Defendant Polson, Linzer vs. Polson, testified that "no force standards even exist!" TSA screeners are forcefully hitting people every day and getting away with it.

Was looking for this case and can't find it. Would you please post a link to the quote you posted. Thanks.

My misspellings were the reason you couldn't find it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/02/court-okays-lawsuit-for-damages-based-on-allegedly-excessive-airport-checkpoint-search/?utm_term=.8448aa7c9540

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170712g65

Maybe not for long. In your case, what the judge said in response to filings in Linlor v Polson:

Actually, it strains credulity that Defendant would consider the use of any physical force to fall within the spectrum of "permissible intrusiveness".

Since screeners are not law enforcement, the use of ANY physical force during the performance of their duties - other than justifiable self-defense if attacked - would immediately negate their so-called qualified immunity and constitute assault.

Do you really think that these screeners are NOT going to still be hitting passengers during "pat downs"? They will continue because passengers will let them get away with it. Until and unless passengers who have suffered aggressive assaults bring these people to court on a regular basis, it's going to continue. (Recall Angela Rye's pat down, filmed by a police officer, and how the screener hit her so hard that she was twice knocked off balance. You know those hits were in retaliation for the assault being videoed.)

If you read the document, you'll note that the Plaintiff had to effect a citizen's arrest of the screener because the police refused to do so, so don't count on any help from them.

Passengers who feel aggressively assaulted need to get the screener's name and get their Supervisory TSO (STSO) involved. The STSO is required by TSA rules to collect and retain ALL evidence and witnesses' names and contact information. But the passenger must demand it and be persistent.

Here are Sai's recommendations for requesting a litigation hold on CCTV coverage: https://tinyurl.com/y92ygv62

FWIW, there's pretty much zero point in doing that. Citizen's arrest requires you to turn the arrestee over to the nearest cop or judge. If the cops nearby don't want to take them in the first place, all you've done is opened yourself up to more liability.

More specifically, write down absolutely everything that's on visible badges, the number of epaulettes, and get photos / video / audio if you can. (You have access to your phone after you're cleared. Use it.)

That part is not entirely true. Only applies if the STSO is filing an incident report, and you have no say in whether or not they do that. They have no obligation for witnesses. Remember, they claim in court that they are not authorized to investigate or seize evidence for anything. It's purely internal, and expect it to be 100% CYA.

FWIW, this is another reason why I very strongly recommend that you have video+audio recording running every single time you go through TSA checkpoint, in advance. If nothing happens, no worries, you can delete it. If something happens, you have evidence that otherwise would've been damn near impossible to get. CCTV has no audio, and TSA screeners will distort, omit key facts, or just lie outright in their written statements.

There's nothing better than hard evidence.

How does one record an encounter with TSA if one does not have one's phone and is traveling alone?

a) Some other recording device
b) Very detailed contemporaneous notes

a) No. Screening currently requires patdown. You consent to, or are warned of, that fact when you enter. Therefore they are allowed to do a patdown, even though any patdown at all necessarily involves touching you, which (without your consent) might otherwise be assault. Touch necessarily involves a minimal amount of physical force. The question in Linlor was what amount of force is consented to / noticed, required, and/or unreasonable.
b) You're talking about battery (an actual bad touch), not assault (a reasonable fear of bad touch).
c) Qualified immunity doesn't make something not assault, it just immunizes the assailant from negative consequences for it.

I do not consent to having my genitals probed by TSA and given the fact that 1. TSA refuses to advise that your genitals will be touched, using instead the completely misleading term "groin" and 2. in the Linlor case TSA claimed: "…contact with Plaintiff's genitals, if any at all, was incidental and occurred through the course of a typical security pat-down", therefore, any touching of the genitals should be considered battery and "relieve" TSA screeners who probe the genitals of any immunity.

So you did consent to (or at least, were warned about) contact with your groin, then?

If you agree with the statement you quote, then you also would admit that the touching of genitals was in fact part of a typical pat-down.

That conclusion does not follow, even if you had no idea that groin area is involved in patdown at all and they straight up grabbed your junk, because:

1. The screeners, as individuals, would be immunized from torts like battery under the Westfall Act.
2. You can only sue the United States for the battery, under the FTCA, if 2680(h) applies, as above.
3. To sue under Bivens, you would need to show a constitutional tort was involved (e.g. a 4th Am. violation); even if they admitted it was battery, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it violates the constitution. And you'd also have to prove that it was "clearly established" as unlawful at the time they did it, which would be pretty much impossible to do, given that the patdown has so far been routinely upheld in courts. A reasonable screener would not currently know that the courts say that it's illegal, and therefore (again) they would get personal immunity, and your only recourse would be FTCA.

Just telling you what is, not what ought to be.