Despite TSA claims, this issue has not gone away. These have shown up in the past few days. All from legitimate and respected sources.

Apologies in advance if any of these duplicate other posts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-tsa-says.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ecurity/69649/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ine-passengers

http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/...aspx?id=568391

Great articles, thanks. This won't let up until the TSA stops sticking their hands up peoples' crotches.

Here's a pix from Facebook:


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycot...26801010710392

From another Facebook group:


http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=239458517874

We're not the only ones pi**ed off. This last group has 15,738 members, including Marc Rotenberg of EPIC.

Last year?! Why haven't these updates been added?

Probably because they don't work. Or, they do work and the perv in the peep booth is no longer necessary if the viewer is in public.

Maybe their IT people keep opting out?

Sadly, in the Upper Michigan article, there is a great deal of support for pat downs.....maybe that comes from living in Upper Michigan.

Here's a new one that came off reddit:

Well-written piece about a man and his wife's recent encounter with the TSA (which included a private pat-down for the wife after "the gloves beeped").

http://popdose.com/the-tsa-a-little-temporary-safety/

New article from Forbes, keeping the pressure on the Evil Agency.

http://blogs.forbes.com/artcarden/20...rity-or-a-tsa/

And the lawsuits continue...
http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/...w-away-sue-tsa

Small article, small victory

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01...ger_acquitted/

And a very big thread http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...g-show-id.html

Holy Smoke. That really was a "must read."

I fail to see how photographs of a groping, particularly when made by the spouse of the gropee at the request of the gropee can possibly be construed as interfering with the grope.

Furthermore, I do not understand why this woman had to go off alone for her more thorough "private" molestation session. Why was her spouse left behind? I thought victims had the option of having a travel companion with them.

Bolding mine: Because the TSO said it is

As to having a witness present during a private screening, the answer is yes and hubby and/or wife should have stated just that. Also, it does appear from the article that hubby and wife are somewhat seasoned travelers so my question is why did wifey ask after the fact/the gloves "beeped" if the TSO had changed their gloves prior to the opt-out patdown? It is sop for me to ask the TSO to change their gloves if I don't see them change their gloves in front of me prior to my secondary shoe swab.

I don't want to inadvertently stray into victim-blaming. After all, I doubt the secondary screener asked the lady passenger if she wanted a witness present. These situations get out of hand rather fast.

I would definitely want my husband present, because I think that the bully mentality is significantly influenced by an awareness of witnesses. I would also ask if their secondary screening had to be performed privately - but that's just me. Privacy isn't as important to me as avoiding being alone with a really nasty thug is. Besides, what's "private" about being in a room with a total stranger whom I must permit to thoroughly maul me? I'm "safer" jay-bird naked in Central Station.

Feelings aside, the TSA isn't telling people their rights any more than police officers do. If you insist on your rights, then they're inconvenienced. You have to know your rights and stick up for yourself if you're to hope for those rights to be considered at all. Even then, you can expect that the TSA will get revenge against you for insisting on your rights.

It's unlikely this couple would have made their flight if they'd "inconvenienced" the TSA thugs any further.

I guess I'm rambling. Sorry for that. I just think that citizens are in a heck of a bind when it comes to dealing with scope n' grope, and smirking policy makers such as Janet Napolitano deliberately set us these coercive practices.