TSA idiots cause diplomatic incident

[Simon_Jester]

Aha. Okay, I was wondering if Simon Jester had wandered into rhetorical silliness all of a sudden, that makes more sense.

Yes, that's my point. Internal oversight is not oversight in a real sense, because it will not and cannot reliably catch a systematic problem with the agency. At best it catches individuals who violate policies the entire TSA sets, but it does nothing to stop the TSA leadership from becoming a loose cannon.

Who's doing a rational cost/benefit analysis on the TSA? How do we check their reasoning? They're a taxpayer-funded agency; they have to have some path by which they can be held accountable for their actions to the public.

[Thanas]

The TSA agents are well known for taking laptops, cellphones and laptop data from defence attorneys, so what makes anybody here think they care about stuff like immunity? Heck, I know of one case where they took the entire laptop of an attorney and if the guy did not have backups, he would have lost the entire work on several cases.

There is seriously something wrong in a nation where one government agency can decide to confiscate and search whatever they want. And while I am sure that there is a line between the police and thuggery, the line between the TSA and the latter seems to be very much in doubt.

[Alyeska]

The TSA agents are well known for taking laptops, cellphones and laptop data from defence attorneys, so what makes anybody here think they care about stuff like immunity? Heck, I know of one case where they took the entire laptop of an attorney and if the guy did not have backups, he would have lost the entire work on several cases.

There is seriously something wrong in a nation where one government agency can decide to confiscate and search whatever they want. And while I am sure that there is a line between the police and thuggery, the line between the TSA and the latter seems to be very much in doubt.

Customs can do that. But it is my understanding TSA has absolutely no authority to do that for internal border flights. Do you have some links? Just want to read up on the examples.

[Thanas]

Upon checking, it seems more likely that some wires got crossed in the translation and that it was customs. I'll therefore drop that specific matter, with apologies.

Though I maintain the rest about the TSA and their behaviour.

[General Zod]

The TSA agents are well known for taking laptops, cellphones and laptop data from defence attorneys, so what makes anybody here think they care about stuff like immunity? Heck, I know of one case where they took the entire laptop of an attorney and if the guy did not have backups, he would have lost the entire work on several cases.

There is seriously something wrong in a nation where one government agency can decide to confiscate and search whatever they want. And while I am sure that there is a line between the police and thuggery, the line between the TSA and the latter seems to be very much in doubt.

Customs can do that. But it is my understanding TSA has absolutely no authority to do that for internal border flights. Do you have some links? Just want to read up on the examples.

Besides, it's the TSA baggage screeners that you have to worry about stealing your stuff.

[Molyneux]

I would like to note that "enhanced security pat-down" is the worst kind of weasel word. The correct term is "sexual harassment".

[Kamakazie Sith]

I would like to note that "enhanced security pat-down" is the worst kind of weasel word. The correct term is "sexual harassment".

Why? I can tell you from my experience that people do hide dangerous objects near their genital area and sometimes even inside. So, why is it sexual harassment. Do you even know what that is?

[Alyeska]

I would like to note that "enhanced security pat-down" is the worst kind of weasel word. The correct term is "sexual harassment".

Why? I can tell you from my experience that people do hide dangerous objects near their genital area and sometimes even inside. So, why is it sexual harassment. Do you even know what that is?

Because the TSA itself admitted the pat down procedures were designed to be deliberately humiliating just to convince travelers to opt to use the machine instead.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would like to note that "enhanced security pat-down" is the worst kind of weasel word. The correct term is "sexual harassment".

Why? I can tell you from my experience that people do hide dangerous objects near their genital area and sometimes even inside. So, why is it sexual harassment. Do you even know what that is?

Also: when a police officer is allowed to search one of those areas there are two things that justify it

1) The person is arrested, and being put into a cell

2) There is a decent probability that the person being searched in that way actually IS carrying a weapon inside their vagina etc

In the case of the TSA, they have no such actual suspicion during a random check. Would you be OK with random stop and strip-searches on the street in exchange for being able to drive? Afterall it is more likely that someone is carrying a weapon around on a street with the intention of killing someone than it is for them to be carrying a weapon on a plane.

This brings us to the issue of implied consent. A person who is flying, according to you, consents to such a search. However for someone who's job depends on travel, or for whom it would be severely impractical to drive or take a train, they dont have much choice.

The reason chemical tests on road systems are justified is because they have a high probability of detecting drunk drivers, and are done at times and areas where drunk driving is likely. Such as new years eve.

Let us subject this to a utilitarian analysis.

