TSA encounter at SAN

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

by icey • 16 years ago

277 158 16 years ago

johnnyedge.blogspot.com

maukdaddy• 16 years 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.

jarin4• 16 years 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• 16 years ago

Judging from the audio, his tone doesn't seem to be mean or arrogant.

ghshephard2• 16 years 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.

pyre3• 16 years 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).

chacha1024• 16 years 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-...

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...

noodle3• 16 years 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.

_ouxp• 16 years 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.

gnaritas4• 16 years 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.

mkramlich10• 16 years 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.

axod• 16 years 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'.

mkramlich10• 16 years 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.

mkramlich10• 16 years ago

I'm sorry you're being penalized by the groupthink here. You're not alone though.

dpatru2• 16 years 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.

jarin4• 16 years ago

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

jseifer• 16 years 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• 16 years ago

It's not the naked pictures, it's the being microwaved. If the machine is improperly calibrated, you'd be cooked.

sage_joch2• 16 years 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.

pyre3• 16 years ago

But "Everything Changed After 9/11" so it's ok.

techbio2• 16 years ago

The frog will jump out when the temperature gets up there.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

sage_joch2• 16 years ago

Well the temperature is getting pretty uncomfortable; let's hope we start jumping.

acabal• 16 years 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.

jarin4• 16 years 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.

noodle3• 16 years 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?

pyre3• 16 years ago

You could always inquire with the airline.

hfinney5• 16 years 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.

rdtsc3• 16 years ago

The bigger problem, I think, is ending up on some black list.

So next time you want to fly and don't choose to participate in the "enhanced" version of the security theater, you might find yourself pulled out of the line "randomly" every single damn time.

Also there is no way to get off the black list, possibly ever. That is a pretty high price to pay.

random422• 16 years ago

But the problem for me, and for many other people I'd imagine, is that when I'm at an airport, chances are I've paid a very large amount of money to be at a certain place at a certain time for what is probably an important reason

Freedom does not come cheap.

Lewisham5• 16 years ago

I feel the same way. As a non-US citizen, I essentially have zero rights when it comes to many things in this country, and probably can look forward to seeing the inside of a cell if I tried asserting any peaceful disobedience at an airport (not to mention say goodbye to any chance of citizenship).

It does seem, however, that the dam is about to break on the TSA. The number of stories I see on the net seems to show dissent skyrocketing, although I admit this is a limited sample.

Silhouette3• 16 years ago

> It does seem, however, that the dam is about to break on the TSA. The number of stories I see on the net seems to show dissent skyrocketing, although I admit this is a limited sample.

The trouble is, increasing dissent by 100x still doesn't make much of a dent if it just means 99.9% of people are willing to be abused instead of the 99.999% it was before. From the comments by security staff typically quoted in these articles, it sounds like almost everyone sucks it up in practice, whether because they don't care or because they're too worried about not being able to make an important journey to protest the point.

ugh3• 16 years ago

What I always wanted to know is whether non-US citizens (tourists, people with a visa) can opt out. The TSA website doesn’t seem to make any distinctions, it just says “imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers.“ [0]

[0] http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm

poet4• 16 years ago

Imagine how difficult it would be if you had to fight for your liberties in the first place. Consider situations like these the cost of maintenance. If you don't have the financial means to bear risk like this man did, there are certainly other ways to participate like calling your representatives and writing letters.

mseebach• 16 years ago

Get the cheapest fare you can get out of your local airport to where-ever. Go there, do this, go home. If you make it through, just don't get on the flight.

