When a Pat-Down Seems Like Groping
Nov 2, 2004, 5:26 am
#1
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
When a Pat-Down Seems Like Groping
New York Times Article
"Rhonda L. Gaynier, a New York lawyer, is hopping mad because, she says, getting on an airplane these days means being groped by a stranger. According to her and others, groping of airline passengers has increased since the Transportation Security Administration issued new guidelines recently requiring checkpoint screeners to conduct more frequent, and more intimate, pat-downs.
Reactions have been strong, especially from women.
"Listen, I don't particularly like it when my doctor gives me a breast exam, O.K.?" said Ms. Gaynier, who is 46. "And now I'm supposed to accept a breast exam, in public, at the airport? Next time I'll drive rather than flying."
Keep those complaints coming, folks.
And a big thank you once again to Admiral David Stone, the Gropenfurher (sorry G.B. Trudeau) of the TSA.
"Rhonda L. Gaynier, a New York lawyer, is hopping mad because, she says, getting on an airplane these days means being groped by a stranger. According to her and others, groping of airline passengers has increased since the Transportation Security Administration issued new guidelines recently requiring checkpoint screeners to conduct more frequent, and more intimate, pat-downs.
Reactions have been strong, especially from women.
"Listen, I don't particularly like it when my doctor gives me a breast exam, O.K.?" said Ms. Gaynier, who is 46. "And now I'm supposed to accept a breast exam, in public, at the airport? Next time I'll drive rather than flying."
Keep those complaints coming, folks.
And a big thank you once again to Admiral David Stone, the Gropenfurher (sorry G.B. Trudeau) of the TSA.
Nov 2, 2004, 5:28 am
#2
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
Also from the Article
"We'll talk to screeners about this in a future column. Meanwhile, I'd like to hear from travelers with opinions about the issues raised by Ms. Gaynier.
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Nov 2, 2004, 6:19 am
#3
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
Originally Posted by Spiff
"We'll talk to screeners about this in a future column. Meanwhile, I'd like to hear from travelers with opinions about the issues raised by Ms. Gaynier.
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
As was stated in an earlier thread, this new screening twist is developing serious legs in the media. Once the NY Times and other major media outlets start publicizing the increased "pat-downs", expect considerable, and very vocal, outrage.
Nov 2, 2004, 9:09 am
#5
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Also from the article:
I don't see how anyone, regardless of their employer, can read this and not be enraged. A woman is genuinely feeling she is being violated, and the cops are summoned to accuse her of being the problem. And oh, BTW, the article later says she was secondaried the next day when she attempted to fly again, probably out of retaliation.
How does TSA come up with these policies? The Russian incident apparently was enabled by bribery; I've seen no indications the women were hiding explosives in their bras. It's seems strangely similar to TSA banning pen-knives because the 9/11 hijackers exploited the hijack-cooperation policy. There's a huge disconnect here. All indications are that if TSA finally realizes someone might hide explosives in a body cavity, they'll instute vaginal/anal searches. I'd really like to see the video of a one-on-one discussion between the innocent victims of this policy and the idiot administrators that created it.
America has to draw the line, here and now, to stop this crap from progressing. Screeners and pax alike. The more media attention the better. Otherwise it will keep going further. Just look at the progression from wandings to shoes to stripping to groping over the past 3 years.
I doubt any well-intentioned TSA screeners signed up to perform gropings/cavity-searches on pax, and I don't believe for a minute that pax knowingly consent to such invasive activity when they buy a ticket, regardless of the misguided claims of the quoted supervisor.
She relented. "I said, 'I just want to go home. Do your stupid pat-down and let me out of here.' "
But then, she said, she got the pat-down deluxe. "The agent comes over and starts on my left side. Under my arm, over my shoulder, down the side of my body to my waist, around my waistline, and then she comes up to my bra strap in the back and goes across to my right side, under the armpit, over the shoulders, and then she comes around front and touches me right between my breasts, and then follows the edge of my bra cups around both breasts.
"I was like, 'Whoa! What are you doing?' and I backed up. The supervisor was right there and he says, 'You're not allowing the screening to happen.' And I said, 'You're kidding me. You can't be touching me between my breasts.' "
The supervisor summoned the police. Four officers promptly arrived on the scene. "Real cops - guns, clubs, the whole nine yards, all for me, this big security threat," Ms. Gaynier said.
She does concede, "I pitched quite a fit" at the intervention. To make a long story short, she did not make her flight. The police escorted her from the gate area.
But then, she said, she got the pat-down deluxe. "The agent comes over and starts on my left side. Under my arm, over my shoulder, down the side of my body to my waist, around my waistline, and then she comes up to my bra strap in the back and goes across to my right side, under the armpit, over the shoulders, and then she comes around front and touches me right between my breasts, and then follows the edge of my bra cups around both breasts.
"I was like, 'Whoa! What are you doing?' and I backed up. The supervisor was right there and he says, 'You're not allowing the screening to happen.' And I said, 'You're kidding me. You can't be touching me between my breasts.' "
The supervisor summoned the police. Four officers promptly arrived on the scene. "Real cops - guns, clubs, the whole nine yards, all for me, this big security threat," Ms. Gaynier said.
She does concede, "I pitched quite a fit" at the intervention. To make a long story short, she did not make her flight. The police escorted her from the gate area.
How does TSA come up with these policies? The Russian incident apparently was enabled by bribery; I've seen no indications the women were hiding explosives in their bras. It's seems strangely similar to TSA banning pen-knives because the 9/11 hijackers exploited the hijack-cooperation policy. There's a huge disconnect here. All indications are that if TSA finally realizes someone might hide explosives in a body cavity, they'll instute vaginal/anal searches. I'd really like to see the video of a one-on-one discussion between the innocent victims of this policy and the idiot administrators that created it.