Benefits:Increased sense of security, perhaps. Politicians get to say that Something Is Being Done. However the actual probability of stopping a determined terrorist is low, as testing has shown. In fact, the passengers on the plane are more likely to stop said terrorist than the screening is.

Costs: 1 in 4 women who go through these enhanced pat downs are rape victims. You know the stats as well as I do, and TSA goons have been known to search women using male agents. People with prosthetic devices, reconstructed bones, or other medical assists are required to submit themselves to humiliating searches, which often compromise their equipment, if the TSA lets them fly at all (which for those with extensive bone reconstruction using metal pins, rods etc... well they cant remove the leg for examination, so they are not allowed to fly at all). We have damaged our relationship with friendly nations, increased wait times in airports, and increased the cost of security.

None of this bull is justified, and you damn well know it. Because it is completely unjustified, it is nothing more than legalized sexual assault.

[Phantasee]

Is that statistic "1 in 4 women are rape victims" or "1 in 4 women are victims of sexual assault of all kinds"?

[Gil Hamilton]

Why? I can tell you from my experience that people do hide dangerous objects near their genital area and sometimes even inside. So, why is it sexual harassment. Do you even know what that is?

According to Arizona state law:

"Sexual abuse":

A person commits sexual abuse by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person who is fifteen or more years of age without consent of that person or with any person who is under fifteen years of age if the sexual contact involves only the female breast.

With the relevant definitions being:

"Sexual contact" means any direct or indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus or female breast by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact.

and

5. "Without consent" includes any of the following:
(a) The victim is coerced by the immediate use or threatened use of force against a person or property.
(b) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental disorder, mental defect, drugs, alcohol, sleep or any other similar impairment of cognition and such condition is known or should have reasonably been known to the defendant. For purposes of this subdivision, "mental defect" means the victim is unable to comprehend the distinctively sexual nature of the conduct or is incapable of understanding or exercising the right to refuse to engage in the conduct with another.
(c) The victim is intentionally deceived as to the nature of the act.
(d) The victim is intentionally deceived to erroneously believe that the person is the victim's spouse.

Furthermore, the yardstick that is often used to measure when such things have occurred in the perception of the victim. If the victim feels that they have not given consent and is of a sexual nature as described, then it is sexual abuse. Even if the victim agrees to be pat down, if the victim feels the person has gone too far and they were deceived as to the nature of the search. then it is still sexual abuse. If that isn't sexual abuse under my state's law, then it is damn close to the point that the "enhanced pat down" and "sexual abuse" are indistinguishable in action.

You could argue "It's his job", but how can that be a defense? Any person who is legitimately sexually abused by a TSA guard suddenly can't defend themselves. After all, the TSA guard can merely say that he was just doing his job and that the person was being overly sensitive and witnesses to the event have no means of distinguishing the difference. Are you really comfortable to subjecting thousands of American citizens a day to potential sexual abuse to which they have no legal recourse or defense, because the attacker can merely claim he was merely doing his job?

I'm not. My fiance has to fly back home to PA soon without me, and it really bugs me that I'm not going to be at the security check point with her in case the TSA goons decide she's a candidate for an "enhanced pat down". But, hey, if she gets assaulted by one of those goons, he's just doing his job, keeping American citizens safe, right?

[Lonestar]

Upon checking, it seems more likely that some wires got crossed in the translation and that it was customs. I'll therefore drop that specific matter, with apologies.

Though I maintain the rest about the TSA and their behaviour.

Lemme tell you about those fuckers in TSA:

The contract I'm on we support a facility at Not-Nellis-or-cheech in Nevada and because that particular circuit dates back to the Nixon Administration you need various arcane esoteric equipment that just to troubleshoot the thing, even though we are nominally responsible for the VPN not the circuit itself. So we have a situation where one of my coworkers is told on a Monday that he needs to be there Tuesday Morning because the circuit went down, he gets his giant industrial-strength plastic rolling luggage to cram the equipment in there(none of the tech equipment is actually classified, just in various states of "shouldn't this be in a flea market?"), buys his plane ticket for that afternoon, checks his luggage, gets out there sometine around 0100 Tuesday morning...

...and as he lifts his luggage from the conveyor belt he notices that the normally 50lbs+ equipment suitcase is completely empty.

That's right, someone cracked it open and stole all the equipment. When he complained he was told that unless he had evidence that the equipment was actually in there(and no, the HEAVY-TWO MAN LIFT tag the airline had put on it didn't count) they weren't even going to entertain looking into it. Holy Fuck. Man I would have loved to been a fly on that wall as various 3-letter agencies screamed at each other. We had to box up and send out same-day DCS(and isn't that a miracle worthy of Jesus) to get replacement stuff out there.

