Prepare for closer inspection
Sep 30, 2004 | 12:46 am
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Originally Posted by GradGirl
Actually, according to the DOT, in the first quarter of this year there were three times as many complaints about the TSA as were directed at all airlines, airports, airport vendors, et cetera combined. In the complaints numbers game, TSA takes first place in a landslide.
Another point overlooked by the DIA TSA rep is that the completely over the top fondling and groping rules debuted in September, so let's see where the complaint levels are in a month or two.
Sep 30, 2004 | 8:01 am
#47
Used to be Sydneysider
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CPH
Programs: AS MVP/Gold (and 75K aspirant)
Posts: 2,984
Originally Posted by clrankin
There are many reasons why there could be this small of a number of complaints; many of them are totally unrelated to the TSA's quality of service:
It is completely unacceptable that these arrogant goons think they can silence us by cutting off our means of speech. If you are refused information, demand an LEO and he or she will obtain it for you.
Sep 30, 2004 | 8:18 am
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by eyecue
Lastly, complaints against TSA are not that high considering the massive number of people that fly. I wont venture a guess but last month 5 million people flew out of the airport that I work at. Was there 500 complaints, 5,000 ? See where this is going?
Sep 30, 2004 | 9:10 am
#49
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Very Good!
Originally Posted by FWAAA
Not quite. No need to exaggerate the number of people who likely encountered the TSA at DIA last month; the denominator of the fraction you are pointing out would be impressive even with the accurate number.
DIA traffic might have reached 5 million in August (it reached a record 4,260,361 in June http://www.flydenver.com/pr/DIAPR_040805_1.pdf ), but not all those people who "flew out of the airport" you work at encountered TSA employees at a checkpoint.
Given that the 5 million number encompasses departing, arriving and connecting passengers, the number that "flew out" and probably encountered the TSA (since connecting pax probably stay airside and don't need to pass thru security) is probably closer to 2.7 million.
DIA claims that about 54% of its passengers are O/D traffic, and the other 46% are connecting.
http://flydenver.com/biz/news/wingti...3.html#soaring
Granted, SOME connecting passengers probably do pass thru the checkpoint, either because they are changing airlines or becuase they want some fresh air or to smoke or because they are confused or they want to wander around, but it's unlikely that all of them do so.
Add to this the very real prospect that most O/D pax are double counted (once when they depart and once when they arrived home to DIA) and the real number may be only about 1.5 million or so.
Still, even with more realistic numbers, your point is well-taken: Most sheople aren't violated sufficiently to warrant a complaint. Of course, some experts estimate the percentage of reported rapes at a small fraction of the actual number of rapes.
If rape is severely underreported, I would suspect the percentage of people groped and fondled by TSA employees would far exceed the reported number of complaints for some of the same reasons. YMMV.
DIA traffic might have reached 5 million in August (it reached a record 4,260,361 in June http://www.flydenver.com/pr/DIAPR_040805_1.pdf ), but not all those people who "flew out of the airport" you work at encountered TSA employees at a checkpoint.
Given that the 5 million number encompasses departing, arriving and connecting passengers, the number that "flew out" and probably encountered the TSA (since connecting pax probably stay airside and don't need to pass thru security) is probably closer to 2.7 million.
DIA claims that about 54% of its passengers are O/D traffic, and the other 46% are connecting.
http://flydenver.com/biz/news/wingti...3.html#soaring
Granted, SOME connecting passengers probably do pass thru the checkpoint, either because they are changing airlines or becuase they want some fresh air or to smoke or because they are confused or they want to wander around, but it's unlikely that all of them do so.
Add to this the very real prospect that most O/D pax are double counted (once when they depart and once when they arrived home to DIA) and the real number may be only about 1.5 million or so.
Still, even with more realistic numbers, your point is well-taken: Most sheople aren't violated sufficiently to warrant a complaint. Of course, some experts estimate the percentage of reported rapes at a small fraction of the actual number of rapes.
