Practical Travel Safety Issues - TSA Official sells homemade porn of himself in police uniform

Mark Arsenault (of Screeners Central) has done a great service in exposing this scandal. Read all about it (http://tsa-screeners.com/start/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3962&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) at Mark's excellent website.

----------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a former San Diego police officer was rightfully terminated from his job for producing pornographic videos and selling them on eBay. Fortunately for the man, he currently has a job -- with the Transportation Security Administration.

In the videos, which were posted in auctions in the site's Mature Audiences section, Acevedo is featured in a fake police uniform performing sexual acts including masturbation.

-----------------------


This is the story I will point to when TSA-admirers start to argue that "Screeners aren't enjoying it when they pat down passengers." Sure they aren't... they're only making pornographic videos of themselves in authoritarian uniforms in their off-hours...


[Note: Acevedo isn't a screener. He's even higher up the chain of command than that! He's an assistant FSD regulatory inspector. I wonder how many hours per day an AFSD, this AFSD in particular, spends watching up close and personal checkpoint footage of screener frottage.]

What a snafu! And to think that I have been written up for emailing a SM.

Mark Arsenault (of Screeners Central) has done a great service in exposing this scandal. Read all about it (http://tsa-screeners.com/start/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3962&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) at Mark's excellent website.

----------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a former San Diego police officer was rightfully terminated from his job for producing pornographic videos and selling them on eBay. Fortunately for the man, he currently has a job -- with the Transportation Security Administration.

In the videos, which were posted in auctions in the site's Mature Audiences section, Acevedo is featured in a fake police uniform performing sexual acts including masturbation.

-----------------------


This is the story I will point to when TSA-admirers start to argue that "Screeners aren't enjoying it when they pat down passengers." Sure they aren't... they're only making pornographic videos of themselves in authoritarian uniforms in their off-hours...


[Note: Acevedo isn't a screener. He's even higher up the chain of command than that! He's an assistant FSD regulatory inspector. I wonder how many hours per day an AFSD, this AFSD in particular, spends watching up close and personal checkpoint footage of screener frottage.]


I'll be the first person to point out a TSA flaw (there are plenty to go around), but to me, honestly, this is nothing.

Ever been to a professional sporting event? Camera guys go around searching for buxom women all the time. There are things that go on in the truck or control room that would make you disgusted. That's just one example, there are plenty more of "seeing how the hot dog is made" type things, but I'll spare you.

I'll be the first person to point out a TSA flaw (there are plenty to go around), but to me, honestly, this is nothing.

Ever been to a professional sporting event? Camera guys go around searching for buxom women all the time. There are things that go on in the truck or control room that would make you disgusted. That's just one example, there are plenty more of "seeing how the hot dog is made" type things, but I'll spare you.

Ahem. This is relevant how? There is a HUGE distinction between those who wear the uniform of a quasi-law enforcement/paramilitary government organization and those who film sporting events (often sponsored by alcohol beverage companies).

Is the behavior for both inappropriate? Absolutely. But there is a difference so big it is not even worth explaining.

And no, I don't think this reflects bad on the front-line screeners who do their job; but it reflects bad on the idiots running that organization.

Mark Arsenault (of Screeners Central) has done a great service in exposing this scandal. Read all about it (http://tsa-screeners.com/start/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3962&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) at Mark's excellent website.

----------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a former San Diego police officer was rightfully terminated from his job for producing pornographic videos and selling them on eBay. Fortunately for the man, he currently has a job -- with the Transportation Security Administration.

In the videos, which were posted in auctions in the site's Mature Audiences section, Acevedo is featured in a fake police uniform performing sexual acts including masturbation.

-----------------------


This is the story I will point to when TSA-admirers start to argue that "Screeners aren't enjoying it when they pat down passengers." Sure they aren't... they're only making pornographic videos of themselves in authoritarian uniforms in their off-hours...

