
TSA encounter at SAN - icey
http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html
======
acabal
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.

~~~
noodle
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?

~~~
hfinney
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.

~~~
marze
Incorrect. If you get a bite to eat and miss the last boarding call (flying US
domestic) the flight will leave without you but with your luggage.

The system would grind to a halt if this was not the case.

~~~
Vivtek
Now, see, that's insane. If they were _serious_ about security, as opposed to
security theater, they would never let baggage fly without its passenger. Even
if they search everything, you can't tell me you couldn't build plastic
explosives into the wheels of a suitcase or something.

~~~
cubicle67
That's a very good point, but I'm pretty sure that in response to Pan Am
flight 103 a lot of work was put into making cargo holds and containers able
to withstand a decent sized blast.

[Edited after fact checking. I know I've seen a documentary on this, but I
can't find any further info at the moment. I've probably also been added to
some watch list based on my searches over the last half hour]

~~~
Nick_C
Like you, I can't find the exact info, but I'm pretty sure it was an episode
of _Aircrash Investigations_. I saw a repeat with that episode a few months
ago.

I didn't come away with the impression that they'd actually implemented blast-
proof though, just that they'd redesigned so that _some_ blasts wouldn't
dramatically cause airframe failure.

~~~
Vivtek
Well, but that's still pretty cool. I didn't know this at all.

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

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

------
bpm140
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-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-
time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/)

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

~~~
mkramlich
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
_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.

~~~
Natsu
> It _should_ be unpleasant for them.

I would instead worry that natural selection will make it so that the only
people left are those for whom this sort of thing is enjoyable, with everyone
else quitting or transferring in disgust.

~~~
dpatru
Having the TSA staffed by perverts whom nobody likes will likely speed the
demise of the agency. For example, if it become known that more than one of
the agents who pat down children are convicted sexual predators of minors, the
public pressure would force the agency to shut down.

~~~
Natsu
I sincerely hope that you are correct, because the alternative is too horrible
to contemplate.

------
kyro
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.

~~~
andolanra
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
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.

------
wrs
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/>

~~~
Silhouette
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.

~~~
hfinney
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.

~~~
wrs
Woops, sorry, my mistake. I live in the area of the 9th Circuit so it's sort
of the same to me.

------
sage_joch
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.

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

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

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

------
marze
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.

~~~
poet
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
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."

------
hardik988
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.

~~~
Lewisham
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.

~~~
hardik988
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?

~~~
pedrocr
The fourth amendment:

 _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._

What _unreasonable_ means is up for debate but the line is somewhere. And my
understanding is that you can't even "consent" away the bill of rights as much
as that is argued by the TSA.

My opinion is that groping someone's genitals is clearly unreasonable and that
the gradualism of the TSA rules has made this pass by unchecked. You might
disagree with that though.

------
stretchwithme
"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.

------
icey
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
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).

------
marze
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.

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

------
chrischen
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.

------
runningdogx
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.

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

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

~~~
jrockway
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.

~~~
hfinney
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.

------
hfinney
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.

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

~~~
poet
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.

~~~
Lewisham
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is refers to whether you are performing
something in public or not. I can take a video of you standing in Main Street
shouting about Hell opening up and devouring us all, because you don't have a
"reasonable expectation of privacy."

However, Wikipedia [1] implies this is not civil, but in regards to the
government's view of privacy to you, not yours to the government, and is
highly unlikely to supersede areas where filming is expressly forbidden, and
which is indicated to you when entering that area.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_priva...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy)

~~~
poet
That's not true for police officers in two party notification states; I'm not
sure whether this applies to private citizens or not.

In Illinois and other two party notification states, you can't record audio of
police officers in public places [1]. Video is fine, but since all video
cameras record audio, it's a bit of a Catch-22. People get arrested all the
time in two party notification states for video taping law enforcement and
it's because of the audio function of their device.

[1] [http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-
ACLUvAlvarez....](http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-
ACLUvAlvarez.pdf)

------
woodall
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?

------
marze
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
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?

~~~
rdtsc
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
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.

~~~
rdtsc
TSA does not have a track record of stopping a single bad guy. It was meant to
do that but it hasn't, in all the years of its existence.

It wasn't designed to conduct surveillance, gather intelligence, produce scary
propaganda, it was designed to catch the guy with the bomb red-handed, as in
"Oh look, there is a bomb in an x-ray machine!" kind of situation. That that
has never happened. So what do they do? As a proper and decent US govt. agency
that they are -- they increase the number of rules and ask for more funds...

But no politician will ever dare dismantle it. Nobody wants to be "soft on
terrorism". In case of an attack they need the TSA as a scapegoat so they can
point to it and say "look, we are spending all these money, we have all the
people groped and x-rayed, there is nothing more we could have done, it is
_not_ our fault"

So I'll agree that FBI, CIA, NSA, air marshals, the flight crew, and just
regular citizens have stopped bad guys. But not the TSA.

------
jnw2
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.

------
lurchpop
Crazy. If you go to reddit every tsa-critical comment is downvoted and the
story has over 2.5k downvotes as of right now.

------
dotBen
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.

~~~
barrkel
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.

~~~
donohoe
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...)

------
jemfinch
"Rosa Parks would be proud" indeed.

------
random42
What does the US court(s) say on TSA security check?

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

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

~~~
jrockway
I would imagine that it's not.

------
mkramlich
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
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.

------
maukdaddy
_"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.

~~~
ghshephard
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.

~~~
pyre

      >  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).