If rape is severely underreported, I would suspect the percentage of people groped and fondled by TSA employees would far exceed the reported number of complaints for some of the same reasons. YMMV.
Sep 30, 2004 | 9:12 am
#50
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
But
Originally Posted by GradGirl
Actually, according to the DOT, in the first quarter of this year there were three times as many complaints about the TSA as were directed at all airlines, airports, airport vendors, et cetera combined. In the complaints numbers game, TSA takes first place in a landslide.
Sep 30, 2004 | 9:15 am
#51
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Ah
Originally Posted by ender83
And one more is that checkpoints always seem to be conveniently "out" of complaint forms. I was reading on this forum yesterday about someone who had that experience, then asked the supervisor for the offending employee's name and was refused. Don't let it stop there! Demand that they produce a complaint form and/or badge numbers/identification.
It is completely unacceptable that these arrogant goons think they can silence us by cutting off our means of speech. If you are refused information, demand an LEO and he or she will obtain it for you.
It is completely unacceptable that these arrogant goons think they can silence us by cutting off our means of speech. If you are refused information, demand an LEO and he or she will obtain it for you.
Sep 30, 2004 | 9:21 am
#52
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Here we go again
Originally Posted by GradGirl
Cleaning up the filth has nothing to do with soap and water. It has to do with ending the disgusting, prurient, abusive physical assaults on passengers that happen daily at our airports.
When the government runs out of intelligent responses to terrorism (or maybe fails to consider them altogether) it employs thousands of people to forcibly feel the breasts of innocent women.
When the government runs out of intelligent responses to terrorism (or maybe fails to consider them altogether) it employs thousands of people to forcibly feel the breasts of innocent women.
assault ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-slt)
n.
A violent physical or verbal attack.
A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place.
The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy.
Law.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.
Law. Sexual assault.
The crime of rape.
Sep 30, 2004 | 9:45 am
#53
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Originally Posted by GradGirl
Cleaning up the filth has nothing to do with soap and water. It has to do with ending the disgusting, prurient, abusive physical assaults on passengers that happen daily at our airports.
When the government runs out of intelligent responses to terrorism (or maybe fails to consider them altogether) it employs thousands of people to forcibly feel the breasts of innocent women.
When the government runs out of intelligent responses to terrorism (or maybe fails to consider them altogether) it employs thousands of people to forcibly feel the breasts of innocent women.
Sep 30, 2004 | 9:57 am
#54
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
wow
Originally Posted by clrankin
I've been subjected to secondary searches that were done by women, and I'm a guy. It's not supposed to be done, but it happens every now and then nonetheless. Perhaps that's something that I should start filing complaints about if it ever happens to me again.
To be honest, out of the times I've flown I can only think of once or twice that I've been secondary screened by a woman. But that still doesn't mean it doesn't happen or isn't a problem when it does.
To be honest, out of the times I've flown I can only think of once or twice that I've been secondary screened by a woman. But that still doesn't mean it doesn't happen or isn't a problem when it does.
OK, so how many women have been caught with TATP in their bras? I'm not trying to be cute; this is really a matter of curiousity for me. If the TSA is going to use the old security ruse to pat down privates, then the flying public has the right-- and duty-- to demand adequate justification.
Out of the women that have been caught with TATP in their bras, how many of them were arrested, jailed, tried, and convicted of terrorist activities? How many of them had adequate reasons (like job-related or something) for having TATP there? From the numbers I'm imagining I'm likely to see in responses to these questions, I would guess that checking people's private parts is likely a waste of time.
Out of the women that have been caught with TATP in their bras, how many of them were arrested, jailed, tried, and convicted of terrorist activities? How many of them had adequate reasons (like job-related or something) for having TATP there? From the numbers I'm imagining I'm likely to see in responses to these questions, I would guess that checking people's private parts is likely a waste of time.
