Are airport body scans and pat downs an infringement of my rights?

administrator's picture
Submitted by administrator on Sun, 2010-11-28 22:19
Hell Yes! Get your fucking hands off my junk!
50% (11 votes)
Yes, if carried out by the state.
23% (5 votes)
Yes and No. Freedom and security must be delicately balanced.
5% (1 vote)
No, nothing is an infringement of my rights if it keeps me safe.
9% (2 votes)
Hell No! Get your fucking hands on my junk! State security agencies are always in the right.
5% (1 vote)
Other (please specify)
9% (2 votes)
Total votes: 22

For me, what TSA is doing is

jamesW's picture

For me, what TSA is doing is all for our own good. TSA can't determine who are the terrorists by just merely looking. So it is best that the TSA workers do some body scans and pat downs. Though sometimes it is true that TSA screening processes are offensive. Everyday there are a number of air passengers who are complaining TSA and some are not only complaining, they trying to pick a fight against the TSA. Just recently, a news blown out about a mother who misbehave when the TSA tried to make pat-downs to her daughter. A mom from Tennessee was arrested Saturday for objecting when Transportation Security Administration workers tried to pat down her daughter. The female was detained for disorderly conduct after she became belligerent. This incident occurred after the Transportation Security Administration altered its procedure concerning the pat down of kids last month. I found this here: Woman arrested for scene when TSA attempt to pat down her daughter. I think it is really time for the government to make some huge revision on TSA practices.

"So who's the terrorist now?"

Sandi's picture

VSD, I want a tee-shirt with your quote.


perhaps ...

VSD's picture

... but I think it does bother them (though maybe not on such a personal basis):
on a trekking holiday to Hawaii I had extremely short hair and baggy trekking-clothes - there were a woman and a man standing there for pat-downs and they looked at me (and each other) extremely uncomfortable not knowing which of them should step forward to do their job Sticking out tongue
perhaps they were just afraid I'd sue them if the wrong one stepped forward, but anything outside their 'normal moralistic doctrine' makes them uncomfortable - so lets keep them that way Smiling
who now has to go out to collect some more doggy-bags for tomorrow - another business trip to paranoia-land ahead ... I'm sure canine cleanliness doesn't repulse them either - it's sanitary Eye

In my experience...

Marcus's picture

...most heterosexual women don't have a problem with rubbing up a lesbian.

Doesn't mean they will seek it out, but the idea will not repulse them either.

that's why the qualifier 'nice' was added ;)

VSD's picture

... you ever tried facing them with a lascivous grin and some appreciative moaning Eye
if they are anything like your average brain-dead moralising beaurocrat I'll guarantee they go on a brake right after and wash with disinfectants Laughing out loud


Marcus's picture

Problem is they don't mind patting down lesbians.

Or perhaps that's not a problem Smiling

Fighting Terror with Fear or with Ridicule?

VSD's picture

... it's not about security anymore but about government power and training citizens to submit to it. About inspiring Fear. Which is exaclty what terrorism means. So who's the terrorist now?

For the mere question what they see in physiscal searches of my bags that their scanners did not already see, the security line was closed behind me and I was taken away by two machinegun-armed officers to a side room for an extra thorough search (spare you the details - they were along the same line as described above). I'm still waiting for an answer from the airport management. Even laws and regulations do not seem to stop security agencies, as it is no longer about making us safe, but about inspiring as much fear as the terrorists inspired in them. Fighting Terror with Fear.

Still I vote for option 5: not because the state is always right but because
One Doggy Bag's Coming Up!
Fight Terror with Ridicule as long as you can still laugh Smiling

PS: maybe I should unearth my old homo-flags and lesbian stickers and put them on display for the very nice pat-down-lady Sticking out tongue

TSA remove nipple piercings with pliers

Sandi's picture

No full body searches at train stations, football stadiums and shopping malls - Yet.

Disarming and humiliating the peasants. Its all about subserviance training.


Rosie's picture

Although in theory I think that there is some appeal and logic to what you say, in the context of terrorism I am not sure that private security organisations employed by airlines is the best, most effective, efficient, reliable, knowledgeable, cost effective and most successful method if (a) we want to maximise and ensure the highest level of security for our safety; and (b) if you consider that the main function of government is to protect the life and safety of its citizens, and to this end vast sums of money are invested in government organisations to access and compile large amounts of information relating to security and intelligence, research and provide sophisticated weaponry, transport, technology, communications, surveillance and other methods of support for this purpose and for complex implementation of security plans in respect of agencies like the CIA, FBI, INTERPOL, NASA, the Army, the Police, and others.

Private security organisations are unlikely to be able to compete with government security organisations in terms of the volume, quality and range of information possessed, the cross matching of records, the period of time over which records have been kept and the detailed analysis and knowledge of the relationships formed between families, individuals and organisations, records of loyalties, alliances, hostilities, feuds, antipathies, resentments, revenges, indebtedness, duties, favours, monetary transactions, financial records, drug rings and related crimes, prison records, hospital records, links to other countries' government's intelligence, access to government employee records, greater likelihood to receive up to date, urgent and new information and data, greater availability, number and range of resources, technology, funding, intergovernmental national communications, increased numbers of staff, administrative support, technical expertise, access to political information via government departments and politicians including court records, records of people employed by army, navy and airforce, their training levels, skills, employment subsequent to the military, airport, customs and other travel records pertaining to people, statistical data, high number of staff and their communications provide relationships with other organisations and people providing further intelligence and information as well as an
increased probability of discovering leaks and rumours, the various training levels of staff provide opportunities to investigate these statistically low chances of success in obtaining useful intelligence on the basis that it is good and safe training for inexperienced staff and an opportunity to go out on a limb.