Be nice to the airline though, they're not a fault (in this issue, at least). Get there early, let them know (afterwards) that you're not flying. Don't trouble them with a refund. Keep in mind that you're probably violating the T&Cs by not intending to get on the flight.

imajes• 16 years ago

there's a real risk if you do this that you'll end up on the no fly. at least take a flight someplace, earn some miles and come back. Otherwise you may be seen to be performing surveillance, and that can land you in hot water.

napierzaza2• 16 years ago

That's tricky because there's a big possibility you won't even go through the backscatter. So anyone wanting to do this is not guaranteed to get their chance. Unless you have a printer toner cartridge with you. Fight on.

philwelch3• 16 years ago

In all the TSA discussions on Hacker News, people seem to have settled on a procedure which is maximally inconvenient for the TSA but should still allow you to catch your flight: opt out of the backscatter scanning, request a supervisor to be present during the pat down to make sure you're not sexually abused, and make sure they do the pat down in the public screening area rather than a private room. You do get groped, but it makes an impression on the other travelers, slows down the system, and makes the groping agent uncomfortable, which are all positive outcomes in terms of protesting the system.

ams6110• 16 years ago

The notion that a TSA pat-down is in any way, shape, or form equivalent to "sexual abuse" is an insult to anyone who has been a victim of the real thing.

jrockway5• 16 years ago

Donate to the ACLU so that when someone who does have the means to do something like this and gets taken to court, they get the legal help they need to win.

You don't have to be an activist to take action.

marze5• 16 years 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.

poet4• 16 years 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/

scott_s• 16 years 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."

hfinney5• 16 years 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.

jarin4• 16 years ago

Doesn't the "reasonable expectation of privacy" rule apply in this case?

poet4• 16 years 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.

steveklabnik2• 16 years ago

This has been a huge brouhaha lately. Most rational people would agree that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, but the courts haven't actually ruled that way. See this guy's story for more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ&feature=playe...

dotBen7• 16 years ago

You're not allowed to film the TSA security check point at all. If TSA wants to take a hard line against the people opt-ing out of the back-scatter checks, then with these videos they can probably make a 'good' case to pursue the civil charges + $10k fine to make an example out of him.

EDIT: you are not allowed to film at TSA check points because of airport policy, not because the TSA policy. for San Diego see:

http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...

I'm not aware of any major airport that allows filming in screening areas, which is the point I'm trying to make.

chacha1024• 16 years ago

Not only does the TSA website specifically state otherwise, there is no example to be made out of him because he didn't do anything wrong.

donohoe2• 16 years ago

Incorrect - it's usually airport policies that prohibit this though

wakkow• 16 years ago

'Phil' contacted 50 airport to see what their policies are:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/938543...

Some allow it but I'm pretty sure none (or close to none allowed) photographing the xray monitors.

chacha1024• 16 years ago

The audio/video recordings are only protect if the conversation taking placed is viewed as private. It is perfectly fine to record audio/video of something in a public place, especially if it is obvious you are recording it. This is why CCTV and TV camera crews don't have to get your permission to video tape you.

See this TSA webpage:

TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/taking_pictures.shtm

After that paragraph it does state that certain local laws may prohibit you from taping it, my above point about privacy comes into play here.

dotBen7• 16 years ago

San Diego says you can't film anywhere in the airport, and goes on to make specific points on xray/security areas:

http://www.san.org/documents/corp_serv/Codes/Article%207/Cod...

Which makes trying to protect your civil rights during a pat-down even harder.

hardik9882• 16 years 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.

steveklabnik2• 16 years 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...

jemfinch2• 16 years 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.

koenigdavidmj• 16 years 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.

Vivtek3• 16 years ago

The Democrats will lose the next election.

Yet somehow, they never manage to do enough right to win more than one in a row.

Lewisham5• 16 years ago

It not necessarily illegal... it's unchallenged in the court system as to whether it is legal or not.

