesn't always happen. By no means should this be excused. People make mistakes. It just happens to be the case that this mistake is worse than others and may result in sexual assault charges.
  - rms 16y ago
    >Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights. No, they aren't. Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights in order for information from an interrogation to be admissible in court. But if they don't care about what you might say to them, there is no law that requires them to read you your rights. It isn't uncommon for rights not to be read in mass arrest situations, such as at protests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Confusion_regarding_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Confusion_regar...
ajays 16y ago
According to the TSA, http://bit.ly/b133H4 http://bit.ly/b133H4 , "there is no fondling, squeezing, groping, or any sort of sexual assault taking place at airports. You have a professional workforce carrying out procedures they were trained to perform to keep aviation security safe." Does this mean my government lying to me?? Well I'll be damned!
siculars 16y ago
I've argued that the correct way to do airline safety is the way ElAl does it. The most salient argument against that is that the ElAl system will not scale. So let me get this straight, privacy stripping full body scanners and an army of ill-trained TSA agents is a more scalable solution? The current situation is untenable. I am incredibly concerned by the latest round of rights and liberty infringing actions by the government in the name of "security". If it is not "security" it is "children". What remains to be seen is whether or not the current solution is scaleable in the face of tremendous public outcry.
- defen 16y ago
  The El Al system also makes heavy use of profiling, which is politically untenable in the U.S., and agents who are smart/well-trained enough to make judgment calls on the ground. TSA contractors are currently paid so little that I doubt you're ever going to get much more than bottom of the barrel in terms of motivation, intelligence, and agreeableness.
  - siculars 16y ago
    Isn't this all profiling? The public is subject to taking off their shoes because the powers that be profiled a threat vector from the shoe bomber. Replace shoes with razor blades, liquids, underwear and now toner cartridges. Since when did "profiling" become a dirty word? Perhaps when "racial" joined the party. I maintain that profiling is essential to ensuring our security when implemented sanely, rationally and with appropriate oversight. How about UPS and FedEx not shipping from Yemen. The entire country! Isn't that collective punishment? If we can not expect "agents who are smart/well-trained enough to make judgment calls" to implement security to know the good guys from the bad guys then we are well and truly fucked.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  It should also be noted, that when ElAl does decide to do a pat down as part of their security policy, it is not gentle. I know a couple people (men) who've gone through it, and even though they knew it was a possibility, they still came out of it quite shaken - it is the equivalent of a full-on civilian police search, and bears only a passing resemblance to what the TSA is doing. The difference is, of course, the TSA is subjecting everyone who opts out of the back scatter machine to their pat-down, whereas ElAl does so only to those they find suspicious.
SkyMarshal 16y ago
I'm flying cross country in December and fully intend to opt out of the naked scanner, even if it means the 'enhanced patdown'. I liken it to Ali choosing jail over Vietnam, and other instances when people protested government coercion by intentionally choosing the worse alternative to what the govt wanted them to do. Hopefully the national outrage gets the policy changed before then, but I'm preparing to sack up and do it nonetheless.
notahacker 16y ago
Whilst it appears there was a pretty serious of protocol, the author's hysteria verges on trivialising real sexual assault.
- mfukar 16y ago
  Hysteria? I think it was shockingly calmly written, given the circumstance.
- praptak 16y ago
  Lack of consent - check (Nor even a warning, for that matter.) Touching of genitals by a stranger - check. What else needs to be there so that it constitutes real sexual assault?
  - notahacker 16y ago
    Gratification? A sexual motive? Can the people downvoting me honestly not see the difference between a person performing an act of gratuitous violence on another person to satisfy their own urges and a person doing their job badly?
    - poet 16y ago
      At the minimum it is sexual battery [1] and sexual imposition [2] and it could be argued that it was gross sexual imposition [3]. Ohio doesn't even use the phrase "sexual assault" in its laws about sex offenses [4]. The point is, quibbling about terminology is silly. Any reasonable human being understands what the author of the blog post is getting at. She was touched in a sexual way without her consent, without any foreknowledge of the event, and under some duress. Whatever you want to term the event is irrelevant. [1] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03 [2] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.06 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.06 [3] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.05 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.05 [4] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907
      - notahacker 16y ago
yakisoft 16y ago
Every day America looks a less attractive place to visit or do business with.
- heretoo 16y ago
  Yes, America is off my list for the moment. I guess it's a luxury not everyone can enjoy. I'm starting to worry that my own country is moving in the same direction. It's not healthy that a government has so much control over it's people. They are there to serve the people, not the other way around.
- siculars 16y ago
  I hate to agree with you but I do. If I were a foreigner arriving at JFK I would be inclined to turn around and not come back. I make it a point to thank every tourist I come across for visiting. I also thank Americans from other parts of the country for visiting NYC. Meeting all kinds of people from all kinds of far away places is part of the fun of living in NYC.
- lastyear 16y ago
  Where have you people been living? Not in my America where people are groped, fondled, struck, shackled, beaten, stripped, locked up, and worse every day. And these are innocent people guilty of no crime. This has been going every day of this woman's life. Are you living in a bubble? Is this really the first time this woman has been patted down?
- AgentConundrum 16y ago