That's great. Does this include all folks working with baggage in every area, all folks working at concessions behind the security checkpoints, and anybody else that might come into contact with the "sterile" area as well? Is it done every time they come in and out of every checkpoint at every airport? If so, that's one GIGANTIC hole that the TSA has closed. I'm glad to see that they have done something with this-- I always thought that letting anyone who deals with working on planes, refueling planes, working on baggage, working in or around the sterile area, or flying anywhere not get beyond the checkpoint without being inspected was a good idea. If all passengers have to do it, then everyone else should too.
No, I don't. Are you implying that there is some "acceptable" number of complaints from passengers for the TSA? As far as I'm concerned, the only acceptable number of complaints for the TSA should be "0".
There are many reasons why there could be this small of a number of complaints; many of them are totally unrelated to the TSA's quality of service:
- Many people may be unwilling to take the time to file a complaint
- Many people may feel that being fondled and harassed about taking off shoes actually increases their safety, so are willing to put up with the procedure
- Some complaints may just be thrown away by the TSA in an attempt to hide how bad the agency and its screeners actually are
- Some screeners may lead people to believe that fondling breasts is a legally sanctioned activity, as long as it's done at an airport security checkpoint
- Many people may not like what the TSA does, but are not upset enough by it to be moved to action (we're generally a society of whiners that don't do much to change things... compare the number of people that actually vote with the number of people that complain about elected officials as an example)
This is only a few reasons that I can think of off the top of my head.
Now, I am willing to concede that the lack of complaints could be due to some TSA checkpoints being friendly, effective, and efficient. Part of the reason I often fly from IAD instead of DCA or BWI is because most of the TSA folks there are friendly and efficient. A lot of times at least one of them will say "hello" or "good morning" to me, or at least give me a smile, before I'm on my way. (The other reason I fly from IAD is because it's only 20 minutes away from where I live.)
It is unfortunate that not all TSA checkpoints are like the ones I usually go through at IAD. The checkpoint at MLI is a perfect example-- the people I've dealt with there are know-it-all jerks who like to make up policies as they go along. They have directed profanity toward me before and have subjected me to unnecessary secondary searches while calling me an *ssh*l* to my face. Extremely rude and unprofessional. And it's not just the front line folks-- one person identifying himself as a manager acted this way toward me too. This is a good part of the reason why I try to fly into other places when visiting the Quad Cities area. Cedar Rapids is sometimes a decent alternative; on one other occasion I've just flown into ORD and driven the 3 hours down from Chicago.
There are many reasons why there could be this small of a number of complaints; many of them are totally unrelated to the TSA's quality of service:
- Many people may be unwilling to take the time to file a complaint
- Many people may feel that being fondled and harassed about taking off shoes actually increases their safety, so are willing to put up with the procedure
- Some complaints may just be thrown away by the TSA in an attempt to hide how bad the agency and its screeners actually are
- Some screeners may lead people to believe that fondling breasts is a legally sanctioned activity, as long as it's done at an airport security checkpoint
- Many people may not like what the TSA does, but are not upset enough by it to be moved to action (we're generally a society of whiners that don't do much to change things... compare the number of people that actually vote with the number of people that complain about elected officials as an example)
This is only a few reasons that I can think of off the top of my head.
Now, I am willing to concede that the lack of complaints could be due to some TSA checkpoints being friendly, effective, and efficient. Part of the reason I often fly from IAD instead of DCA or BWI is because most of the TSA folks there are friendly and efficient. A lot of times at least one of them will say "hello" or "good morning" to me, or at least give me a smile, before I'm on my way. (The other reason I fly from IAD is because it's only 20 minutes away from where I live.)