Oh yeah, and then there was everytime I was couriering something and they couldn't look inside/x-ray my box/courier bag, tried to intimidate me to let some dumbfuck go poking around classified material, eventually calling over the one TSA guy who looks marginally competent(they issue him a rifle and everything) who confirms that yes, as the individual has this letter and a courier card you can't go ripping it open.

And of course it always ended up with me and my personal stuff getting "enhanced screening", but whatever. Fuck.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Is that statistic "1 in 4 women are rape victims" or "1 in 4 women are victims of sexual assault of all kinds"?

Sexual assault of some kind, though most of that is some variety of rape, be it rape at knife point, date rape, or forced sodomy.

[Thanas]

Lemme tell you about those fuckers in TSA:
*snip*

Yeah, I can't top that, but once I was screened three times in the same airport. And of course, there was the case of my documents getting ripped and mangled by that one idiot...

[Mr Bean]

I've never once been secondary screened despite... oh 51 flights or so (Twice a year when I was younger and several times a year in the Navy) but then I've not flown in three years now so it could be a simple case of me missing the more and more insane things the TSA has been doing. They have regularly lost my luggage but it was only once that they lost it lost it. Lonestar's story does not surprise me however since my good friend PO2 Roberts flew back with me on the same trip from Okinawa and arrived with empty an suitcase since someone decided they really needed his naval uniforms and spare boots which was all that was in the suitcase.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because the TSA itself admitted the pat down procedures were designed to be deliberately humiliating just to convince travelers to opt to use the machine instead.

Holy shit. Do you have a link to that?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also: when a police officer is allowed to search one of those areas there are two things that justify it

1) The person is arrested, and being put into a cell

2) There is a decent probability that the person being searched in that way actually IS carrying a weapon inside their vagina etc

In the case of the TSA, they have no such actual suspicion during a random check. Would you be OK with random stop and strip-searches on the street in exchange for being able to drive? Afterall it is more likely that someone is carrying a weapon around on a street with the intention of killing someone than it is for them to be carrying a weapon on a plane.

This brings us to the issue of implied consent. A person who is flying, according to you, consents to such a search. However for someone who's job depends on travel, or for whom it would be severely impractical to drive or take a train, they dont have much choice.

The reason chemical tests on road systems are justified is because they have a high probability of detecting drunk drivers, and are done at times and areas where drunk driving is likely. Such as new years eve.

Let us subject this to a utilitarian analysis.

Benefits:Increased sense of security, perhaps. Politicians get to say that Something Is Being Done. However the actual probability of stopping a determined terrorist is low, as testing has shown. In fact, the passengers on the plane are more likely to stop said terrorist than the screening is.

All good points. I'd say the TSA security policy is simply so that if something happens the politicians can say "We tried".

Costs: 1 in 4 women who go through these enhanced pat downs are rape victims. You know the stats as well as I do, and TSA goons have been known to search women using male agents. People with prosthetic devices, reconstructed bones, or other medical assists are required to submit themselves to humiliating searches, which often compromise their equipment, if the TSA lets them fly at all (which for those with extensive bone reconstruction using metal pins, rods etc... well they cant remove the leg for examination, so they are not allowed to fly at all). We have damaged our relationship with friendly nations, increased wait times in airports, and increased the cost of security.

None of this bull is justified, and you damn well know it. Because it is completely unjustified, it is nothing more than legalized sexual assault.

I'd say the way they are executing this security is unjustifiable. The security itself is justified. The security needs to be more consistent with clear guidelines and policies. The government is in a bad position when it comes to airline security. You have the potential for a huge loss of life and property damage if you fail. The problem is the US government is pretty much experts and jumping from one extreme to the other and appears to be unable to find a rational solution.

[General Zod]

I'd say the way they are executing this security is unjustifiable. The security itself is justified. The security needs to be more consistent with clear guidelines and policies. The government is in a bad position when it comes to airline security. You have the potential for a huge loss of life and property damage if you fail. The problem is the US government is pretty much experts and jumping from one extreme to the other and appears to be unable to find a rational solution.

How is the security itself justified when they routinely miss all sorts of shit? Including 12" razor blades? Making air travel 100% safe is unrealistic. Hell, I got waved through security at Vegas airport last week with nothing more than a metal detector scan and sending my luggage through the scanner, while I saw some elderly woman getting the full groping treatment in the next line.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Furthermore, the yardstick that is often used to measure when such things have occurred in the perception of the victim. If the victim feels that they have not given consent and is of a sexual nature as described, then it is sexual abuse. Even if the victim agrees to be pat down, if the victim feels the person has gone too far and they were deceived as to the nature of the search. then it is still sexual abuse. If that isn't sexual abuse under my state's law, then it is damn close to the point that the "enhanced pat down" and "sexual abuse" are indistinguishable in action.