[Note: Acevedo isn't a screener. He's even higher up the chain of command than that! He's an assistant FSD regulatory inspector. I wonder how many hours per day an AFSD, this AFSD in particular, spends watching up close and personal checkpoint footage of screener frottage.]

This statement is over the top, painting screeners with such a broad brush. I think you need rescind this statement and apologize to every screener on this board ( and I don't care if you didn't mean the screeners on this board by your statement you are implying that the screeners on this board feel this way). Get some help lady.

This statement is over the top, painting screeners with such a broad brush. I think you need rescind this statement and apologize to every screener on this board ( and I don't care if you didn't mean the screeners on this board by your statement you are implying that the screeners on this board feel this way). Get some help lady.

It's anything but over the top; furthermore, I don't think GradGirl needs any "help" as you are suggesting.

Every "group" has its proverbial perverts. I don't see why the TSA would be any different. If anything, one would expect such organizations to have a disproportionately higher number of such persons in the general population we are discussing.

I consider GradGirl to be amongst the proverbial "vanguard" in bringing our attention to matters that will necessitate executive, legislative and judicial attention sooner or later anyway.

It's anything but over the top; furthermore, I don't think GradGirl needs any "help" as you are suggesting.

Every "group" has its proverbial perverts. I don't see why the TSA would be any different. If anything, one would expect such organizations to have a disproportionately higher number of such persons in the general population we are discussing.

I consider GradGirl to be amongst the proverbial "vanguard" in bringing our attention to matters that will necessitate executive, legislative and judicial attention sooner or later anyway.

Not when she paints every screener as a sexual deviant. She didn't say some or a few in her statement. I overlook alot of whats said on this board but when someone says something as ignorant as that I'm not letting it pass by. And if the moderators were really moderating they wouldn't have let that statement stand.

Not when she paints every screener as a sexual deviant. She didn't say some or a few in her statement. I overlook alot of whats said on this board but when someone says something as ignorant as that I'm not letting it pass by. And if the moderators were really moderating they wouldn't have let that statement stand.

I think that she, you and I all know that not every screener is a sexual deviant.

Do you really believe that she thinks every screener is a sexual deviant? Wouldn't that be as presumptuous as someone saying that every screener is a sexual deviant?

For better or for worse, professions are apparently "fair game" on FT. Lawyers, doctors, businessmen, sports players and especially politicians get the proverbial broad brush all the time.

I think that she, you and I all know that not every screener is a sexual deviant.

Do you really believe that she thinks every screener is a sexual deviant? Wouldn't that be as presumptuous as someone saying that every screener is a sexual deviant?

For better or for worse, professions are apparently "fair game" on FT. Lawyers, doctors, businessmen, sports players and especially politicians get the proverbial broad brush all the time.

Well I know I've only been a member of this board for a little over a year and I know the kind of animosity that she holds against screeners so yes I feel that she does feel this way about all screeners.

I again looked over the original post and do not feel it is intentionally misleading.
I'll keep this thread open for comments on the topic but ask again that members of this Forum refrain from personal comments about other posters.
Thanks for your cooperation.

________________________________

Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator

Well I know I've only been a member of this board for a little over a year and I know the kind of animosity that she holds against screeners so yes I feel that she does feel this way about all screeners.

I feel that the TSA's official policies institutionalize sexual violence, as I mentioned in another thread. I do not believe all screeners are sexual deviants. Actually, if only one, just one out of forty-five thousand screeners, has sexual feelings about what he or she is doing then that screener is in an unconscionable position to sexually abuse thousands of passengers. The TSA's practices are extremely unsafe. I feel this home-porn-star-on-TSA-staff example is a graphic demonstration of how dangerous checkpoints are for passengers.

Oh, and believe me, I am getting help. I have asked for help from my congressional representatives, from the TSA Contact Center, from the TSA Office of Civil Rights, from the Department of Transportation, from the Department of Homeland Security, and finally from the media. I will keep asking for help until the TSA stops or is forced to stop assaulting passengers.