  Two stories: 1) Last week I got a wedding invitation from my cousin in Connecticut (well, a "Save The Date" technically. That seems to be a purely American invention, but seems roughly comparable to a wedding invitation in my Canadian eyes). This was on the same day I found out about these new "enhanced" patdowns. 2) My dad loves NASCAR, and his birthday is in February, right around the running of the Daytona 500. For years, I've wanted to take him there for his birthday. It's a whole week of different races, and I'm sure he'd love it. It appears I've waited too long / didn't get the money in time. Two scenarios where I'd really like to visit the States, mostly for my dad. With these new "security" measures in place, however, there is no way I'm going to subject myself to such an ordeal just for a vacation. It might not necessarily be the sexual assault some people claim, but if my only option is to be either photographed nude or have some agent grabbing my junk, I'd rather just stay home.
noonespecial 16y ago
I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole. I freely acknowledge that they bear many (most?) of the characteristics of sexual assault, but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. The situation and the intent of the "perpetrator" seem inexorably tied up in it.(1) Consider how we talk about air travel already: "I got to the airport and was corralled and herded through metal gates. I was unconstitutionally interrogated by some TSA goon and then sexually assaulted at security, prodded into the cattle car and then held hostage for over an hour on the tarmac. When the flight finally took off, they fleeced us for every penny during the flight for snacks and even pillows! Its highway robbery I tell you." One of the things in the above list is a disgusting violation of our basics rights, the rest are minor inconveniences by comparison. Could an outside observer tell which one? I'm afraid that the seriousness will be lost in the other airport security theatrics, that it makes the victims sound like the crazy ones. I'm afraid that the terrorists not only won, but handed us our asses. Mostly I'm afraid of what might happen to my wife. You see, when she was very young, she was sexually assaulted.(2) I'm genuinely afraid(3) of this befalling her, of what wound it might reopen. I don't want to hear Leno joke about how the TSA fondled his balls, or how maybe they should take us to dinner and a movie first. I just want this shit to stop. I'd rather take my chances on the bomb. This is the part of a good criticism where the proposed alternative solution is supposed to go. I haven't got one. But the line of people, some who are genuinely hurt (like the author) and the many who say it with a half-smirk all calling it "sexual assault" isn't really working for me. I don't know what we should call whats going on but wrong. (1) And to be perfectly fair, the willing consent of the "victim". (2) The fact that I'm inclined to put "the real kind" right here is part of the problem I'm having with this whole thing. I don't want to be insensitive to the victims, but I just can't quite make it cohere. (3) Not the "I'm afraid for the direction our country is taking" afraid, the kind where my chest hurts and I can't breathe right afraid. Edit: I'm going to go ahead and drop this in while I've still got the edit. It seems I set up a bit of a lightning rod with the "doctor" analogy. I was not trying to argue that a TSA patdown == exam at the doctor. I was grasping for the most benign example I could think of where similar actions could take place, in order to establish the idea of a specturm (based on the intents of the actors, and the consent of the acted upon, together with circumstances) with sexual assault at one end and acceptable behavior on the other. I'm sorry if this was unclear and detracted from the argument.
credo 16y ago
The TSA policy concerns me. The only silver lining I see is that they may be responsive to the public outcry and figure out a better way to screen people. Perhaps, we should get the Israelis to train our TSA folks http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/enhanced-pat-downs.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/enhanced-pat-downs.html offers one reason to be optimistic. A number of critical comments talk about "molesting", "groping", "assault" etc. and these comments haven't been censored. The fact that the govt is permitting an open discussion may well mean that they'll take all the feedback into consideration.
- siculars 16y ago
  > The fact that the govt is permitting an open discussion We may well be on a slippery slope but I don't recall the government issuing permits for open discussions - yet. Or even a group of people needing said permit to conduct said open discussion. Although I agree with you about the Israel thing.
sliverstorm 16y ago
I am starting to wonder if perhaps there is something wrong with me, for I am not outraged as everyone else seems to be. So long as there's no groping etc going on, I'm inclined to just shrug and say to the agent, "well, you gotta do what you gotta do". I am sorry HN, but I find myself lacking the desire to board this bandwagon.
- melvinram 16y ago
  "So long as there's no groping etc going on" That is precisely the issue at hand. A woman's libia & vagina were touched in this particular case. In other accounts, various forms of fondling and groping occurred to men, women and children of various ages from 9 years (youngest stories I can recall) to senor citizens. I have a sister who needs to fly from time to time. I'm outraged at the possibility that she may have to endue this at some point. I am outraged that I may have to submit to letting someone who I don't want near me feeling me up in my private parts. Today these are happening to a select few. Tomorrow these will become common security practices. It's not an acceptable tactic.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    wait, did you just say contact = groping?
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >"well, you gotta do what you gotta do" Except they don't. This procedure is not remotely effective, it serves no purpose except to shame people into using the naked scanner (and indeed, this appears to be the point, since the "pat down" takes place in plain view of everyone). This is why you should be outraged. This is pure thuggery.
stretchwithme 16y ago
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution explicitly protects the people from unreasonable searches. "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." 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. The government has hijacked the relationship between you and the people you've hired to get you from point A to point B. Just because of previous lapses in their intelligence efforts enabled some people to do something terrible doesn't mean you lose your rights.
- jsarch 16y ago
  I looked this up the other day and came across the following on TSA.gov: "Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)]. While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening." --http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm (search for "amendment")
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gord 16y ago
