Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

What if the TSO performing the enhanced patdown is gay?

What if the TSO performing the enhanced patdown is gay?

Old Nov 11, 2010, 4:30 am
  #46  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by GUWonder
No concern that the desensitization arising from frequent sexual contact may result in seeking heightened sexual adventurism? It shouldn't be a surprise that the intimate, "frisky" behavior results in TSA employees becoming more interested in same-sex adventurism.
Would you make that comment about people who frequent nude beaches?

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.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 5:13 am
  #47  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by SparkyRadar
I believe they call that a "line-up" at certain establishments in certain Nevada counties! @:-)

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.

Originally Posted by voxclamantes
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 think any sex offender would find TSA an ideal place to practice.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Nov 12, 2010 at 2:04 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 6:21 am
  #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
Would you make that comment about people who frequent nude beaches?
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. At nude beaches too, getting informed consent to such physical contact generally does matter if engaging in such touching or attempting such touches -- otherwise the person is more than just a pervert, rather the person is a suspected criminal pervert.

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.
That's not what I called desensitization, so who knows what conclusion you are making.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I think any sex offender would find TSA an ideal place to practice.
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
GUWonder is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 8:15 am
  #49  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
I don't follow. My point is that many people consider the act of seeing a nude body as sexual. Do you argue that people who go to nude beaches frequently and see a lot of nude bodies have been sexually "desensitized"?
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 8:16 am
  #50  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by GUWonder
That's just not it.
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.
Originally Posted by tkey75
I'm not arguing further the vaginal penetration point.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
So if vaginal penetration of passengers were part of TSA SOP, it wouldn't be illegal?
tkey75 is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 8:44 am
  #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.

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.
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."
Ellie M is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 8:52 am
  #52  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Ellie M
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."
I've never heard that the consent argument based on the CofC. To me, it's based on the understanding that if you're approaching a checkpoint, you'll be searched. This is the case not only at airports, but at Government buildings which have checkpoints.

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.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 9:02 am
  #53  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by Ellie M
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."
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.
tkey75 is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 9:04 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
I've never heard that the consent argument based on the CofC. To me, it's based on the understanding that if you're approaching a checkpoint, you'll be searched. This is the case not only at airports, but at Government buildings which have checkpoints.
Tkey argued earlier in the thread that by purchasing a ticket and agreeing to the CofC passengers consented. I should have made it clearer that I was responding to:
Every airline's CoC explicitly states that you will not be carried if you don't comply with the screening process.
Originally Posted by tkey75
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. But you have to agree to the contract. For example, when I signed up for itunes, I had to click that I accepted the terms. And when Apple changes the contract terms, they provide a copy of the terms, and I have to click that I've read them. I highly doubt many people actually read all those long terms of usage, but they were clearly provided in a way that airlines CofC are not. In any event, the CofC is not easily readable given its length and use of all caps.

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
Ellie M is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 9:24 am
  #55  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by Ellie M
You're not required to read any contract. But you have to agree to the contract.
Section 1 - Application of Tariff (you buying a ticket) first paragraph, second sentence (in the UA CoC):

THE RULES CONTAINED IN THIS CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE ARE EXPRESSLY AGREED TO BY THE PASSENGER.
Sounds like an agreement to me.

Originally Posted by Ellie M
That the TSA considers the primary screening choice of a bodyscan or an enhanced patdown reasonable does not make it so.
Morally, considering the content of the screening, we'll agree it doesn't. Legally, you bet it does until otherwise decided.
tkey75 is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 9:31 am
  #56  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Ellie M
I highly doubt many people actually read all those long terms of usage.
Indeed, some software company added into one of the online licenses that you "hearby grant <company> your soul for all eternity" (or similar language) for some period of time. Nobody noticed.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 9:53 am
  #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
Originally Posted by Ellie M
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."
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' private parts (labia included where relevant), a ticket buyer doesn't have a right to surrender the rights of passengers who didn't buy the ticket. Adhesion contracts -- such as that between an airline and ticket buyer -- aren't carte blanche for the TSA or airlines to assume that an agreement exists granting informed consent to TSA strip searching and manual groping of all passengers' bodies. There is no such carte blanche agreement.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 9:55 am
  #58  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
I guess that's why it says "Application of Tariff" to indicate usage of the ticket, rather than just the act of buying it creating the contract.
tkey75 is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 10:03 am
  #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
Originally Posted by tkey75
Morally, considering the content of the screening, we'll agree it doesn't. Legally, you bet it does until otherwise decided.
So if vaginal penetration of passengers were part of TSA SOP, it wouldn't be illegal?

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"?

Originally Posted by tkey75
I guess that's why it says "Application of Tariff" to indicate usage of the ticket, rather than just the act of buying it creating the contract.
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
GUWonder is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2010, 10:12 am
  #60  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by GUWonder
So if vaginal penetration of passengers were part of TSA SOP, it wouldn't be illegal?
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.
RichardKenner is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.