What if the TSO performing the enhanced patdown is gay?
#46
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
The point (and the analogy with doctors) is that things we might peceive as "sexual" (seeing nude people, doing examinations of genitals, doing pat-downs that include the genital region) aren't really such and when people do those things on a regular basis, they don't see them as "sexual". You call that "desensitization", but I think it's more like realizing that it wasn't sexual in the first place.
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Line up, yes I think that's what its called.
Since TSA wants to make this screening a sexual encounter I think tried and accepted procedures should be maintained.
TSA screener would seem to be the dream job for a homosexual sex offender : you can grope people all day long right in front of police officers who will arrest you if you complain.
I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with sex offenders of all persuasions.
I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do have a problem with sex offenders of all persuasions.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Nov 12, 2010 at 2:04 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
#48
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
The point (and the analogy with doctors) is that things we might peceive as "sexual" (seeing nude people, doing examinations of genitals, doing pat-downs that include the genital region) aren't really such and when people do those things on a regular basis, they don't see them as "sexual". You call that "desensitization", but I think it's more like realizing that it wasn't sexual in the first place.
Exactly, as it's chock full of opportunities for such persons, more so for those who haven't been held accountable for such offenses.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Nov 12, 2010 at 2:05 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
#49
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
If you were to go around touching random people at nude beaches while operating under your own assumption of having been granted informed consent by every Tom, Harry and Dick whose erogenous zones you touch there and were to ramp up such activity there and perhaps elsewhere, then yes.
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
So you don't understand that your airline will not let you fly if you do not comply with TSA's screening demands? I can't help you.
Of course you understand. You just don't like it (the airline's rule and current screening procedures). Plain and simple.
Neither do I nor do most of the people here.
Of course you understand. You just don't like it (the airline's rule and current screening procedures). Plain and simple.
Neither do I nor do most of the people here.
Originally Posted by tkey75
I'm not arguing further the vaginal penetration point.
#51
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
I just looked up UA's contract of carriage. It's 49 pages, written in all caps. The only time security is mentioned is on page 9, one sentence.
Not only is this one sentence largely hidden in the middle of an unreadable contract, you don't have to read it when purchasing a ticket. I don't know that having this hidden statement in a contract you're not required to read before purchasing a ticket could be considered informed consent to something as invasive as a strip search or patdown.
The statement also only says they will not carry people "who refuses to permit search . . . ." It does not specify that you have to permit any sort of search for explosives. Because it doesn't specify what type of search, I think an argument could be made that any consent you might be giving to be searched is to a "reasonable search."
SEARCH OF PASSENGER -
B) SEARCH OF PASSENGER OR PROPERTY--WHO REFUSES TO PERMIT SEARCH OF
HIS/HER PERSON OR PROPERTY FOR EXPLOSIVES OR A CONCEALED, DEADLY, OR
DANGEROUS WEAPON OR ARTICLE.
B) SEARCH OF PASSENGER OR PROPERTY--WHO REFUSES TO PERMIT SEARCH OF
HIS/HER PERSON OR PROPERTY FOR EXPLOSIVES OR A CONCEALED, DEADLY, OR
DANGEROUS WEAPON OR ARTICLE.
The statement also only says they will not carry people "who refuses to permit search . . . ." It does not specify that you have to permit any sort of search for explosives. Because it doesn't specify what type of search, I think an argument could be made that any consent you might be giving to be searched is to a "reasonable search."
#52
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
The statement also only says they will not carry people "who refuses to permit search . . . ." It does not specify that you have to permit any sort of search for explosives. Because it doesn't specify what type of search, I think an argument could be made that any consent you might be giving to be searched is to a "reasonable search."
The question of "to what search you're agreeing to" is a large one, of course. I suspect that the answer might be "what a reasonable person thinks it means", but that's not very helpful in a situation when only a fraction of the people receive certain types of searches.
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
I just looked up UA's contract of carriage. It's 49 pages, written in all caps. The only time security is mentioned is on page 9, one sentence.