It is unfortunate that not all TSA checkpoints are like the ones I usually go through at IAD. The checkpoint at MLI is a perfect example-- the people I've dealt with there are know-it-all jerks who like to make up policies as they go along. They have directed profanity toward me before and have subjected me to unnecessary secondary searches while calling me an *ssh*l* to my face. Extremely rude and unprofessional. And it's not just the front line folks-- one person identifying himself as a manager acted this way toward me too. This is a good part of the reason why I try to fly into other places when visiting the Quad Cities area. Cedar Rapids is sometimes a decent alternative; on one other occasion I've just flown into ORD and driven the 3 hours down from Chicago.
If the truth be told, there will be nothing that the TSA could ever do to get me to not mind secondary searches in any way. However, there are things that they could do to make such searches more tolerable (I'm likely to get them, as I no longer remove shoes when going through the checkpoint). Here's a start to my list:
- Tell me WHY the secondary search is necessary. Tell me what part of my clothing, person, shoes, jacket, or carry-on triggered the problem. Tell me exactly what the problem is. And don't give me any of this "it's a secret" crap-- there should be no secret rules, secret profiles, or secret anything at the checkpoint, period.
- Tell me WHAT you plan to do BEFORE doing it. If you need to search my laptop, fine... Tell me what you are doing before you take the laptop away. If you need to check my shoes, fine. Tell me what you will do with them before taking them from me. This stuff is mine (or is stuff I'm responsible for), and I have a right to know what you're doing and what you're looking for. To the TSA's credit, they have done (mostly) a good job here. Procedures have been explained to my satisfaction when I've asked questions for additional details at times.
- Keep ALL of my stuff COMPLETELY visible to me AT ALL TIMES. I've said it before, and will say it again... TSA agents cannot be trusted with nice stuff. I have a right (and responsibilty) to protect my belongings, and the TSA has no right to interfere with me protecting them. To the TSA's credit, I will say that my experience here has been rather good. When my laptop bag needs to be searched further, I have told them to wait until the wand raping has concluded and keep all items in my sight at all times-- they have complied when told to do so.
- ALWAYS be COURTEOUS and KIND and RESPECTFUL. People that treat me in those ways get treated in like manner. Those who don't also find themselves treated in a like manner. I don't expect people to kiss my butt, but I do expect a certain level of decorum. I expect to be called "sir" (or alternatively "Mr. clrankin", if they see my name on the ticket). I'd like to see a nice smile and have someone wish me a good flight or a good day. Simple things like this would go a long way to help with the TSA's reputation. It would certainly cut down on some of the complaints I've filed in the past.
- Do NOT inspect people's private parts. This is just disgusting and degrading. I doubt that any terrorist has ever been caught smuggling explosives in her bra, and I doubt that any ever will. There is no need for this. Fondling women's breasts in the name of airline security sits just as well with me as if someone were to grab my genitalia and "feel around" for something. Neither is necessary, and the public should not accept either as standard procedure.
The above doesn't constitute a complete list, but I'd consider it to be a good start.
- Tell me WHY the secondary search is necessary. Tell me what part of my clothing, person, shoes, jacket, or carry-on triggered the problem. Tell me exactly what the problem is. And don't give me any of this "it's a secret" crap-- there should be no secret rules, secret profiles, or secret anything at the checkpoint, period.
- Tell me WHAT you plan to do BEFORE doing it. If you need to search my laptop, fine... Tell me what you are doing before you take the laptop away. If you need to check my shoes, fine. Tell me what you will do with them before taking them from me. This stuff is mine (or is stuff I'm responsible for), and I have a right to know what you're doing and what you're looking for. To the TSA's credit, they have done (mostly) a good job here. Procedures have been explained to my satisfaction when I've asked questions for additional details at times.
- Keep ALL of my stuff COMPLETELY visible to me AT ALL TIMES. I've said it before, and will say it again... TSA agents cannot be trusted with nice stuff. I have a right (and responsibilty) to protect my belongings, and the TSA has no right to interfere with me protecting them. To the TSA's credit, I will say that my experience here has been rather good. When my laptop bag needs to be searched further, I have told them to wait until the wand raping has concluded and keep all items in my sight at all times-- they have complied when told to do so.