In absence of a better term for this, 'Sexual Assault' does convey the emotional experience of being abused in this way. Yes, it is clearly not about sexuality, but it is a situation where there is a massive imbalance of power. Who is there to verify that your human rights are being upheld? It is not a situation in which you can complain, even if there was abuse - because you'll miss your flight and look like a terrorist. Then there is the social pressure to conform in front of a large audience of people who you will delay if you do complain. Not to mention the number of uniformed and armed guards present.
lil_cain 16y ago
I like the implication that it'd be ok if she wasn't an American citizen.
- mayutana 16y ago
  That's exactly the point that irked me. Would she find it ok, if it was done to her in say Europe.
- guelo 16y ago
  Well when you start pissing off the people that like to scream "I'm an American!" then there's a fighting chance that things can change.
- sp332 16y ago
  American citizens have a lot of protections under Constitutional and federal law. Visitors have a lot fewer protections. Her citizenship didn't make the crime, it just made it worse.
  - X-Istence 16y ago
    Not only American citizens; as a green-card holder I have almost all of the same rights, the only right I don't have is the right to vote. I have the exact same constitutional rights as everyone else, even though I am a resident alien in this country.
    - sp332 16y ago
      A citizen can't be deported for any reason, ever. And I'm sure there are other differences.
martinkallstrom 16y ago
I associate this with the previous discussion about response to bullying in school. The argument then was, should we teach our children to withstand physical abuse and report it to authorities after the fact? Or should we teach them to respond immediately as it happens and loudly, physically if need be, protest? In this case, the TSA agent obviously broke protocol. I can't see it as mandatory for the victom of the breach to stick to her part of the protocol by keeping still and silently enduring the abuse. However, it is clear that her lack of immediate response was not a concious decision. I'm very familiar with the paralysis of mind and body that occurred. As a martial arts instructor, I see this happen a lot especially in the beginner's classes. With an opponent just holding your arm or making any kind of physical contact in a fashion you're not accustomed to, your mind can very easily go blank and you fail to move at all. A lot of self defense training is directed to just overcoming the paralysis induced by fear and/or shock. It is clear that the author post-poned all reactions until after the fact. Perhaps from a legal standpoint this was the best course of action. But from a human standpoint, it is my view that the trauma incurred would have been far less damaging if she had reacted immediately to what was happening. To get to my point: for anyone that want to explore your own reactions to similar situations, it is both very affordable and illuminating to try out a few self defense or martial arts classes. Read up on what is available in your area and just try it out. With just a few classes, you can learn to react to abusive physical contact with a sharp, verbal NO!! instead of freezing into silent paralysis during the abuse and bearing the resulting trauma. You even react to verbal abuse or just plain criticism from other people in a different way if you practice martial arts. It is beneficial to everyday situations a lot less dramatic than in the post above.
- X-Istence 16y ago
  The issue is that even if she did shout NO during this whole frisking business she might have caused much more trouble.
  - martinkallstrom 16y ago
    That might be. And it might have been worth her while (IANAL)
dennisgorelik 16y ago
TSA is pushing forward sexual revolution -- there is no place for sexual shyness in the new world. If you think about it: TSA pisses off both Liberals and Conservatives now. I wonder how long would it last.
nosse 16y ago
I think this matter has been conversated enough in HN. I don't believe this subject is gratifying majority's intellectual curiosity. It might be provoking lots of feelings, but this is not Feelings News nor Moral News but Hacker News. I'm not saying anyone has been posting badly. I'm just saying that I've seen these "TSA sexual assault" twice now, and I don't think any new ideas will come along third time.
watchandwait 16y ago
America spends more than twice as much on the TSA's unconstitutional security theater than it spends on all FBI counter-terrorism activities.
jim_h 16y ago
Maybe it's be better if people stated it as they would like it to be 'stop treating us like terrorists'. That's essentially what has happened. The government has decided that everybody is a terrorist unless proven otherwise. Any high ranking official who does not believe this idea is 'supporting terrorists'. Will there be metal detectors at supermarkets if something happens at a supermarket. Would that be so strange? Some high schools already have metal detectors. Where does it end?
protomyth 16y ago
A couple of links that mention the Ohio laws: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-imposition/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-imposition/ http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/tsa-enhanced-patdown-a-form-of-sexual-assault/ http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/tsa-enhanced-pat... http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_333 http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_333 Doesn't really matter what words a person thinks are appropriate, it really matters what laws might have been violated and what the incident would be called under the law.
AngeloAnolin 16y ago
Just a thought. Fight fire with fire. Sue the TSA and all its agents who performed the perceived insanity. A thousand (or million) court proceedings speaking against this would surely give the TSA a lot of headaches, that they would actually think of implementing something better in providing security for air travel. I feel sorry for the Mom, who had to go through the ordeal and have to live with it everyday from this day forward. Though I feel more sorry for the kids who have been and who would be subjected to such grave abuse of authority.
wiredfool 16y ago
There's a Senate TSA Oversight Hearing on Wed, 11/17. http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=9ad9e372-c415-4758-805a-4b4a295ccb8b&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b2afa036-c20d-49ae-9211-b5ef8d7ea62d http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&C... Call or Write your senators, especially if they're on the committee.
gnosis 16y ago
There are a lot of smart people here who are apparently outraged at this. But I wonder if any of them are going to do anything about it other than type in this thread.
basicxman 16y ago
I commented on the blog about how she was overreacting and told her to think about how the TSA agent must have felt (having to do that several times per day). My comment got deleted.
maxawaytoolong 16y ago
I hate to admit that I was expecting the Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire theme song after her description of this event.