Not only is this one sentence largely hidden in the middle of an unreadable contract, you don't have to read it when purchasing a ticket. I don't know that having this hidden statement in a contract you're not required to read before purchasing a ticket could be considered informed consent to something as invasive as a strip search or patdown.
The statement also only says they will not carry people "who refuses to permit search . . . ." It does not specify that you have to permit any sort of search for explosives. Because it doesn't specify what type of search, I think an argument could be made that any consent you might be giving to be searched is to a "reasonable search."
Not only is this one sentence largely hidden in the middle of an unreadable contract, you don't have to read it when purchasing a ticket. I don't know that having this hidden statement in a contract you're not required to read before purchasing a ticket could be considered informed consent to something as invasive as a strip search or patdown.
The statement also only says they will not carry people "who refuses to permit search . . . ." It does not specify that you have to permit any sort of search for explosives. Because it doesn't specify what type of search, I think an argument could be made that any consent you might be giving to be searched is to a "reasonable search."
You're not required to read any contract.
Would you really be surprised to have your airline tell you they refuse to transport you if you refused, say, a gate search?
The TSO considers enhanced pat downs to be reasonable. If you don't, there's a legal system for that.
#54
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
Every airline's CoC explicitly states that you will not be carried if you don't comply with the screening process.
And yet the contract exists.
You're not required to read any contract.
Would you really be surprised to have your airline tell you they refuse to transport you if you refused, say, a gate search?
The TSO considers enhanced pat downs to be reasonable. If you don't, there's a legal system for that.
You're not required to read any contract.
Would you really be surprised to have your airline tell you they refuse to transport you if you refused, say, a gate search?
The TSO considers enhanced pat downs to be reasonable. If you don't, there's a legal system for that.
That the TSA considers the primary screening choice of a bodyscan or an enhanced patdown reasonable does not make it so.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Nov 12, 2010 at 2:06 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
THE RULES CONTAINED IN THIS CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE ARE EXPRESSLY AGREED TO BY THE PASSENGER.
Morally, considering the content of the screening, we'll agree it doesn't. Legally, you bet it does until otherwise decided.
#56
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
#57
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
I just looked up UA's contract of carriage. It's 49 pages, written in all caps. The only time security is mentioned is on page 9, one sentence.
Not only is this one sentence largely hidden in the middle of an unreadable contract, you don't have to read it when purchasing a ticket. I don't know that having this hidden statement in a contract you're not required to read before purchasing a ticket could be considered informed consent to something as invasive as a strip search or patdown.
The statement also only says they will not carry people "who refuses to permit search . . . ." It does not specify that you have to permit any sort of search for explosives. Because it doesn't specify what type of search, I think an argument could be made that any consent you might be giving to be searched is to a "reasonable search."
Not only is this one sentence largely hidden in the middle of an unreadable contract, you don't have to read it when purchasing a ticket. I don't know that having this hidden statement in a contract you're not required to read before purchasing a ticket could be considered informed consent to something as invasive as a strip search or patdown.
The statement also only says they will not carry people "who refuses to permit search . . . ." It does not specify that you have to permit any sort of search for explosives. Because it doesn't specify what type of search, I think an argument could be made that any consent you might be giving to be searched is to a "reasonable search."
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
Nothing very explicit in there. And even if such a contract between an airline and a ticket buyer were magically explicit about the TSA's strip searching and manual hand-on-body contact with passengers, a ticket buyer doesn't have a right to surrender the rights of passengers who didn't buy the ticket.
#59
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Just wait until there's a vaginally-concealed explosive used in a terrorist attack or attempted one, and then we'll find out.
Haven't vaginally-concealed drugs already been used as an excuse by the likes of DHS to have the labia and/or vaginas of passengers penetrated by the digits of "authorities"?
That is just a guess but if it changes any thing in relation to what I posted earlier, there's certainly been no evidence of such presented anywhere here.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Nov 12, 2010 at 2:06 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
#60
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
I don't think the answer is any different from the current situation. In some jurisdictions the "standard" pat-down meets all the elements of a crime but for issues of consent and intent. I don't see any legal difference if there were vaginal penetration or not: there would still be the same issues of consent and intent.