- ALWAYS be COURTEOUS and KIND and RESPECTFUL. People that treat me in those ways get treated in like manner. Those who don't also find themselves treated in a like manner. I don't expect people to kiss my butt, but I do expect a certain level of decorum. I expect to be called "sir" (or alternatively "Mr. clrankin", if they see my name on the ticket). I'd like to see a nice smile and have someone wish me a good flight or a good day. Simple things like this would go a long way to help with the TSA's reputation. It would certainly cut down on some of the complaints I've filed in the past.
- Do NOT inspect people's private parts. This is just disgusting and degrading. I doubt that any terrorist has ever been caught smuggling explosives in her bra, and I doubt that any ever will. There is no need for this. Fondling women's breasts in the name of airline security sits just as well with me as if someone were to grab my genitalia and "feel around" for something. Neither is necessary, and the public should not accept either as standard procedure.
The above doesn't constitute a complete list, but I'd consider it to be a good start.
Sep 30, 2004 | 10:43 am
#55
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Rochester, MN
Programs: UA GS, AA PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by eyecue
It is not an assault! For the umpteenth time!!
assault ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-slt)
n.
A violent physical or verbal attack.
A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place.
The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy.
Law.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.
Law. Sexual assault.
The crime of rape.
assault ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-slt)
n.
A violent physical or verbal attack.
A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place.
The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy.
Law.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.
Law. Sexual assault.
The crime of rape.
Assault -- Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability so to do, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reasons to fear or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching striking or doing bodily harm to the person of another.
Injury -- Any wrong or damage done to another either in his person, rights, reputation or property. The invasion of an legally protected interest of another
The reason rape is called sexual assault is that it eliminates the need for the prosecution to prove certain elements of a battery.
We need to be consistant with the use of terms here. The actions taken by the screeners is an Assault by the legal definition of the word. (so is the action of the police at an arrest) However, these actions are defensable. To be defensable, we need to show consent for the Assault. (or in the case of the police probable cause)
Consent -- Voluntarily yeilding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith.
Consent -- Willingness in fact that an act or an invasion of an interest shall take place. Restatement Second Torts Section 10A
Implied Consent -- Consent manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.
However, for implied consent to be given there must be available somewhere to the public a full and complete disclosure of what you are implied to have consented to.
Hence, TSA needs to publish exactly what we are implied to have consented to. Otherwise, then I think calling some of the actions taken by the screeners assaults is appropriate.
Sep 30, 2004 | 10:57 am
#56
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
civil law
Originally Posted by MSY-MSP
Not to discount your dictionary definition of assault as used by ordinary persons in common English. However, assault has a different legal meaning. As taken from Black's Law Dictionary
Assault -- Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability so to do, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reasons to fear or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching striking or doing bodily harm to the person of another.
Injury -- Any wrong or damage done to another either in his person, rights, reputation or property. The invasion of an legally protected interest of another
The reason rape is called sexual assault is that it eliminates the need for the prosecution to prove certain elements of a battery.
We need to be consistant with the use of terms here. The actions taken by the screeners is an Assault by the legal definition of the word. (so is the action of the police at an arrest) However, these actions are defensable. To be defensable, we need to show consent for the Assault. (or in the case of the police probable cause)
Consent -- Voluntarily yeilding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith.
Consent -- Willingness in fact that an act or an invasion of an interest shall take place. Restatement Second Torts Section 10A
Implied Consent -- Consent manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.
However, for implied consent to be given there must be available somewhere to the public a full and complete disclosure of what you are implied to have consented to.
Hence, TSA needs to publish exactly what we are implied to have consented to. Otherwise, then I think calling some of the actions taken by the screeners assaults is appropriate.
Assault -- Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability so to do, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reasons to fear or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assault. An assault may be committed without actually touching striking or doing bodily harm to the person of another.