144 points by mfukar 16y ago

For all the understandable outrage, this seems like a genie that will be very hard to put back in the bottle. What politician is going to risk canning a security protocol when there's a not-unreasonable chance of a civilian airplane being blown up in the next few years? Who wants to be the politician that has to explain, after several hundred people died, why they canned any device or protocol which may have helped stopped the attack, however remote the likelihood? I'm not saying it's rational or appropriate, I'm saying it's politically untenable, regardless of the horror stories like the one posted. Perhaps airlines should offer 'enhanced' or 'standard' security flights, and people can choose whether they fly on a plane where everyone has pat downs or scans, or whether they don't. At least that way there would be a choice...

hyperbovine 16y ago
I cannot recall a similar issue sparking as much across-the-board outrage since the "war on terrorism" began. However taboo it may be to discuss relaxing security requirements, that may turn out to be the lesser of two political evils.
- ericd 16y ago
  I agree. I think any politician could reasonably trot out a counter to the "he took out our line of defense" with a "I stopped your kids from being x-rayed or groped by getting rid of something that would have been ineffective in stopping this attack".
siculars 16y ago
What is politically untenable are stories like these. This is an absolute nightmare.
loewenskind 16y ago
It's too late to get rid of this ridiculous security theater but it's not too late to get rid of invasive and utterly ineffective procedures that are just getting started.

