Invasion of privacy - The TSA search policy is unwarranted, unjust, and humiliating

Boston Globe ^ | Nov. 19, 2010 | Tom Keane

[SoCal SoCon]

Agree. The next time a TSA agent gropes you smile and say “Don’t worry. I like it when strange men touch my junk.”Reverse psychology will get them every time. If anything you’ll probably get a less through search because
1)No homosexual in his/her right mind would be a jihadist, given al Qaeda’s view on homosexuality
2) No TSA agent in his right mind wants you to come all over his hand.

[AAABEST]

Everyone is missing the obvious solution to this. Drive. Nobody has to fly anywhere.

You're right, "nobody has to fly anywhere."

In fact, the next time I need to cross the Atlantic Ocean to make my living, I'll just drive. Why didn't I think of that - it's the "obvious soloution."

[Tolsti2]

I’m sure you could make a living without going to europe. 99%+ of people do just fine without that.

[det99223]

“Everyone is missing the obvious solution to this. Drive. Nobody has to fly anywhere. Put the airline business out of its misery once and for all.”

It occurs to me that the above may well be exactly what the Obama administration actually has in mind. Just another major industry bankrupted and taken over by the government.
This would go well beyound just the airlines. Most avaition equipment producers would join them.

Be careful what you wish for.

[TexasGreg]

They are required, by law, to have their DHS ID on them at work, and their SIDA is to be worn and displayed at all times. Read the badge number and commit it to memory or write it down the first chance you get. That will be sufficient for your lawyer to obtain the identity of the official.

Refusing to self-identify betrays their own acknowledgment that they are acting over the line in illegal territory. Unless they properly identify themselves, how do we know that they are who their uniform claims they are and are authorized to be doing what they’re doing? They are in a catch-22 on that matter.

[Girlene]

As for the searches being criminal violations of Title 18 U.S.C., Section 2242, the question becomes the nature of the touch, its being intentional and not incidental, and the perception of the person being touched relative to the coercion of the situation involved. The recent "upping-of-the-ante" by telling people they can't leave until questioned, etc., places the TSA in an even worse legal situation by increasing the coercion levels even further beyond where they were before that aspect of the situation was publicized.

Add the fact of the $11,000 fine that is being threatened, and the coercion levels are further increased. I believe sexual abuse or molestation also includes the requirement that the person carrying out the touching/etc. is doing it for some personal gratification. Do we need to have tests for the TSA workers to prove they have not been gratified in some way to determine whether it was sexual abuse (legally)?

This whole thing is insane. Yelling out by several TSA agents, "Opt out, we have a male opt-out," (paraphrased) makes them sound like a pack of hyenas/gangsters/whathaveyou. They should be ashamed of themselves. These TSA workers should be shunned by society. Next time, I hope someone prints their names, etc. Their neighbors, friends, and family should know what type of people they are dealing with.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Opt out day should be a day where no one flies. Can you say Airlines panic?

[PERKY2004]

On Wednesday, we flew from California to Florida, through Texas. I was traveling with my husband who, by the way, was traveling in uniform, on military orders, carrying a military passport and a military ID, and using a government-purchased ticket. (By the way, my husband was wearing a standard USAF flight suit and is a Lieutenant Colonel.)

I went through the full body scan with no incident. My wonderful DH then went through the full body scan, as well. THEN the TSA screeners decided he also needed to go through the "intimate pat down" ... and ordered him to stand in a special area for quite a few minutes. Then they frisked him. Thoroughly.

THEN they decided to re-x-ray his boots (which he'd taken off) two MORE times. For a total of three x-rays in total. This whole process took nearly 30 minutes, from start to finish, and by the time he refilled his pockets, put his watch back on, retrieved his personal items, and put his boots back on.

While my husband was getting "examined", the TSA guys waved at least three other civilian adult males through ... they just go the standard metal detector ... and not the body scan, the pat down, or three shoe x-rays.

How can they say our flight was "safer" when they groped my husband while letting others through without the body scan or pat down? It was hard not to feel singled out by this special treatment we received. While I will get to go through all of this on November 30 when I fly back home to California ... I take some small measure of solace that my wonderful DH won't have to deal with this again ~ at least until next year. He's deploying back to Iraq for the seventh time and will be on military transport.

[roadcat]

The DA of San Mateo County (home of SFO) has announced that he will prosecute sexual assault conducted by screeners.

I think the DA of San Francisco County has jurisdiction over SFO, as it is San Francisco property and the San Francisco Police have a station at SFO. Regardless, I think SF also will prosecute. Even they want only voluntary sex between parties.

[Peter from Rutland]

I’ve changed my stance on this. Too many reports coming out of abuse. And whatever happened to the search laws? Apparently don’t apply here.

[AAABEST]

I’m sure you could make a living without going to europe. 99%+ of people do just fine without that.

You're quite talented, being so "sure" of my life situation after meeting me on this thread.

You're actually correct, I "could make a living without going to europe." That's because I don't go to Europe now to make a living. I do however fly trans-Atlantic.