Injury -- Any wrong or damage done to another either in his person, rights, reputation or property. The invasion of an legally protected interest of another
The reason rape is called sexual assault is that it eliminates the need for the prosecution to prove certain elements of a battery.
We need to be consistant with the use of terms here. The actions taken by the screeners is an Assault by the legal definition of the word. (so is the action of the police at an arrest) However, these actions are defensable. To be defensable, we need to show consent for the Assault. (or in the case of the police probable cause)
Consent -- Voluntarily yeilding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith.
Consent -- Willingness in fact that an act or an invasion of an interest shall take place. Restatement Second Torts Section 10A
Implied Consent -- Consent manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.
However, for implied consent to be given there must be available somewhere to the public a full and complete disclosure of what you are implied to have consented to.
Hence, TSA needs to publish exactly what we are implied to have consented to. Otherwise, then I think calling some of the actions taken by the screeners assaults is appropriate.
Sep 30, 2004 | 11:34 am
#57
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,017
Originally Posted by MSY-MSP
Not to discount your dictionary definition of assault as used by ordinary persons in common English. However, assault has a different legal meaning.
[snip]
Hence, TSA needs to publish exactly what we are implied to have consented to. Otherwise, then I think calling some of the actions taken by the screeners assaults is appropriate.
[snip]
Hence, TSA needs to publish exactly what we are implied to have consented to. Otherwise, then I think calling some of the actions taken by the screeners assaults is appropriate.
"Penetration is defined as "however slight". Merely putting a finger between the folds of skin over a vagina is penetration, and according to the intrinsic force standard, the act of penetration subsumes, or includes by inference, the act of force. " In my case it was an HHMD rather than a finger, but the definition fits exactly.
However, as you noted, MSY-MSP, the missing element here is consent or lack thereof. The only argument by which the TSA can possibly defend its practices as not constituting assault is the argument that passengers have consented to this degrading treatment. Implied consent is a misguided invention of the courts, and I look forward to the day when it will be rejected as a defense for abuse of passengers. Only explicit consent to the specific treatment intended, without the threat of LEO questioning and arrest for failing to comply, (though the threat of not being permitted to fly stands) should be valid.
Sep 30, 2004 | 11:49 am
#58
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Rochester, MN
Programs: UA GS, AA PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by eyecue
You have a good reference. However there is no injury attempted or otherwise in order to support a tort. If you suffer from embarrassment then you may request a private screening to avoid that tort. The consent is posted at all out checkpoints. It is implied that when you enter the metal detector that you are allowing your person and property to be searched.
I will grant you that there is some consent given when you enter the checkpoint. However, it merely says you will be searched. It does not say how you will be searched, or what level that search will go. Looking at all other implied consent situations, the level and detail of what you have consented to is provided. (e.g. DUI, you have consented to have your BAC determined, by breath, by blood, by urine, or by Field test. Further all of the procedures for administering the tests are out in the public domain. Therefore, all know exactly what can and cannot be done under the implied consent) Courts have held implied consent cannot be given if the person does not have full knowledge of what they have consented to. If the consent isn't given, then an injury will lie.
Turning to how to apply implied consent to the checkpoint here is what I believe TSA has told us we are impliedly consenting to:
1) X-ray of all bags and personal items
2) Metal detection of our persons
3) Hand wanding of our persons where the wand does not touch the persons body and a pat down of the torso area or any area that alarms.
What TSA fails to provide is the actual procedure for the pat down search. If you look at other instances where there is a custodial pat down search, the procedures are in the public. TSA claims that the search of the person is SSI. I argue it is not.
SSI can and probably should include the following
1) What shoes are profiled. Annoying, but I can see the point.
2) The limitations of the WTMD, the Hand Wand, the X-Ray Machine, or the ETD
3) Why you were SSSS prior to getting to the checkpoint.