America has to draw the line, here and now, to stop this crap from progressing. Screeners and pax alike. The more media attention the better. Otherwise it will keep going further. Just look at the progression from wandings to shoes to stripping to groping over the past 3 years.
I doubt any well-intentioned TSA screeners signed up to perform gropings/cavity-searches on pax, and I don't believe for a minute that pax knowingly consent to such invasive activity when they buy a ticket, regardless of the misguided claims of the quoted supervisor.
Nov 2, 2004, 9:24 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
OK, have the people who say "they can do ANYTHING to keep me safe" finally had enough? I had enough several years ago. I can't wait for the vaginal/anal searches to begin. Until they do, we STILL aren't safe, right? And even then we won't be completely safe. If you want that much safety, just stay home with your doors locked.
Bruce
Bruce
Nov 2, 2004, 9:37 am
#7
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Me
Originally Posted by studentff
Also from the article:
I don't see how anyone, regardless of their employer, can read this and not be enraged.
I don't see how anyone, regardless of their employer, can read this and not be enraged.
A woman is genuinely feeling she is being violated, and the cops are summoned to accuse her of being the problem.
And oh, BTW, the article later says she was secondaried the next day when she attempted to fly again, probably out of retaliation.
How does TSA come up with these policies? The Russian incident apparently was enabled by bribery; I've seen no indications the women were hiding explosives in their bras.
It's seems strangely similar to TSA banning pen-knives because the 9/11 hijackers exploited the hijack-cooperation policy. There's a huge disconnect here. All indications are that if TSA finally realizes someone might hide explosives in a body cavity, they'll instute vaginal/anal searches.
I'd really like to see the video of a one-on-one discussion between the innocent victims of this policy and the idiot administrators that created it.
America has to draw the line, here and now, to stop this crap from progressing. Screeners and pax alike. The more media attention the better. Otherwise it will keep going further. Just look at the progression from wandings to shoes to stripping to groping over the past 3 years.
I doubt any well-intentioned TSA screeners signed up to perform gropings/cavity-searches on pax, and I don't believe for a minute that pax knowingly consent to such invasive activity when they buy a ticket, regardless of the misguided claims of the quoted supervisor.
Nov 2, 2004, 10:07 am
#9
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Originally Posted by eyecue
I am not. She says herself that she pitched a fit. That is creating a disturbance. She tried to influence a screener by presenting her business card and dropping legal phrases. She may get a civil penalty for it.
Your tone implies to me that you are comfortable with using civil penalties to intimidate passengers into silence. I hope that is not the case.
Speculation
Originally Posted by article
She said she managed to find another flight home, on JetBlue, where she submitted unhappily but without overt objection to another public "breast exam."
Originally Posted by eyecue
Even though it was connected to bribery there still had to be a method of carrying on the explosives. You have seen no indications? How is that you are able to see these things if they are present?
. . .
speculation.
. . .
speculation.
Stripping is not something that is done. When you say strip, it infers getting naked. You are not required to remove your clothing or your shoes for that matter. The choice is yours. There is a downside though.
Where do we draw the line on "anything for security?"
Nov 2, 2004, 10:30 am
#10
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Ummmm
Originally Posted by Japhydog
What has this country come to? eyecue, you really think someone ought to get a 'civil penalty' for 'dropping legal phrases?'
Vile, vile TSA.
Vile, vile TSA.
That is attempting to influence a screener and this is her own admission.
Nov 2, 2004, 10:41 am
#11
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
title 49
Originally Posted by studentff
Nobody should get a civil penalty for expressing their feelings of discomfort at someone touching their body. There's no indication she hit/touched the screener. Why should she be penalized?
Your tone implies to me that you are comfortable with using civil penalties to intimidate passengers into silence. I hope that is not the case.
She would not have been "breast-examined" the next day unless she was SSSSd (probable retaliation for being denied travel the day before), or secondaried by the checkpoint (almost certain retaliation for being denied travel the day before, because she clearly was clueful enough no to alarm the WTMD, hence her first encounter).
My speculation is supported by your statement that there "still had to be a method of carrying on the explosives." Anal/vaginal cavities are such a method. Therefore I speculate that the TSA might someday be interested in probing these cavities.
There was a thread here the other day on a woman that was forced to strip down to her undergarmets by TSA because she was wearing a zippered-sweatshirt. That stripping was not in lieu of a patdown; they required her to strip in addition to the patdown.
Where do we draw the line on "anything for security?"
Where do we draw the line on "anything for security?"
Nov 2, 2004, 10:47 am
#13
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: BOS
Programs: UA 1P
Posts: 1,356
Originally Posted by eyecue
You are not required to remove your clothing or your shoes for that matter. The choice is yours. There is a downside though.
Nov 2, 2004, 10:49 am
#14
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,017
Thanks for the heads up, Spiff. I hope all of us who have experience with the horrifying sexual abuse that the TSA euphemistically calls "pat-down screening" will email Joe Sharkey and add the weight of our stories to his fine reporting.
It's truly disturbing that a woman was threatened with fines and arrest for defending the sanctity of her private parts. These breast exams are coerced physical assaults, plain and simple.
It's truly disturbing that a woman was threatened with fines and arrest for defending the sanctity of her private parts. These breast exams are coerced physical assaults, plain and simple.
Nov 2, 2004, 11:30 am
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 11,242
Originally Posted by eyecue
From the ariticle:As a lawyer, Ms. Gaynier specializes in real estate and landlord-tenant litigation, not criminal law. "But I thought, well, I'll throw these legal terms out and see if I can back him down," she said.
That is attempting to influence a screener and this is her own admission.
That is attempting to influence a screener and this is her own admission.