jonafato 16y ago

The thing that sets this post apart from others of the same category is the fact that the author was not given a choice in the search. This is exactly what a lot of discussion around here has been about (though admittedly the opposite of the expected outcome). The fact that it was a pat down, not a pat down or a scan is new. In most situations, the TSA could claim the the pat down is a choice, but here that is obviously not possible. As for the assault claims, I am not surprised. I can't imagine TSA agents always remember to explain exactly what is going to happen. Pat downs are invasive and uncomfortable, but unexpected invasion must be much worse.

siculars 16y ago
>I can't imagine TSA agents always remember to explain exactly what is going to happen. Flight attendants are required by law to run through a pre flight safety instructional for every flight - even though we have all heard it many times. Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights. TSA agents should be very well versed in all options afforded passengers under the law and be very well capable of relaying that information to any passenger without being prompted. If the flying public is expected to be treated like terrorists you better believe I expect TSA agents to know exactly what they are doing.
- jonafato 16y ago
  I'm not saying they shouldn't be expected to follow SOP, I am saying that I'm not surprised that it doesn't always happen. By no means should this be excused. People make mistakes. It just happens to be the case that this mistake is worse than others and may result in sexual assault charges.
- rms 16y ago
  >Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights. No, they aren't. Police officers are required to read you your miranda rights in order for information from an interrogation to be admissible in court. But if they don't care about what you might say to them, there is no law that requires them to read you your rights. It isn't uncommon for rights not to be read in mass arrest situations, such as at protests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Confusion_regarding_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Confusion_regar...

ajays 16y ago

According to the TSA, http://bit.ly/b133H4 http://bit.ly/b133H4 , "there is no fondling, squeezing, groping, or any sort of sexual assault taking place at airports. You have a professional workforce carrying out procedures they were trained to perform to keep aviation security safe." Does this mean my government lying to me?? Well I'll be damned!

siculars 16y ago

I've argued that the correct way to do airline safety is the way ElAl does it. The most salient argument against that is that the ElAl system will not scale. So let me get this straight, privacy stripping full body scanners and an army of ill-trained TSA agents is a more scalable solution? The current situation is untenable. I am incredibly concerned by the latest round of rights and liberty infringing actions by the government in the name of "security". If it is not "security" it is "children". What remains to be seen is whether or not the current solution is scaleable in the face of tremendous public outcry.

defen 16y ago
The El Al system also makes heavy use of profiling, which is politically untenable in the U.S., and agents who are smart/well-trained enough to make judgment calls on the ground. TSA contractors are currently paid so little that I doubt you're ever going to get much more than bottom of the barrel in terms of motivation, intelligence, and agreeableness.
- siculars 16y ago
  Isn't this all profiling? The public is subject to taking off their shoes because the powers that be profiled a threat vector from the shoe bomber. Replace shoes with razor blades, liquids, underwear and now toner cartridges. Since when did "profiling" become a dirty word? Perhaps when "racial" joined the party. I maintain that profiling is essential to ensuring our security when implemented sanely, rationally and with appropriate oversight. How about UPS and FedEx not shipping from Yemen. The entire country! Isn't that collective punishment? If we can not expect "agents who are smart/well-trained enough to make judgment calls" to implement security to know the good guys from the bad guys then we are well and truly fucked.
ghshephard 16y ago
It should also be noted, that when ElAl does decide to do a pat down as part of their security policy, it is not gentle. I know a couple people (men) who've gone through it, and even though they knew it was a possibility, they still came out of it quite shaken - it is the equivalent of a full-on civilian police search, and bears only a passing resemblance to what the TSA is doing. The difference is, of course, the TSA is subjecting everyone who opts out of the back scatter machine to their pat-down, whereas ElAl does so only to those they find suspicious.