4) The specifics of any profile
What is not or should not be SSI
1) The actual screening process -- The exact procedures allowed for searching travelers. In otherwords, the patdown search procedures, must be transparant. TSA should post, exactly what is allowed, and what is not allowed by the screeners. Can a screener use the palm of their hand for the pat down? What are the exact procedures for a patdown of a sensitive area? Clear public discussion of the procedures of screening the person.
2) Why you have been selected for secondary after clearing the WTMD. with no alarm.
3) How property is handled by the agents.
4) What is a prohibited item. (some are known, others are too vague)
5) What common items, that are allowed, will cause additional screening or alarms. (I am thinking the Nitro tablets and the like).
I think with clear, transparant, and written procedures open to public inspection there would be a lot less anamosity toward the TSA, and screeners in general.
Last edited by MSY-MSP; Sep 30, 2004 at 11:52 am Reason: correct a grammar error
Sep 30, 2004 | 12:08 pm
#59
Used to be Sydneysider
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CPH
Programs: AS MVP/Gold (and 75K aspirant)
Posts: 2,984
Originally Posted by eyecue
If you suffer from embarrassment then you may request a private screening to avoid that tort.
And if you think I can't get an LEO to cow a recalcitrant TSA supervisor into compliance, you are quite wrong. Disclosure of identifying information such as name or badge number is well within my rights in the process of lodging a formal complaint, and the LEO will know this. If they are a rookie, I'll wait for a second one to show up.
Don't bother rebutting with "I am not wrong" as seems to be your habit.
Sep 30, 2004 | 12:32 pm
#60
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MKE, formerly the closest FT-er to LAX
Posts: 715
Originally Posted by GradGirl
Thank you, MSY-MSP. I found another interesting reference the law of assault that shows what happened to me at that fateful BWI checkpoint meets the definition of unlawful penetration with force:
"Penetration is defined as "however slight". Merely putting a finger between the folds of skin over a vagina is penetration, and according to the intrinsic force standard, the act of penetration subsumes, or includes by inference, the act of force. " In my case it was an HHMD rather than a finger, but the definition fits exactly.
However, as you noted, MSY-MSP, the missing element here is consent or lack thereof. The only argument by which the TSA can possibly defend its practices as not constituting assault is the argument that passengers have consented to this degrading treatment. Implied consent is a misguided invention of the courts, and I look forward to the day when it will be rejected as a defense for abuse of passengers. Only explicit consent to the specific treatment intended, without the threat of LEO questioning and arrest for failing to comply, (though the threat of not being permitted to fly stands) should be valid.
"Penetration is defined as "however slight". Merely putting a finger between the folds of skin over a vagina is penetration, and according to the intrinsic force standard, the act of penetration subsumes, or includes by inference, the act of force. " In my case it was an HHMD rather than a finger, but the definition fits exactly.
However, as you noted, MSY-MSP, the missing element here is consent or lack thereof. The only argument by which the TSA can possibly defend its practices as not constituting assault is the argument that passengers have consented to this degrading treatment. Implied consent is a misguided invention of the courts, and I look forward to the day when it will be rejected as a defense for abuse of passengers. Only explicit consent to the specific treatment intended, without the threat of LEO questioning and arrest for failing to comply, (though the threat of not being permitted to fly stands) should be valid.
I also have to disagree with you once again on the issue of implied consent. It is not "misguided". If you walk past a sign that says "ALL PASSENGERS PAST THIS POINT SUBJECT TO SEARCH," get in line for the WTMD, plop your bags down on the X-ray...there is no reason for TSA to have to ask you "May we x-ray your bags?" or "May we use this magnetometer to search your person for metallic objects?" You've implied your consent by your actions.
But the previous poster is also correct. Implied consent (or explicit consent for that matter) has limits. If the TSA asks you to take your pants off, it is reasonable to conclude that this is beyond the reach of the implied consent. The legal question then becomes less one of whether TSA can make you take your pants off, but one of whether TSA can deny your right to fly for not granting that consent. That's where we get into the sticky "right to travel" issues I'm researching.