Jeesh...

Some of you here are just hopeless. You hate the TSA so much that it screws with your rationality. This is one guy. Yeah, I'm sure there are other perverts in the TSA as in any line of work...so what? If it bothers you that much, just box yourself up in an apartment Howard Hughes style and never come out again. The world is screwed up and there are plenty of nut-jobs to go around.

I know without a doubt in my mind that if I saw a screener groping a passenger, I'd take it to the highest level to see that they got fired. That kind of stuff is just unacceptable. I know most screeners would report that kind of thing if it happened.

The way some of you make it sound is that we're all standing around with erections just longing for the next passenger so we can get our jollies off. The truth is, many screeners hate patting down the private areas. It's our job and we do it, but we don't like feeling your crotch or breast areas.

Ahem. This is relevant how? There is a HUGE distinction between those who wear the uniform of a quasi-law enforcement/paramilitary government organization and those who film sporting events (often sponsored by alcohol beverage companies).

Is the behavior for both inappropriate? Absolutely. But there is a difference so big it is not even worth explaining.

And no, I don't think this reflects bad on the front-line screeners who do their job; but it reflects bad on the idiots running that organization.

There is little difference.

First, the TSA are NOT the police. They are a glorified, federalized rent-a-cop with special edicts. Read every article about the TSA finding something illegal, they summon the cop sitting at the desk/podium near the exit.

The guy who was hired on as TSA is being spotlighted because he didn't want to spend the $49.95 for a rental costume for his porn video. Big deal.

I have some cops as friends, one a former local, one a current local and one a State Trooper, and within all the agenices there are clear rules about use of the uniform. Should the guy have been clipped as a cop? Absolutely.

Again, I think there is plenty of stupidity to go around the TSA....both in their policies and procedures. I'm sure many of us agree with that.
But does a uniform code violation as a cop paint him as some sexual deviant? I don't think so. If they guy violated TSA uniform code, then clip him there.

We all have valid arguments about rights and privacies, but if we are pleading for those inaleinable rights, what does a guy who likes to make porn videos have to do with being disqualified as working for the TSA? Sure, keep him on a short leash, but if there weren't any laws broken in making the video (the uniform thing was not a law, but rather the employer's code violation), aren't some people being hypocritical about the PRIVATE lives of people?

The guy was selling tapes of himself getting off over the internet. The guys privates are no longer private... if you see what I mean. :(

But does a uniform code violation as a cop paint him as some sexual deviant? I don't think so. If they guy violated TSA uniform code, then clip him there.

We all have valid arguments about rights and privacies, but if we are pleading for those inaleinable rights, what does a guy who likes to make porn videos have to do with being disqualified as working for the TSA? Sure, keep him on a short leash, but if there weren't any laws broken in making the video (the uniform thing was not a law, but rather the employer's code violation), aren't some people being hypocritical about the PRIVATE lives of people?

I can almost agree with you, LessO2, that what someone does with his downtime is his own business. And in fact, there wouldn't be any conflict in my mind except for the fact that the TSA has special dispensation to touch the private parts of innocent travelers. No other agency has ever even tried to claim that kind of invasive authority over non-suspicious people. It just hasn't ever been done before. Even police and border guards need suspicion before they may invasively search private parts.

But TSA employees are touching whomever they please. That means that if the public perceives that there are people working for the TSA who get sexual pleasure from wearing uniforms and exercising authority, passengers will be even more frightened and suspicious than they already are about checkpoint breast and genital exams.


TSAJohn, I agree with you: most screeners hate doing breast and genital searches. Then are you on my side in trying to end this practice? Sure, most screeners are getting no pleasure out of what they're doing. Still, no one could ever guarantee that out of 45,000 screeners there's not a single one who has bad intentions toward even a single passenger. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that this indecent search does indeed excite the sexual fantasies of some people. Why are one hundred million innocent people being subected to a sincere risk of being sexually abused, when the TSA hasn't even bothered to inspect cargo?

