
I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official - mfukar
http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assault.html
======
stretchwithme
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
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> (search for
"amendment")

~~~
stretchwithme
and searches of you on the street can be avoided by electing not to leave your
home.

------
jonafato
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
>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
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.

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

~~~
AgentConundrum
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.

------
siculars
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.

~~~
ghshephard
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.

~~~
siculars
Oh yes, oh yes indeed. My quarrel is not so much with invasive searching but
rather with blanket invasive searching of all citizens. If according to
specific rules and specific guidelines a trained agent and her superior were
to determine there was due cause for further screening then so be it.

Abuse can be weeded out and consequent repercussions meted out by simple
analytics on reports gathered on every 'enhanced' screening.

------
SkyMarshal
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.

------
martinkallstrom
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
The issue is that even if she did shout NO during this whole frisking business
she might have caused much more trouble.

~~~
martinkallstrom
That might be. And it might have been worth her while (IANAL)

------
noonespecial
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
_> >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. _

This analogy makes very little sense.

The doctor cannot stop me from visiting a different doctor (who may not insist
on the same tests) and the doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the
Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests. The government can.

The doctor has to convince the patient that the test is necessary. The TSA
agent can ignore any evidence of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of
patdowns and doesn't need to obtain your consent.

~~~
corin_
"The doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse
to submit to the tests"

I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse
than failing to travel somewhere.

What you _mean_ to say is that it's OK for a doctor to do it because in that
case the recipient believes he is doing it for a good reason. If everyone
going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way
to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.

~~~
electromagnetic
I think the problem is that the 'pat down' is the most ineffective security
measure used in the airport. The real reason for the pat down is actually to
find drugs concealed on a persons body.

Why on earth do they believe they'll find a razor blade on a persons body?
They don't, because they're not looking for weapons because every real weapon
known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of
improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts.

Considering I've walked through a metal detector with literally a fistful of
change and it hasn't gone off, I question the usability of all airport
screening. I frequently have like $10 in small change on me.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector,
and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts._

Lets not get hyperbolic. I found a real weapon with less metal than my jeans
in about 2 minutes with google.

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/>

(Presumably a terrorist could do it with no metal, but a prisoner has
limitations on materials available.)

~~~
Tamerlin
The right type of wood can also make for quite an effective weapon, especially
in the right hands.

~~~
electromagnetic
I'd say most people would be far less afraid of someone with a wooden weapon
than someone with a steel knife, when a wooden weapon would be far more
harmful.

A wooden mallet with tapered ends could easily crack a skull or break joints
and limbs if used properly and would be easily concealable compared to a high
density knife blade.

Considering that a war hammer is still likely the most dangerous weapon to an
armored soldier today, there are worlds of weapons that are not routinely used
or thought of that could be deadly in the right circumstances.

~~~
Tamerlin
It doesn't even need tapered ends, as long as it's sturdy.

Heck, a well-trained person's hands can be quite deadly to someone not wearing
armor... and if you know what you're doing, armor won't stop you from ripping
someone's arm apart and spiking them into the ground with their own weight +
that of the armor -- and yours, if you're feeling particularly aggressive :)

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

~~~
sp332
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
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
A citizen can't be deported for any reason, ever. And I'm sure there are other
differences.

------
ajays
According to the TSA, <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!

------
credo
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> 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
> 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.

------
dennisgorelik
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.

------
gord
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.

------
nosse
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.

------
lukestevens
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
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
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".

------
protomyth
A couple of links that mention the Ohio laws:
<http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-imposition/>
[http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/tsa-enhanced-
pat...](http://kittywampus.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/tsa-enhanced-patdown-a-
form-of-sexual-assault/)
<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
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.

------
jim_h
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?

------
wiredfool
There's a Senate TSA Oversight Hearing on Wed, 11/17.

[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&C...](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)

Call or Write your senators, especially if they're on the committee.

------
sliverstorm
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
"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
wait, did you just say contact = groping?

------
basicxman
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.

------
gnosis
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.

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

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

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

~~~
praptak
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
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
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>

[2] <http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.06>

[3] <http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.05>

[4] <http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907>

~~~
notahacker
"Quibbling about terminology" isn't "silly" when someone is making a public
accusation of a sex crime. Neither of us are lawers, but right there in the
statutes you've posted is the line "Sexual contact means any touching of an
erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals,
buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, _for the
purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person._ " [emphasis mine].

I don't think that brushing up against erogenous zones as part of a search
procedure constitues "sexual contact" _even though I agree that the TSA
employee appears to have failed to give adequate warning and shown a lack of
discretion in singling out a new mother in the first place_. I don't doubt the
indignity of her experience may have been shocking and upsetting, but it
stopped well short of sexual abuse.

As other people have pointed out in this thread with rather more eloquence
than me, the semantics actually are important here (i) because sexual assault
is a very serious crime with significant consequences for both victim and
perpetrator (ii) because hyperbole detracts from serious scrutiny of the
boundaries of acceptability.

~~~
poet
The funny thing about your line of argument is that she didn't make a "public
accusation of a sex crime" because "sexual assault" is not a sex crime that is
defined in Ohio. If we're going to try to be pedantic here, let's actually be
correct.

What definition of sexual assault are you using exactly? Your original
contention is that the author is trivializing "real" sexual assault by using
the phrase "sexual assault" in an inappropriate way, yet in Ohio no such a
thing exists. So it's inappropriate according to what definition? What you're
actually doing is inventing in your own mind what you think sexual assault
should be and then getting angry at the author for violating your contrived
definition.

Do you see why it's stupid to be pedantic about the specific phrase "sexual
assault"? The author used the phrase sexual assault not to conform to a
definition, but because she was touched in a sexual way and felt assaulted. In
my opinion such feelings are perfectly reasonable in this situation. I would
have felt assaulted had I not been given a warning.

Anyone who is quibbling about terminology in this thread is guilty of the
phenomena that happens when nerds meet reality:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1880553>.

~~~
notahacker
Slightly against my better judgment (good link btw) I'm going to post again...

I don't think there's anything novel or "contrived" about assuming the phrase
"sexual assault" implies some form of illegal gratuitous behaviour with a
sexual motivation, regardless of what jurisdiction you live in (sexual assault
_is_ a crime where I live, and the Ohio state government appears to use the
term frequently with respect to supporting abuse victims). I also interpreted
the author's repetition of the phrase in conjunction with other carefully
selected terms like "incident" as a conscious attempt to draw parallels
between her experience and that of the victims of sex crimes.

I don't doubt that she's drawing those parallels because she's sincerely
upset, but I do think there's a dangerous line being crossed when we start
equivocating intentional assaults and incidental contact, and leave it up to
the accuser to define whether conduct was abusive or sexual. I also think it
would be doing a disservice to people who've been wilfully abused for others'
gratification to suggest that their treatment is akin to what some people
experience going through airport security. I hope that clarifies the original
intent of my comments.