You could argue "It's his job", but how can that be a defense? Any person who is legitimately sexually abused by a TSA guard suddenly can't defend themselves. After all, the TSA guard can merely say that he was just doing his job and that the person was being overly sensitive and witnesses to the event have no means of distinguishing the difference. Are you really comfortable to subjecting thousands of American citizens a day to potential sexual abuse to which they have no legal recourse or defense, because the attacker can merely claim he was merely doing his job?

It's a tough question. I don't disagree with the complaints about the TSA here. In fact, I do think they are out of control and need to be properly trained and monitored. However, the questions get a lot tougher if after a disaster someone is able to go through your security with a fine tooth comb and point out perceived weaknesses and attribute those weaknesses as partially responsible for their loved one being dead. I do disagree with those that find these methods intentionally malicious and that the people executing them are also malicious. The way some of you are talking it is like you think most TSA agent are sexual offenders.

I'm not. My fiance has to fly back home to PA soon without me, and it really bugs me that I'm not going to be at the security check point with her in case the TSA goons decide she's a candidate for an "enhanced pat down". But, hey, if she gets assaulted by one of those goons, he's just doing his job, keeping American citizens safe, right?

Ahh that's sarcasm there! Well played, sir.

[Kamakazie Sith]

How is the security itself justified when they routinely miss all sorts of shit? Including 12" razor blades? Making air travel 100% safe is unrealistic. Hell, I got waved through security at Vegas airport last week with nothing more than a metal detector scan and sending my luggage through the scanner, while I saw some elderly woman getting the full groping treatment in the next line.

Indeed, it is unrealistic to make air travel 100% safe. Prior to 9/11 it was obviously seriously inadequate. Is it better now? Doesn't seem like it. What would you have them do instead that wouldn't cost people their jobs and the government millions of dollars in settlements if another terrorist attack took place. Right now, the government can say. We're doing everything we can do. So, what's your solution that doesn't leave the government open to lots of law suits?

...of course, we could always do the reasonable thing and stop blaming other people for the actions of others. That's my vote.

[Molyneux]

The way some of you are talking it is like you think most TSA agent are sexual offenders.

What I'm saying is that "sex offender" is, as the situation stands, part of the TSA agent job description, yes. For exactly the reasons mentioned above.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's a tough question. I don't disagree with the complaints about the TSA here. In fact, I do think they are out of control and need to be properly trained and monitored. However, the questions get a lot tougher if after a disaster someone is able to go through your security with a fine tooth comb and point out perceived weaknesses and attribute those weaknesses as partially responsible for their loved one being dead.

And they can do that with any security measure ever devised, in any venue, at any point in time. "Why didn't you trap your air-ducts? My husband is dead, and you did not trap your air-ducts!"

Of course security is justified. I am not saying that we dont need security at airports, just that these ever more insane methods are unjustified. Forget how they are instituted, the marginal value of safety provided by their monetary, psychological, and social costs is not justified. Why examine someone's prosthesis when a well-trained dog will do a better job?

(Insert joke about police officers shooting the TSA drug dogs here )

I do disagree with those that find these methods intentionally malicious and that the people executing them are also malicious. The way some of you are talking it is like you think most TSA agent are sexual offenders.

Only the ones that do enhance pat-downs. Answer this. If a cop did that sort of search to me at a traffic stop, without any indication that I was dangerous, would I be able to file civil and criminal charges? I am pretty sure I could--blue wall not withstanding.

or:

What I'm saying is that "sex offender" is, as the situation stands, part of the TSA agent job description, yes. For exactly the reasons mentioned above.

Quoted for truth

Indeed, it is unrealistic to make air travel 100% safe. Prior to 9/11 it was obviously seriously inadequate. Is it better now? Doesn't seem like it. What would you have them do instead that wouldn't cost people their jobs and the government millions of dollars in settlements if another terrorist attack took place. Right now, the government can say. We're doing everything we can do. So, what's your solution that doesn't leave the government open to lots of law suits?

Ok. Metal detectors are fine, hell, they even work over clothing. Those should detect the vast majority of weapons. Chemical sniffing by both a computer and dogs, perfectly reasonable, and you dont have to feel around someone's dangly bits for the dog to do its thing. Everyone has had their crotch sniffed by a golden retriever, beagle, or german shepherd at some point and thus, the friendly inquisitive dog should not be a problem. No one ever feels like a dog has molested them... unless they know people who are into those things, and the new years eve party gets a little out of hand.