There is little difference.

First, the TSA are NOT the police. They are a glorified, federalized rent-a-cop with special edicts.

Agreed. Even if some in TSA wish otherwise.

My point is senior leadership of a uniformed rent-a-cop organization should have more common sense to not post porn of themselves on the Internet and to certainly not disgrace the uniform of their previous police department. Groping arguments aside, that is just bad taste, and though legal, when posted publicly it is definitely not private.

If the cop likes to dress up and play with handcuffs in his bedroom that is his private life. If he wears his uniform and films it for the internet it is just idiotic. The fact that this perv has a high level position in the TSA does not speak well for the T-S-A.

Some of you here are just hopeless. You hate the TSA so much that it screws with your rationality.

so true.

something about cookie cutter comes to mind when reading some of these replies. sometimes vaguely related to the original topic.

I can almost agree with you, LessO2, that what someone does with his downtime is his own business. And in fact, there wouldn't be any conflict in my mind except for the fact that the TSA has special dispensation to touch the private parts of innocent travelers. No other agency has ever even tried to claim that kind of invasive authority over non-suspicious people. It just hasn't ever been done before. Even police and border guards need suspicion before they may invasively search private parts.
But TSA employees are touching whomever they please. That means that if the public perceives that there are people working for the TSA who get sexual pleasure from wearing uniforms and exercising authority, passengers will be even more frightened and suspicious than they already are about checkpoint breast and genital exams.


TSAJohn, I agree with you: most screeners hate doing breast and genital searches. Then are you on my side in trying to end this practice? Sure, most screeners are getting no pleasure out of what they're doing. Still, no one could ever guarantee that out of 45,000 screeners there's not a single one who has bad intentions toward even a single passenger. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that this indecent search does indeed excite the sexual fantasies of some people. Why are one hundred million innocent people being subected to a sincere risk of being sexually abused, when the TSA hasn't even bothered to inspect cargo?
The difference is a pax has given consent for the search by entering the checkpoint. If you don't want to be searched don't enter the check point.

The difference is a pax has given consent for the search by entering the checkpoint. If you don't want to be searched don't enter the check point.

Here is another comment that - I have no words for - OK- after a few minutes of trying to come up with something - STUPID.

Then I thought - Would a terrorist enter the check point??

Agreed. Even if some in TSA wish otherwise.

My point is senior leadership of a uniformed rent-a-cop organization should have more common sense to not post porn of themselves on the Internet

I thought he posted them when he was a cop.

Here is another comment that - I have no words for - OK- after a few minutes of trying to come up with something - STUPID.

Then I thought - Would a terrorist enter the check point??
How is this a stupid comment? It is the truth. No one forces people to enter the check point. and by entering the check point you have given consent to be searched within guidelines of the law.

Here is another comment that - I have no words for - OK- after a few minutes of trying to come up with something - STUPID.

Then I thought - Would a terrorist enter the check point??
I'm not sure what is meant by this. If a terrorist does enter the check point then they will be screened. If they don't then they will not be boarding a flight.

Gradgirl I'm not attacking your feelings about patdowns. And the whole time I've never trivialized your experiences. But I still think your statement is invalid based on one guy thats not even a screener. I'm not defending him or the patdown procedure (which by the way at my airport my managers know how I feel about the extra patdown). But I'm sick of the name calling on this board. Thats one of the big reasons I don't post that much. But we can have a debate in a civil manner without painting all screeners as sexual deviants.

I thought he posted them when he was a cop.

He did. The person changede uniforms when hired by TSA but did not change his underlying intelligence or character.

But we can have a debate in a civil manner without painting all screeners as sexual deviants.

Sure, just as soon as all passengers aren't treated as terrorists by merely wanting to board an aircraft.

Well stated in a different thread, by the way.