It is unlikely that the government security organisations will cooperate to a high degree with private security organisations, or work as an employee for and report to airline security officials, and given the increasing risks of terrorist attacks, the increased amount of intelligence and information, technology and staff, support and financial resources available to the government organisations, it would seem more sensible for the government to take responsibility for the security arrangements of its citizens, it is more likely to have had experience and working models and thereby able to coordinate and manage a slick, security operation at a national level.

I would certainly feel more confidence in the government security organisations attending to the safety and security issues of airliines particularly with regard to the risk of terrorism. The greater amount of information owned by, available to and access by government security, the wider experiences, expertise, and higher quality of staff, the amount of support staff, technological support and latest information , weaponry , vehicles, military training and access, financial and other information and generally any resources available to, and found in organisations, would provide greater and safer levels of security and thus increase the likelihood to discover, uncover and prevent any terrorist plots and potential acts.

Problem Solved

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Private airports and private airlines should have their own private, individual rules for security -- including a limitless right to "discriminate." Gov't agents aren't needed here, and their activity violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against "unreasonable search and seizure" by the federal gov't. Private companies should try to balance public safety with private dignity, using whatsoever procedures they think best, and then the consumer should choose whichever airport and airline he prefers (also taking into consideration price, quality of service, location, etc.).

When I last flew to the states...

Marcus's picture

...about 3 or 4 years ago now I was fingerprinted and my photo was taken.

That is standard proceedure for visitors, although not for US citizens.

It was already annoying enough that transit passengers are required to go through customs and all the shit that entails even if they do not wish to enter the country.

After that I resolved not to fly into the US again, if I could avoid it.

Since then they have introduced a charge for tourist visas and now this TSA crap.

I made the right decision.

I'm thankful that thus far these proceedures have not been introduced into the UK, and as far as I know, there is no plan to introduce them here.

After the current US experience they would be mad to follow.

In words of Harrison Ford in the "Mosquito Coast."

"Goodbye America, have a nice day!"


Richard Wiig's picture

TSA Rules:

Maybe they were hung up on her being 'without' her baby, or maybe they're just as thick as they look. I don't see any date on that article, so I don't know if it came before or after her harassment.

Fat Ugly TSA Agents

Luke Setzer's picture

Did they recruit these cows at the local "fugly" farm?

They were probably just jealous of the victim's good looks and wanted to "put her in her place."

TSA Breast Milk Screening Harassment

Sandi's picture

I don't think that these touch ups are security measures in the slightest. I firmly believe these actions are a warm-up period. Get people used to compliance and blind obedience.

Yes, I usually speak of...

Marcus's picture

...the "family jewels".

However, the word "junk" has become intertwined with this story.

It's not a statement of disgust at genitals by me, just a "news" reference.

Trash Talk

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

This new meme is dishearteningly vulgar. Why not "jewels" or "treasure" -- or even just "equipment" or "stuff" or some such?

"Could be one of those bulldykes."

Marcus's picture

No Linz, from what I understand the pat down must be made by a same sex TSA officer.

That's why the people's cube news report I posted contained this:

"In related news, a previously unknown group of Straight Rights Activists has started a petition asking why gay men get to have their genitals groped by same-sex TSA officers, while straights can't get the same treatment from members of the opposite sex."

Strangely enough...

Marcus's picture

...even though I made up the poll, it took me a while to know what my answer was.

I opted for the first one.

I'm surprised that there are no takers yet for option five, although, Linz seems interested Smiling

" their persons..."

Craig Ceely's picture

Gee, Linz, maybe that's why I posted the text of it?

It's the starting point ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... of my op-ed, It's the Muslims, Stoopid, Craig. Eye

Fourth Amendment

Craig Ceely's picture

Amendment IV.

"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 ensue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized."

Rather well worded, I've always thought. Good to see someone referring to it.

I added ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... and voted for "Other please specify." Marcus put this poll up this morning. Mulling it just now I thought it didn't quite cover all options. In a libertarian world the owners of airports could enforce whatever security measures they damn well pleased. In the current context the government is imposing obnoxiously intrusive measures quite gratuitously and arbitrarily given that we know the threat comes from Islamogoblinite scum, useful idiot dregs to the contrary notwithstanding. This quite clearly violates the Fourth Amendment. So I was going to add an option saying "Not necessarily," but I've called it "Other, please specify" instead.

I quite liked "Get your hands on my junk," but there's no guarantee of getting a cute male. Could be one of those bulldykes. I would need trauma counseling after that, for sure.

doth protest too much

HWH's picture

If it weren 't for airport security (sic) I'd have no sex life at all.

Rodney Dangerfield

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.