|
Unfortunately GSOL many people would determine any kind of touch on their genital regions a grope. Especially when pressure is applied and/or those areas are rubbed.
I understand the position you are in and that there are things you cannot reveal, however, as long as TSO's are looking at and touching our genitals and as long as those policies remain hidden from us you will never have the trust and cooperation of the public. While even though the Nazi references are not completely accurate yet you have to admit that unfortunately the parallels are extremely similar. I can only hope that there will be more anger and discontent will build up towards your agency and that public pressure will eventually force changes that will protect us not from terrorism but from TSA. If you and your family had to get patted down every time you got in your car by a complete stranger who was following a secret procedure that you could not have access to I doubt you would be ok with it and while your sympathy is appreciated I am more interested in what is being done from your end to place pressure on those "above your pay grade" to return the rights and dignity we deserve. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke) |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15462325)
I also do not have a moral problem with the procedures because you have to choose to enter the checkpoint to fly, and at this time, TSA is the organization that sets the SOP and screening regulations.
Thus, I'm being forced to "agree" to have certain procedures performed upon my person and property, without being told exactly what I'm agreeing to. Furthermore, TSA seems to be taking the position that, once I've "chosen" to enter the checkpoint, I'm not allowed to revoke that "choice" once I'm actually told what is going to happen to me. There's a long standing principle in medical experiments known as "informed consent". Yes, you have to get people's permission to perform an experiment on them. But you also have to give them enough information so that they can understand exactly what they've given consent for. As much as TSA can claim that passengers "volunteer" for screening, they massively fail on informed consent. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15462116)
Those policy decisions are above my paygrade. Scary stuff, folks. I would say TSA is evolving and unfolding exactly as planned. The psychological dynamics intrigue me the most. I saw an interview with a former Stalin-era NKVD executioner. He was just a normal looking old guy. To hear him tell it, he did his job very well, very efficiently. Punched in and out with little thought as to the broader trends or implications. Tomthis day he is confused that anyone would question his role. After all, the actual decisions were above his pay grade. Down we slide.... |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15462325)
but the SOP is currently legal (this may change at some point, or the SOP may change at some point, but as of now it is legal). I do not have a moral problem with the searches based on the fact that they are designed to find things that could be used to damage aircraft and/or persons that would not be found by the older screening methods. I also do not have a moral problem with the procedures because you have to choose to enter the checkpoint to fly, and at this time, TSA is the organization that sets the SOP and screening regulations.
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15462325)
I understand the frustration with the inconsistencies (they drive me mad as well) and would love to see better communication to alleviate that, but I can only do so much to resolve that. I personally have no problem with the federal government setting regulations on screening because the airliners fly across all forms of property - personal, state, metro and federal without obtaining the consent of those that own it - so, I have no problem with the U.S. Government regulating safety and screening procedures for those airliners (and general aviation for that matter) because of those reasons. To me there is no difference between regulating drivers on state roads by DOT and the U.S. Government regulating the aviation industry for safety reasons. I am quite comfortable with performing protocols as they are listed in the SOP for my reasons as well as the job reasons.
GSOL Please answer one final question for me. What would you think the reaction would be to your SOP if they were applied to every one driving a car every time they got into it. I understand that is impossible currently, but this is about the principle of the policy. |
This entire argument is useless when all he does is hide behind his agency's procedures. He's no better than the rest of them except that he does it with a smile and a facade of concern, which is exactly the kind of PR representation they need. No doubt this is why he was promoted.
Case closed. Moving on... |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15462214)
I can't really debate the patdown very well because of SSI regulations, but a pat down done per SOP is not sexual battery.
If Francine signed off on a legal determination that your frisks are not sexual battery, I would be very afraid. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15462325)
Ok, according to the current SOP and legal standing, these are lawful orders listed in the SOP.
Unless we (the public) are allowed to see the SOP, then there's no possible way to argue that anyone traversing a TSA gropepoint is giving "informed consent." Why did the TSA implement an "enhanced" pat-down procedure to use specifically against NoS "opt-outs" that is (per a retired US Army staff sergeant) more intrusive than a non-arrest pat-down performed against suspected enemy combatants in the field if not to make the AIT more "attractive" than the alternative? Why are the NoSs being forced upon the traveling public despite the simple fact that they don't detect the one threat that they were supposedly being deployed to combat? Why do you enjoy groping retirees and children? |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15462325)
Ok, according to the current SOP and legal standing, these are lawful orders listed in the SOP.
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15462325)
Ok, according to the current SOP and legal standing, these are lawful orders listed in the SOP. There may be some differing opinions, and interpretations, but the SOP is currently legal (this may change at some point, or the SOP may change at some point, but as of now it is legal). .
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15462325)
Ok, according to the current SOP and legal standing, these are lawful orders listed in the SOP. There may be some differing opinions, and interpretations, but the SOP is currently legal (this may change at some point, or the SOP may change at some point, but as of now it is legal). I do not have a moral problem with the searches based on the fact that they are designed to find things that could be used to damage aircraft and/or persons that would not be found by the older screening methods. I also do not have a moral problem with the procedures because you have to choose to enter the checkpoint to fly, and at this time, TSA is the organization that sets the SOP and screening regulations. I understand the frustration with the inconsistencies (they drive me mad as well) and would love to see better communication to alleviate that, but I can only do so much to resolve that. I personally have no problem with the federal government setting regulations on screening because the airliners fly across all forms of property - personal, state, metro and federal without obtaining the consent of those that own it - so, I have no problem with the U.S. Government regulating safety and screening procedures for those airliners (and general aviation for that matter) because of those reasons. To me there is no difference between regulating drivers on state roads by DOT and the U.S. Government regulating the aviation industry for safety reasons. I am quite comfortable with performing protocols as they are listed in the SOP for my reasons as well as the job reasons.
The claim that these TSA regulations are legal is questionable. |
And why did it take a year after the attempt by the underwear bomber for these new security measures to go into effect?
I can understand that it takes a while to develop technology and train personnel how to use it. But it doesn't take a year to train employees how to touch passengers' private areas. So why were these procedures introduced simultaneously? It seems if the TSA were all about security, and were truly concerned about this new type of threat, they would have implemented the "enhanced pat down" as soon as they could and introduced the scanners later when they were ready. |
Originally Posted by Ellie M
(Post 15462613)
Simply because a specific question has not been decided by a court does not make it "legal." If the searches as they are currently conducted according to SOP are unconstitutional, they are not "legal." That an order was issued does not by itself make anything "legal."
...Ellie - correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't there a law that says someone can't be held liable for committing a crime before a law was in place declaring that is IS a crime? (I'm hazy). Thanks... |
Originally Posted by TXagogo
(Post 15462672)
...isn't there a law that says someone can't be held liable for committing a crime before a law was in place declaring that is IS a crime?
|
Originally Posted by TXagogo
(Post 15462672)
...Ellie - correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't there a law that says someone can't be held liable for committing a crime before a law was in place declaring that is IS a crime? (I'm hazy).
Thanks... |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 15462116)
I give as much info here as I can Boggie Dog, and you know that. I wish I had more info to give you guys, but I just simply can't give you better answers than I have and do here. I am sorry that I can't give you better information but I am held accountable for what I put out. However, your the one that told us that if SOP is violated the screener should be punished. Your agency has mastered making employees unaccountable since TSA refuses to tell us exactly what we must do to transit a TSA checkpoint. I maintain that publishing these things would not result in a lower security situation but would actually increase security since we would all know what was suppose to happen. The public could report both excessive screening and less than adequate screening. TSA uses SSI for the simple reason of not being accountable for employee actions. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:51 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.