WindOfFreedom

I'm in. I was in, the minute this Nude-o-Scope/Sexual Grope scandal hit the news. (But I have the luxury of dictating the time and place of my work.)
But for those trying to see loved ones, especially during critical or significant times (big holidays, big illnesses, and such) it's a lot harder. For those whose employment requires travel, it's a lot harder. What has been foisted upon us leaves such folks no good options.

myadvice

Interesting point.

There is the school of thought that opting out and having a public groping serves the purpose of helping to show the public an abusive government that they would otherwise ignore. Think of the picture of the Denver crotch grabber.

Wally Bird

Assuming this isn't a thinly veiled "don't like it, don't fly" canard, the important difference is that the passengers are not (arguably) violating the screeners rights nor are they (arguably) assaulting them, electronically or physically.

Several have posted here that they have quit or at lest severely curtailed flying. Haven't seen a post from a screener announcing they have quit. Yet ?

karenkay

so, um, i was going to respond to this thread with my own recent pat-down experience, but having read through the thread to this point i'm not sure it would still be considered on topic.

suffice it to say, i have a new girlfriend. she works for the tsa and her name is daphne. when she grabbed the side of my breasts, mr kk said 'easy there, tex!' and she responded 'i'm just doing my job, sir.' i should have asked for her number when she was finished. i did insist on her changing gloves.

Lowcountry70

Any reports of moobs (man breasts) being grabbed?

karenkay

not from mr kk, anyway. in this case--we were at YEG, so i'm assuming these were canadian agents working for the tsa--they did NOT go up his leg or mine until they 'met resistance' and there was no finger inserted into anyone's waistband. the boob grope--in between and on the sides--was a bit more than was necessary, imho, especially since i don't wear a bra, and wasn't wearing a baggy shirt: clearly wasn't hiding anything there.

i did find it troubling that we were selected for the 'full search' line, especially when one of the screeners asked mr kk 'why are you in this line?' and he said 'my wife was selected, and i'm traveling with her.' what, was he in the 'cute girl line' by mistake?

JDiver

A bit of TSA Humor published yesterday, by Wiley:

RosemaryT

Yes, yes and YES. I've noticed this too. The most pro-TSA, pro-grope, pro-sacrifice-anything-for-safety crowd has relatively few posts. To me, this is highly suspect.

I'm a neophyte as well (under 100 posts) but I came to this site after suffering a most egregious "gate rape" in ATL and even though I don't say much, I check the posts here at FT each and every day. It's such a sweet blessed relief to know I'm not the only one who thinks the TSA is pure theater with no tangible security benefit and is nothing more than a massive "make-work" billion-dollar boondoggle for America's most unemployable and pitiful people.

And if I posted what I really thought of TSA, I'd be violating forum rules and a few Sunday School rules, too.

Rose The Newbie

LuvAirFrance

Do we even know for sure that the "TSO who just does his job even though distasteful" is more than wishful thinking? After all, it isn't the TSO's junk being fondled. Its an asymmetrical situation. The rapist and rape victim can never be equated. To hint at an equation is distasteful and insulting to intelligence.

FlyingUnderTheRadar

Just watched a gentlemen get a pat down. Not sure of why other than the WTMD alarmed. Anywho as the TSO patted down the PAX's crotch region he turned his head and coughed. Not sure if on purpose or not but it was funny to me.

WindOfFreedom

Well put.

LuvAirFrance

Outstanding!!!

JennyElf

I'm trying to parse your question: are you asking what's the difference as each member (TSO and FF) is participating in what can be recognized as a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

If that's the case, the difference is actions, the TSO is doing the violating, while the FF is being violated. The FF is only in that situation because they wish to fly and the TSA has mandated that the only way the FF can do so is if they give up some measure of their Fourth Amendment rights. The FF did not seek out a TSO and demand to either be scanned or patted down, they just wanted to fly on a commercial plane. The TSO's Fourth Amendment rights have not been violated.

A corollary, what's the difference between a peaceful protester who is threatened with arrest for protesting in a non-violent manner and is not trespassing or causing a disturbance (think person with a sign on a street corner) and the government agent (ie Law Enforcement officer) who threatens the arrest? Are you saying that if the protester decides to stop protesting because they are afraid of jail regardless of whether or not they have the First Amendment right to be there is just as wrong as the government agent as they are now both engaged in something that violates the First Amendment?

FliesWay2Much

I've postulated the view in other threads that, in most cases, we have the upper hand. Every time a screener touches a passenger, they have no idea how that passenger will react. They don't know if the person is a sheeple and will submit (and maybe even thank them for feeling safe), someone who will say sexually suggestive things about touching genitals, someone who will call them a pervert or otherwise insult them, or someone who will cold-cock them. The thread with the article about screeners feeling like victims, I believe, is a good source of evidence. It was a huge shock to the screener workforce for them to find out up close & personal that a growing number of passengers they encounter don't like them, their agency, or what they are doing to passengers. The downside to this will be the bill we will all pay for mental health benefits, phychological counseling, and anti-depressents to screeners who develop mental illness on the job.

I don't discount for a nanosecond the real trauma which sexual abuse victims experience when they are groped at a checkpoint. Legalism aside, the only opinion about whether or not the groping is sexual abuse/assault is the passenger's. We've got to continue this fight in the courts and at the checkpoints for them if nothing else.

WindOfFreedom

I find this a very worthy contribution. Thank you, JennyElf.

I asked the question as an intellectual exercise; I hope you read it as such.

To explicate a bit: Personally, I am incensed at this whole insane Theater of the Simply Absurd. And in protest, and putting my money where my mouth is, I will never fly again commercially. But my heart goes out to those who must, for whatever reason, continue to fly.

As for those who have no such pressing need but continue to fly, saying, "Well, that's just what we have to put up with," I am asking if, morally, they are not in the same position as those who continue employment with an abusive agency, telling themselves, "Well, that's what we have to put up with."

At some point, is not the obligation upon the customer/employee to say, "I've had enough"?