SkyMarshal 16y ago

I'm flying cross country in December and fully intend to opt out of the naked scanner, even if it means the 'enhanced patdown'. I liken it to Ali choosing jail over Vietnam, and other instances when people protested government coercion by intentionally choosing the worse alternative to what the govt wanted them to do. Hopefully the national outrage gets the policy changed before then, but I'm preparing to sack up and do it nonetheless.

notahacker 16y ago

Whilst it appears there was a pretty serious of protocol, the author's hysteria verges on trivialising real sexual assault.

mfukar 16y ago
Hysteria? I think it was shockingly calmly written, given the circumstance.
praptak 16y ago
Lack of consent - check (Nor even a warning, for that matter.) Touching of genitals by a stranger - check. What else needs to be there so that it constitutes real sexual assault?
- notahacker 16y ago
  Gratification? A sexual motive? Can the people downvoting me honestly not see the difference between a person performing an act of gratuitous violence on another person to satisfy their own urges and a person doing their job badly?
  - poet 16y ago
    At the minimum it is sexual battery [1] and sexual imposition [2] and it could be argued that it was gross sexual imposition [3]. Ohio doesn't even use the phrase "sexual assault" in its laws about sex offenses [4]. The point is, quibbling about terminology is silly. Any reasonable human being understands what the author of the blog post is getting at. She was touched in a sexual way without her consent, without any foreknowledge of the event, and under some duress. Whatever you want to term the event is irrelevant. [1] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.03 [2] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.06 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.06 [3] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.05 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.05 [4] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907
    - notahacker 16y ago

yakisoft 16y ago

Every day America looks a less attractive place to visit or do business with.

heretoo 16y ago
Yes, America is off my list for the moment. I guess it's a luxury not everyone can enjoy. I'm starting to worry that my own country is moving in the same direction. It's not healthy that a government has so much control over it's people. They are there to serve the people, not the other way around.
siculars 16y ago
I hate to agree with you but I do. If I were a foreigner arriving at JFK I would be inclined to turn around and not come back. I make it a point to thank every tourist I come across for visiting. I also thank Americans from other parts of the country for visiting NYC. Meeting all kinds of people from all kinds of far away places is part of the fun of living in NYC.
lastyear 16y ago
Where have you people been living? Not in my America where people are groped, fondled, struck, shackled, beaten, stripped, locked up, and worse every day. And these are innocent people guilty of no crime. This has been going every day of this woman's life. Are you living in a bubble? Is this really the first time this woman has been patted down?
AgentConundrum 16y ago
Two stories: 1) Last week I got a wedding invitation from my cousin in Connecticut (well, a "Save The Date" technically. That seems to be a purely American invention, but seems roughly comparable to a wedding invitation in my Canadian eyes). This was on the same day I found out about these new "enhanced" patdowns. 2) My dad loves NASCAR, and his birthday is in February, right around the running of the Daytona 500. For years, I've wanted to take him there for his birthday. It's a whole week of different races, and I'm sure he'd love it. It appears I've waited too long / didn't get the money in time. Two scenarios where I'd really like to visit the States, mostly for my dad. With these new "security" measures in place, however, there is no way I'm going to subject myself to such an ordeal just for a vacation. It might not necessarily be the sexual assault some people claim, but if my only option is to be either photographed nude or have some agent grabbing my junk, I'd rather just stay home.

noonespecial 16y ago

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole. I freely acknowledge that they bear many (most?) of the characteristics of sexual assault, but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. The situation and the intent of the "perpetrator" seem inexorably tied up in it.(1) Consider how we talk about air travel already: "I got to the airport and was corralled and herded through metal gates. I was unconstitutionally interrogated by some TSA goon and then sexually assaulted at security, prodded into the cattle car and then held hostage for over an hour on the tarmac. When the flight finally took off, they fleeced us for every penny during the flight for snacks and even pillows! Its highway robbery I tell you." One of the things in the above list is a disgusting violation of our basics rights, the rest are minor inconveniences by comparison. Could an outside observer tell which one? I'm afraid that the seriousness will be lost in the other airport security theatrics, that it makes the victims sound like the crazy ones. I'm afraid that the terrorists not only won, but handed us our asses. Mostly I'm afraid of what might happen to my wife. You see, when she was very young, she was sexually assaulted.(2) I'm genuinely afraid(3) of this befalling her, of what wound it might reopen. I don't want to hear Leno joke about how the TSA fondled his balls, or how maybe they should take us to dinner and a movie first. I just want this shit to stop. I'd rather take my chances on the bomb. This is the part of a good criticism where the proposed alternative solution is supposed to go. I haven't got one. But the line of people, some who are genuinely hurt (like the author) and the many who say it with a half-smirk all calling it "sexual assault" isn't really working for me. I don't know what we should call whats going on but wrong. (1) And to be perfectly fair, the willing consent of the "victim". (2) The fact that I'm inclined to put "the real kind" right here is part of the problem I'm having with this whole thing. I don't want to be insensitive to the victims, but I just can't quite make it cohere. (3) Not the "I'm afraid for the direction our country is taking" afraid, the kind where my chest hurts and I can't breathe right afraid. Edit: I'm going to go ahead and drop this in while I've still got the edit. It seems I set up a bit of a lightning rod with the "doctor" analogy. I was not trying to argue that a TSA patdown == exam at the doctor. I was grasping for the most benign example I could think of where similar actions could take place, in order to establish the idea of a specturm (based on the intents of the actors, and the consent of the acted upon, together with circumstances) with sexual assault at one end and acceptable behavior on the other. I'm sorry if this was unclear and detracted from the argument.