Obama has, for the most part, turned a blind eye to much of the Bush-era paranoia. A lot of what was introduced is, I suppose, "convenient" to have around (like the PATRIOT Act). The only real thing that seems to have changed is closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and trying detainees there in American courts, and that isn't going very well either.

hardik9882• 16 years ago

But is there no law that outlaws groping. I understand that the passenger has to provide consent, but he/she is not exactly in a positive or healthy frame of mind about it. Like the other day I read about a rape victim going through emotional trauma when subjected to the pat-down. Aren't a collection of such incidents, along with medical reports and/or proofs enough to at least warrant challenging the existing law?

dantheman• 16 years ago

Obama's policies have always been in line with bush, he voted for the patriot act extension (2006). As for Guantanamo & civil trials it's complete bullshit -- he's protecting people who should be tried for serious crimes, which makes him just as guilt. As for the civil trials, even if found not guilty the position of the obama administration is that they will not allowed to leave prison.

lolwtfomg• 16 years ago

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

dotBen7• 16 years 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.

barrkel2• 16 years 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.

donohoe2• 16 years 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• 16 years ago

Inalienable rights. I can't consent to give them away.

kyro• 16 years 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.

burgerbrain• 16 years 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.

techbio2• 16 years ago

That, and bottled water in the gift shop will cost you 8 times the equivalent volume of gasoline.

fshaun• 16 years 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.

andolanra• 16 years 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.

sukuriant• 16 years ago

But would it do anything? Would the backscatter machine even see anything? What about something up the rectum. Knowing of these machines, terrorists will just find another place to stash the gear. If the backscatter machine doesn't protect against that, then what good is it, really? And, is that good sufficient for the invasion of privacy and health concerns?

I say it isn't.

mkramlich10• 16 years ago

Great, thanks for sharing that idea. Next they won't allow testicles on the plane. :)

duffbeer703• 16 years ago

Another under-appreciated attack vector is flatulence. Load up at the airport Taco Bell and you could easily light a fart that could set guy next to you on fire.

Cyndre• 16 years ago

or instead of cherry bombs why not some form of plastic explosive. The guys a suicide bomber - Someone convinced him of that and someone will convince him of this.

Or a step further and why not in the stomach cavity. Soon you will be getting full x-rays just to get on a plane.

bpm140• 16 years 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-...

(2) DEN has the machine and I fly out every week or two, so I'm sure I'll be reporting back shortly.

marze5• 16 years 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)

philwelch3• 16 years 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".

mkramlich10• 16 years 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• 16 years 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.

tallanvor• 16 years ago

You do realize that we are human being too, right? Those of us who feel that our rights are being violated by having to choose between going through a machine that creates a fairly explicit photo of us (and one which we don't know who sees, if the image is being stored, or if it could end up online or being passed around) or being groped have our day ruined every time we have to go through that.

I'm not going to feel bad for fighting back against people who are trying to do something wrong, and neither should anyone else.

ja27• 16 years ago

I'm wondering if I can request / demand that an opposite-sex TSA agent perform the pat-down.

epo2• 16 years ago

Bet they'd be even rougher.

blahblahblah• 16 years ago

Don't be shy. If you want a Happy Ending with your nut massage, just ask the TSA agent for one. ;-)

Also, common courtesy dictates that you should at least offer a reach-around. http://www.moviesounds.com/fmj/cowboy.wav

vaksel• 16 years ago

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

jrockway5• 16 years ago

I would imagine that it's not.

icey• 16 years 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• 16 years 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).

ghshephard2• 16 years 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.

random422• 16 years ago

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

jrockway5• 16 years ago

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

wrs2• 16 years 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/

Silhouette3• 16 years 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.

hfinney5• 16 years 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.

marze5• 16 years 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/

Folks experiences are consistent.

epo2• 16 years 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• 16 years ago

Or maybe getting paid to watch a video feed of naked children?

marze5• 16 years 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• 16 years 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?

rdtsc3• 16 years 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• 16 years 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.

jemfinch2• 16 years ago

"Rosa Parks would be proud" indeed.

runningdogx• 16 years 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.

mkramlich10• 16 years 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• 16 years 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• 16 years 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.

hfinney5• 16 years ago

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

jrockway5• 16 years 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.

hfinney5• 16 years 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

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• 16 years 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• 16 years 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• 16 years 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• 16 years 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?

TSA encounter at SAN

Related Stories