I understand that you have all kinds of bright ideas for people like me, but the fact remains that I simply couldn't do what I do without getting on a plane. Period.

[Tolsti2]

You need to learn the difference between ‘wants’ and ‘needs’.

[TexasGreg]

I believe sexual abuse or molestation also includes the requirement that the person carrying out the touching/etc. is doing it for some personal gratification. Do we need to have tests for the TSA workers to prove they have not been gratified in some way to determine whether it was sexual abuse (legally)?

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2242 is particularly helpful in this matter. Section 2242, subsection 2a states that if one is "incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct" the code is violated.

In other words, if I'm standing there under coercion, without a lawyer present, being frisked for weaponry, and the screener takes time to squeeze my rather prominent front-side sexual organ, I am contextually incapable of "appraising the nature of the conduct." Granted, it may have been sexual, or it may not have been. What it might have been other than sexual, however, is entirely immaterial. Fondling or squeezing a sexual organ cannot, in any way, be reconciled with the STATED purpose for the "pat down," hence my suspicion as to the ACTUAL purpose of the sexual-touch is generated. That suspicion produces sufficient emotional anguish to justify the violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2242. Indeed, it is almost certain that ANY such touch is a violation of Title 18 section 2242 because of its SEXUAL nature -- i.e, the manipulation of MY sexual organ. The purpose behind the screener's touching my organ is immaterial to the fact that it was a sexual organ being intentionally manipulated.

[AAABEST]

You need to learn the difference between ‘wants’ and ‘needs’.

You know, you're right. I'm going to stop flying right now. Of course I won't be able to pay my bills, but impoverishing my family is a small price to pay for making a point with the TSA. It's the "obvious solution."

When my little girl is wondering why we have to move out of our house and why daddy is home all the time (unemployment in my area is well into the double digits) I'll just tell her the brilliant person on the internet said we need to learn the difference between wants and needs.

Thanks for the advice.

[jackibutterfly]

"Gloria Allred was on Hsnnity’s show on Friday night defending the TSA policies. Can anyone tell me what passes for brains in her cranial cavity? She liked the procedures because they touched parts of her body that hadn’t been touched in a long time."

Unreal, huh? We should ask these people, what if the next step from TSA would be to slap you in the face to see if you have a "terrorist reaction". Would they submit to that? And, would they submit to the "next step", whatever that would be?

[Girlene]

I see your point. Here's the written language from Title 18, Sec. 2242, Cornell University Law School

§ 2242. Sexual abuse
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—
(1) causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping); or
(2) engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—
(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or
(B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Now I see where the TSA came up with the revision for not such "invasive" pat-downs for 12 year old and younger childeren.....Read Here, 18 USC CHAPTER 109A - SEXUAL ABUSE

Ah-hah - they know they have a potential problem with sexual abuse allegations....especially for 12 year olds and younger. Lawyers need to be all over this "junk".

[happilymarriedmom]

The police can’t even search your house or car without “probable cause” or warrant. Why is the TSA allowed to pull somone out of line “randomley” to be searched? No probable cause, no questioning, just hey you, over here?

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

The good news, Cardhu, is that the soon-to-be Republican controlled House will be in charge of the purse strings.

Let’s see, starting in January, if the GOP will rein in this monster of a government agency known as the TSA.

Like you, I’m not optimistic this will happen, but I would like to be proven wrong.

[conservativegramma]

I agree with Greg - by now threatening jail or fine if you refuse, they've definitely crossed the line under section 2242. Now the victim has been threatened and placed in a position of fear. I would also like to point out:

Under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 109A – Sexual Abuse - Code Section 2244 – Abusive Sexual Contact – Defined under Code Section 2246 – Definitions for Chapter - Subsection 3) the term “sexual contact” means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

At the very least 2244 and 2246 are being violated with any contact of the genitalia even through the clothing is a criminal act. Notice the clarifier: "With an INTENT to....HUMILIATE...HARASS.....DEGRADE...." We have the statements of TSA higher ups that the purpose of these 'pat downs' is to force people into the scanner. He admits to harrassment and humiliation of passengers per the above code. They've upped the ante more than once to be subject to prosecution under Title 18, Sections 2242, 2244, and 2246.

Then there is 49 U.S.C. § 40103 US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace - (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

There goes the threat that 'if you don't like it don't fly' bit we keep hearing. NO. U.S. Citizens has a RIGHT OF TRANSIT through the navigable airspace! Without being molested, harrassed, abused, strip searched without cause, or violated.

Its time for LAWSUITS. A LOT OF THEM!

[LostInBayport]

We should ask these people, what if the next step from TSA would be to slap you in the face to see if you have a "terrorist reaction". Would they submit to that? And, would they submit to the "next step", whatever that would be?

I've had two occasions to do that, in groups of seven or more people. Most wanted the scanners and the molestation "if it makes me safe". I posed the "colon bomber" scenario and pointed out that the scanners and pat-downs would not stop that. I asked if they would mind full proctological examinations before they board a plane, and got blank stares.