Sure, just as soon as all passengers aren't treated as terrorists by merely wanting to board an aircraft.


in other words, it's impossible for some to have a civil debate/conversation if one disagrees with the set procedures.

^

in other words, it's impossible for some to have a civil debate/conversation if one disagrees with the set procedures.

To the contrary.

The passsengers' "guilty until proven innocent" model and the touching of passengers' sexual organs because of the TSA SOP is at the heart of the matter. That's just the lay of the land. Is there something wrong with this assesment? What am I missing here?

TSA staff cupping and grabbing breasts and crotches is an extension of the pat-down SOP discussion, very part of the discussions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a former San Diego police officer was rightfully terminated from his job for producing pornographic videos and selling them on eBay. Fortunately for the man, he currently has a job -- with the Transportation Security Administration.

In the videos, which were posted in auctions in the site's Mature Audiences section, Acevedo is featured in a fake police uniform performing sexual acts including masturbation.



"You don't professionalize until you federalize." :rolleyes:

To the contrary.

The passsengers' "guilty until proven innocent" model and the touching of passengers' sexual organs because of the TSA SOP is at the heart of the matter. That's just the lay of the land. Is there something wrong with this assesment? What am I missing here?

TSA staff cupping and grabbing breasts and crotches is an extension of the pat-down SOP discussion, very part of the discussions.

the picture "painting" screeners as sexual deviants, enjoying patdowns... "cupping" with the palm of the hand or in some other stories claims of "grabbing and squeezing" is not the "TSA SOP" from what i've read in newspaper articles even if it has happen in isolated instances (from my understanding... screeners please correct me if i'm wrong). it's an argument about how some airports may deviate from the aforementioned "TSA SOP".

a side-note, it's implied that some % of the workforce "enjoys" the patdowns because they are homosexual/bisexual. that would imply that those who are homosexual/bisexual enjoy the patdowns and actively search them out. my own opinion on the issue is that there is undoubtedly a % that is homosexual/bisexual, just like any other part of the population. out of that % most do not enjoy "patting down" people, regardless of what's implied.

a specific complaint about a similar issue would stretch to instances of "deviation" from the written "rules of the road" and end there-as opposed to being referenced to the entire "patdown" issue either in part (the new "torso" one) or as a whole.

i've seen a lot of disagreements on patdowns, or ways to "check" for things. i also raised the question previously of how a more technological system could be put in place without leaving a "gap" in coverage.

the picture "painting" screeners as sexual deviants, enjoying patdowns... "cupping" with the palm of the hand or in some other stories claims of "grabbing and squeezing" is not the "TSA SOP" from what i've read in newspaper articles even if it has happen in isolated instances (from my understanding... screeners please correct me if i'm wrong). it's an argument about how some airports may deviate from the aforementioned "TSA SOP".

a side-note, it's implied that some % of the workforce "enjoys" the patdowns because they are homosexual/bisexual. that would imply that those who are homosexual/bisexual enjoy the patdowns and actively search them out. my own opinion on the issue is that there is undoubtedly a % that is homosexual/bisexual, just like any other part of the population. out of that % most do not enjoy "patting down" people, regardless of what's implied.

a specific complaint about a similar issue would stretch to instances of "deviation" from the written "rules of the road" and end there-as opposed to being referenced to the entire "patdown" issue either in part (the new "torso" one) or as a whole.

i've seen a lot of disagreements on patdowns, or ways to "check" for things. i also raised the question previously of how a more technological system could be put in place without leaving a "gap" in coverage.

I truly fail to see where sexuality is coming up in my posts. You're choosing to interpret the "grabbing and squeezing" part as sexual. In my posts, I sure have not. I mention the "grabbing and squeezing" because it goes against the TSA SOP, yet clearly still happens. Nor would I like it should it ever happen to me. And if someone did it the wrong way with me, you can bet I would be willing to file a complaint with the local PD.

I agree that techonology is the key...I've made several posts to that very topic.