credo 16y ago

The TSA policy concerns me. The only silver lining I see is that they may be responsive to the public outcry and figure out a better way to screen people. Perhaps, we should get the Israelis to train our TSA folks http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/enhanced-pat-downs.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/enhanced-pat-downs.html offers one reason to be optimistic. A number of critical comments talk about "molesting", "groping", "assault" etc. and these comments haven't been censored. The fact that the govt is permitting an open discussion may well mean that they'll take all the feedback into consideration.

siculars 16y ago
> The fact that the govt is permitting an open discussion We may well be on a slippery slope but I don't recall the government issuing permits for open discussions - yet. Or even a group of people needing said permit to conduct said open discussion. Although I agree with you about the Israel thing.

sliverstorm 16y ago

I am starting to wonder if perhaps there is something wrong with me, for I am not outraged as everyone else seems to be. So long as there's no groping etc going on, I'm inclined to just shrug and say to the agent, "well, you gotta do what you gotta do". I am sorry HN, but I find myself lacking the desire to board this bandwagon.

melvinram 16y ago
"So long as there's no groping etc going on" That is precisely the issue at hand. A woman's libia & vagina were touched in this particular case. In other accounts, various forms of fondling and groping occurred to men, women and children of various ages from 9 years (youngest stories I can recall) to senor citizens. I have a sister who needs to fly from time to time. I'm outraged at the possibility that she may have to endue this at some point. I am outraged that I may have to submit to letting someone who I don't want near me feeling me up in my private parts. Today these are happening to a select few. Tomorrow these will become common security practices. It's not an acceptable tactic.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  wait, did you just say contact = groping?
loewenskind 16y ago
>"well, you gotta do what you gotta do" Except they don't. This procedure is not remotely effective, it serves no purpose except to shame people into using the naked scanner (and indeed, this appears to be the point, since the "pat down" takes place in plain view of everyone). This is why you should be outraged. This is pure thuggery.

stretchwithme 16y ago

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution explicitly protects the people from unreasonable searches. "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." 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. The government has hijacked the relationship between you and the people you've hired to get you from point A to point B. Just because of previous lapses in their intelligence efforts enabled some people to do something terrible doesn't mean you lose your rights.

jsarch 16y ago
I looked this up the other day and came across the following on TSA.gov: "Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)]. While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening." --http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm (search for "amendment")
- stretchwithme 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

gord 16y ago

In absence of a better term for this, 'Sexual Assault' does convey the emotional experience of being abused in this way. Yes, it is clearly not about sexuality, but it is a situation where there is a massive imbalance of power. Who is there to verify that your human rights are being upheld? It is not a situation in which you can complain, even if there was abuse - because you'll miss your flight and look like a terrorist. Then there is the social pressure to conform in front of a large audience of people who you will delay if you do complain. Not to mention the number of uniformed and armed guards present.

lil_cain 16y ago

I like the implication that it'd be ok if she wasn't an American citizen.

mayutana 16y ago
That's exactly the point that irked me. Would she find it ok, if it was done to her in say Europe.
guelo 16y ago
Well when you start pissing off the people that like to scream "I'm an American!" then there's a fighting chance that things can change.
sp332 16y ago
American citizens have a lot of protections under Constitutional and federal law. Visitors have a lot fewer protections. Her citizenship didn't make the crime, it just made it worse.
- X-Istence 16y ago
  Not only American citizens; as a green-card holder I have almost all of the same rights, the only right I don't have is the right to vote. I have the exact same constitutional rights as everyone else, even though I am a resident alien in this country.
  - sp332 16y ago
    A citizen can't be deported for any reason, ever. And I'm sure there are other differences.

