I believe there are some legal principles that have yet to be challenged with respect to screening and civil rights that could prove very interesting.

The bare statement that "no right to fly on an airline" could be true in a minimalist sense. But it is the extrapolation of the rule that can prove the opposite as it has in other civil rights cases. For instance, if the gov't, by regulation, can already highly control access to commercial air travel, and to a much lessor extent train travel and possibly bus travel, how does this impinge on the right to free movement within the country? Imagine if some sort of screening process is applied by regulation to other forms of transportation like federally funded highways? At some point it becomes impossible to move in a "reasonable" manner free from gov't intrusion and I suspect the courts will rule against it. Then start backing away from the extreme case and judge whether "air travel" is so essential to the way of life of the typical citizen that restrictions on access must be "reasonable" - now define reasonable? It is an issue I believe that is open to challenge.

For those that have the "I don't have anything to hide so I don't mind" attitude; at what extent of gov't monitoring of your activities (including any and all forms of movement, financial transactions, personal relationships, groups/associations you participate in or fund, communications of all sorts, purchases, etc, etc) would you mind? It isn't about what anyone has to hide, it is about personal privacy that the gov't cannot be trusted not to abuse either now or at some unknown point in the future.

I have nothing to hide, but it is a big deal. It IS a big deal. It is a very big deal to me. I was a victim of sexual abuse at a checkpoint, and every pass through a checkpoint now is an ordeal. I can't describe to you how it makes my skin crawl to see screeners coming at innocent passengers with their wands and their "back of the hand" on people's private parts.

Your attitude is disgusting. It is a big deal to invade people's belongings and their bodies. It is a big deal to subject innocent people to these indignities. Just because you do it every day doesn't mean it's not a big deal to your victims - I mean, passengers.

-----
I apologize in advance for my hysterical tone, but I guess I feel personally attacked by this "it's no big deal" comment. It is a big deal. Again, "it's no big deal" is a very common thing for an abuser to say to the abused.

You have brought this up in other posts, one of which was in the Women's forum I believe. You can so "no". And by doing so, you can still get on the plane. You don't have to sit there and be molested. And frankly it is bad training and bad hiring which finds these perverts in a job in which they feel they can be paid to fondle. Tell them no, ask for a female, then ask to have them use the back of their hand. That's it. Now go fly. ^

Let's not forget, "We're only doing it for your safety." That's like the old "this hurts me more than it hurts you" lie. I may accept the fact that certain painful actions (like medical treatments, for instance) may do more good than harm; I do not accept that with respect to airport screening. It does harm and very little good. And the more invasive the screening, the less good it does. Why don't we just observe that these secondary screenings and breast exams have detected exactly ZERO terrorists and let that speak for itself.

A worse lie that comes to mind is one from President Bush: "Terrorists hate us for our freedom." Yeah, sure they do. They must really hate the Swedes.

Bruce

Perhaps I'm over-reading some of the posts on this forum. But I get the impression from some feel that there should be no security of any description at the airport. No metal detectors, no explosive detection equipment, no inspection, no nothing. Again, perhaps I'm over-reading.

GradGirl, did you press charges against the offender? As I understand it, male screeners are not supposed to be performing secondary screening on female passengers. Is that no longer true?

Personbally I could cvare less if they want to search me. I have nothign to hide.

That said, the design of airports that requires even those passengers not boarding onward flights to be searched was really stupid. I suspect that in ATL there can be nothing done about it until the new International Terminal is built. Perhaps when they build that the customs area will be retrofitted with a direct exit not requiring security screening.

I also, have nothing to hide, but when I finish with a 10 hour flight across the pond, go through Passport Control, wait to get my luggage, and go through Customs, I do not want to wait in another long line -- especially not one which doesn't even serve a theoretical purpose.

The last time I was in PHL -- and I imagine this is still true -- there were many parts of the airport you could reach without going through Security. The TSA simply set up in each terminal near the point where you go to the gates. I don't see any reason that can't be done in ATL.

(In CDG, security is set up at each individual gate!)

You are always subject to a search if you chose to use your purchased BP to gain access to the sterile area though.

And if I have no boarding pass? After all, I no longer have a need for one after I deplane in ATL (assuming I have no connecting flight).

What if I don't want to gain access to a sterile area?

What if I just want to get into a car and go home (or to a hotel)? The only reason that I would be entering a sterile area is because the TSA decided to make the whole airport into one -- instead of segmenting it as they did in PHL.

Dovster,

I don't think they even have to fragment the checkpoints. There are theoretical advantages to a combined checkpoint for all passengers.

Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc. just need a bus that bypasses the sterile are and goes right to the baggage claim. This seems to me like it would be far cheaper than screening all of those passengers.

I'm sure that the TSA would chime in and tell me that I should stop telling them how to do their job. But doesn't this seem like common sense?

Mats, I was presuming that for some reason unknown to me it would be physically impossible to put an exit in Terminal E (the international arrivals terminal).

Actually, I like the idea of fragmented checkpoints. For one thing, it makes for much shorter lines -- and ATL is known for its incredibly long waits.

Imagine how the workload would be reduced if, in addition to the international arrivals being removed from the list, all the people who work in the center of each terminal wouldn't have to be checked every time they came in and out.

(Only those who work in the shops in the areas after the first gate on each side would be subject to it.)

I'm you sorry felt abused. Don't know if it was a female that did this or if a male did it. If a male did it you should have call for the supervisor and filed charges. It is against TSA SOP for a male to search a female. Just to let you know at the airport I work we a caught 2 females with weapons in there bras. 1 was a knife with a 4 in blade the other was a 22 cal. pistol that was loaded. If it makes your skin crawl and effects you that bad you may want to find other modes of transportation, or hire a private aircraft or get your pilot lic. and buy a small plane. Even if TSA goes back to private, passenger will still get screened.

If I remember correctly GradGirls screener was a female.

It shouldn't be too hard to add an exit to concourse E, since it's at the east end of the airport. All you need is a way to get the bus onto the access road and drive all the way around the airport, back to the west end (the regular passenger entrance), where one can grab a taxi or MARTA or whatever.

Employees only need to go through security once per day under the current setup. Restrooms, restaurants, and smoking lounges are located inside security.

If you had two security checkpoints in each concourse, one for the north half and one for the south half, there would be tens of thousands of unnecessary screenings every day, and connecting in ATL would be a huge pain in the butt.

I'm sorry for taking this topic off track. I just overreacted to that "it's no big deal" comment. I would just ask screeners to recognize that being screened is indeed a very big deal for many passengers. There is an argument to be made that it is for such a very important purpose that the extreme imposition it represents must be tolerated, but it is plainly untrue that being subject to this form of search is inconsequential. Being screened at an airport can be humiliating and degrading, especially for passengers who are forced to divulge private medical details, who feel singled out for being female or foreign-looking, et cetera. whew.


Back to the topic at hand, is there a line beyond which TSA and LEOs in an airport can not go without my explicit, additional consent after I enter an airport? What is that line? Do people retain the right to refuse search even after they enter a sterile area or can they be detained simply for asking to leave the airport unmolested?