Bag screening is also reasonable, provided reasonable assurances can be made that the TSA goons will be prevented from stealing your stuff. Airport staff watching them on a monitor while they screen individual bags should be sufficient. As it is right now, they can rob you blind with complete impunity.

[General Zod]

How is the security itself justified when they routinely miss all sorts of shit? Including 12" razor blades? Making air travel 100% safe is unrealistic. Hell, I got waved through security at Vegas airport last week with nothing more than a metal detector scan and sending my luggage through the scanner, while I saw some elderly woman getting the full groping treatment in the next line.

Indeed, it is unrealistic to make air travel 100% safe. Prior to 9/11 it was obviously seriously inadequate. Is it better now? Doesn't seem like it. What would you have them do instead that wouldn't cost people their jobs and the government millions of dollars in settlements if another terrorist attack took place. Right now, the government can say. We're doing everything we can do. So, what's your solution that doesn't leave the government open to lots of law suits?

You realize that there's dozens of lawsuits being filed against the government for the TSA's grabby fingers as we speak, yes? Why would doing away with pat-downs result in more lawsuits than we have right now? Why not save pat-downs for people determined to be genuinely suspicious by, say, a real cop? If I cooperate with all the security procedures and even go through the body-scanner I should not have to be subjected to molestation.

[Gil Hamilton]

It's a tough question. I don't disagree with the complaints about the TSA here. In fact, I do think they are out of control and need to be properly trained and monitored. However, the questions get a lot tougher if after a disaster someone is able to go through your security with a fine tooth comb and point out perceived weaknesses and attribute those weaknesses as partially responsible for their loved one being dead. I do disagree with those that find these methods intentionally malicious and that the people executing them are also malicious. The way some of you are talking it is like you think most TSA agent are sexual offenders.

Based on the law I've quoted and the normal yardstick that whether or not sexual abuse/harrassment having occurred be the perception of the victim, then yeah, they are.

Saying that it has to be this way to make the government look like it's done all it's can doesn't worry. Aside from the fact that other countries manage to do very well in worse conditions without this (read: Israel), such a complaint reminds me of a quote in Futurama:

"And then all 8000 hulls were breached."
"Those fools! If only they had built 8001 hulls! When will people learn?!"

If a terrorist attack actually manages to work, which is statistically unlikely and was even before 9/11, people will ALWAYS say more could have been done. The TSAs very creation was a result of this. Yet that isn't a rational basis for its creation and certainly not a rational basis for sexually abusing people trying to fly. You object to this, saying that you don't believe the process is malicious, but you never really answered how you tell the difference. You say TSA guards should be monitored, but if a TSA guard legitimately does act maliciously during one of these "enhanced pat downs", how does the MONITOR tell "sexual abuse" from the TSA guard "doing his job despite an overly sensitive traveller"? You don't seem to put much stock in the preception of the victim here, but it looks like the courts may, as lawsuits against the government over these things are starting to pile up.

You don't want the government to look like it's being soft on terrorism, but how do you feel about the government looking like it has been propping up an organization of thieves and sex offenders?

Ahh that's sarcasm there! Well played, sir.

The last part is, but the first part is deadly serious. I am legitimately worried about the safety of my fiance when I drop her off at the airport in January, but not as worried as she is. It really does bother me that she could be selected for one of these "enhanced pat downs" and she could be sexually abused by a security guard, at which point we'd have absolutely no recourse whatsoever, since even if it was witnessed by a crowd of people, the TSA guard can claim that he was merely doing his jod and not a single person could tell the difference. It bugs me that chances are I'm not going to be able to walk her to security to make sure she's unharmed by the people who are tasked with the job of keeping her safe.

How fucked up is that, KS? It's pretty damn messed up that the TSA are a MUCH bigger threat to my future wife's well being than ANY terrorist. I know that no terrorist is going to attack a plane from Tucson to Pittsburgh, but I DON'T know that some asshole TSA guard isn't going to add her to the (almost certainly under-reported) list of 1 out of 4 women in the US who have been sexually assaulted in some way.

[Alyeska]

Because the TSA itself admitted the pat down procedures were designed to be deliberately humiliating just to convince travelers to opt to use the machine instead.

Holy shit. Do you have a link to that?

Ars Technica had an article on it. Can't find it immediately. But all you have to do is read between the lines. Its our legal right to opt out of the scanners. But when TSA condems the opt out as being irresponsible, it doesn't take a genius to figure things out. They want you in the scanner and everything is designed to encourage you to use the scanner. So the "enhanced" pat downs are nothing but a tool to humiliate you.