martinkallstrom 16y ago

I associate this with the previous discussion about response to bullying in school. The argument then was, should we teach our children to withstand physical abuse and report it to authorities after the fact? Or should we teach them to respond immediately as it happens and loudly, physically if need be, protest? In this case, the TSA agent obviously broke protocol. I can't see it as mandatory for the victom of the breach to stick to her part of the protocol by keeping still and silently enduring the abuse. However, it is clear that her lack of immediate response was not a concious decision. I'm very familiar with the paralysis of mind and body that occurred. As a martial arts instructor, I see this happen a lot especially in the beginner's classes. With an opponent just holding your arm or making any kind of physical contact in a fashion you're not accustomed to, your mind can very easily go blank and you fail to move at all. A lot of self defense training is directed to just overcoming the paralysis induced by fear and/or shock. It is clear that the author post-poned all reactions until after the fact. Perhaps from a legal standpoint this was the best course of action. But from a human standpoint, it is my view that the trauma incurred would have been far less damaging if she had reacted immediately to what was happening. To get to my point: for anyone that want to explore your own reactions to similar situations, it is both very affordable and illuminating to try out a few self defense or martial arts classes. Read up on what is available in your area and just try it out. With just a few classes, you can learn to react to abusive physical contact with a sharp, verbal NO!! instead of freezing into silent paralysis during the abuse and bearing the resulting trauma. You even react to verbal abuse or just plain criticism from other people in a different way if you practice martial arts. It is beneficial to everyday situations a lot less dramatic than in the post above.

X-Istence 16y ago
The issue is that even if she did shout NO during this whole frisking business she might have caused much more trouble.
- martinkallstrom 16y ago
  That might be. And it might have been worth her while (IANAL)

dennisgorelik 16y ago

TSA is pushing forward sexual revolution -- there is no place for sexual shyness in the new world. If you think about it: TSA pisses off both Liberals and Conservatives now. I wonder how long would it last.

nosse 16y ago

I think this matter has been conversated enough in HN. I don't believe this subject is gratifying majority's intellectual curiosity. It might be provoking lots of feelings, but this is not Feelings News nor Moral News but Hacker News. I'm not saying anyone has been posting badly. I'm just saying that I've seen these "TSA sexual assault" twice now, and I don't think any new ideas will come along third time.

watchandwait 16y ago

America spends more than twice as much on the TSA's unconstitutional security theater than it spends on all FBI counter-terrorism activities.

jim_h 16y ago

Maybe it's be better if people stated it as they would like it to be 'stop treating us like terrorists'. That's essentially what has happened. The government has decided that everybody is a terrorist unless proven otherwise. Any high ranking official who does not believe this idea is 'supporting terrorists'. Will there be metal detectors at supermarkets if something happens at a supermarket. Would that be so strange? Some high schools already have metal detectors. Where does it end?

protomyth 16y ago

A couple of links that mention the Ohio laws: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-imposition/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-imposition/ http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/tsa-enhanced-patdown-a-form-of-sexual-assault/ http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/tsa-enhanced-pat... http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_333 http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_333 Doesn't really matter what words a person thinks are appropriate, it really matters what laws might have been violated and what the incident would be called under the law.

AngeloAnolin 16y ago

Just a thought. Fight fire with fire. Sue the TSA and all its agents who performed the perceived insanity. A thousand (or million) court proceedings speaking against this would surely give the TSA a lot of headaches, that they would actually think of implementing something better in providing security for air travel. I feel sorry for the Mom, who had to go through the ordeal and have to live with it everyday from this day forward. Though I feel more sorry for the kids who have been and who would be subjected to such grave abuse of authority.

wiredfool 16y ago

There's a Senate TSA Oversight Hearing on Wed, 11/17. http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=9ad9e372-c415-4758-805a-4b4a295ccb8b&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b2afa036-c20d-49ae-9211-b5ef8d7ea62d http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&C... Call or Write your senators, especially if they're on the committee.

gnosis 16y ago

There are a lot of smart people here who are apparently outraged at this. But I wonder if any of them are going to do anything about it other than type in this thread.

basicxman 16y ago

I commented on the blog about how she was overreacting and told her to think about how the TSA agent must have felt (having to do that several times per day). My comment got deleted.

maxawaytoolong 16y ago

I hate to admit that I was expecting the Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire theme song after her description of this event.