TSA threatens to fine passenger who refuses full-body scan

As the TSA’s use of full-body scanners turns into a national debate, it appears the agency is taking a harder line against passengers who resist.

Last week, TSA agents in Florida allegedly handcuffed a passenger to her chair after she refused both a full-body scan and a pat-down. (Surveillance video of the incident called parts of her story into question.)

And yesterday, a traveler at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport who declined the full-body scan and agreed to be frisked, but complained about the invasive procedure, was threatened with a fine.

It happened to Karen Cummings, the same woman who received an enhanced pat-down when it was being tested in Boston this spring.

If the threat against her is part of TSA’s new enhanced pat-down protocol, then this is a troubling shift in policy that is only likely to intensify the discussion about the use of full-body scanners.

Here’s what happened to Cummings after she refused the scan and was patted down.

They called the supervisor over because I complained so much, as I said it was against my rights as an American citizen as it was an unreasonable search.

They told me if I kept it up I would get fined — did you know people could get fined if they obstructed the procedure, which I wasn’t doing.

I told them to go ahead and do it so I could get to my gate, all I was doing was complaining that it was totally against my rights, that no one really knows how safe those machines are, and suggesting rather loudly that more people should object to the whole process because it was ridiculous and didn’t make us any safer.

Indeed, TSA could fine travelers up to $10,000 for complaining about its new policy.

Fines also may be imposed when passengers attempt to artfully conceal prohibited items or behave in a manner that is so uncooperative and disruptive that it physically interferes with the screening process. Carrying some prohibited items could result in both a civil and criminal enforcement action.

If the threats against Cummings are part of a broader policy of punishing air travelers who disagree with the invasive new pat-downs, then we have truly hit a low point — not just for the TSA, but as a nation.

These are the actions of a police state, not the land of the free.

Update: Here’s a similar incident that happened yesterday morning, which was recorded by the traveler. Scary stuff.

  • Rich

    Lying, corrupt politicians gave us the TSA, which is nothing more than a federal jobs program. The more they play the terrorism card, though, the less people will believe it. I am hopeful that there are signs we may be moving to a point where people start to push back against this nonsense.

  • Raven

    A better way to handle airport security is to get the high school dropouts out of the positions and put in people who actually have a clue. I traveled through ATL last month and watched two screeners with “grills” laughing and goofing around as the one “watching” the x-ray machine chatted on her cell phone.

    That makes me feel so safe!!!

  • http://www.zengrrl.com Michelle

    These new screening rules and procedures have all but guaranteed that I will no longer fly unless there is absolutely no other way for me to get to my destination.

  • Monica

    @Raven I noticed similar things the last time I flew as well. The TSA agents were too busy talking to each other than paying attention to what was showing up on the x-ray monitor. I happened to glance up and see my stuff go through and saw something that I was sure was going to get me in trouble, but they let it go right through.

  • http://www.flyingwithfish.com Steven Frischling

    Chris,

    The woman who claimed to be handcuffed, held for an hour and have her ticket torn up by the TSA in Florida is debunked.

    The TSA video does not call parts of the incident into question, it just proves them to be out right fabrications. The two TSA videos play at the same time, in real time. She was on the air-side for about 10 minutes, not an hour. At no time was the woman handcuffed … as TSA TSOs do not carry handcuffs.

    The woman says a dozen police officers showed up, reports show two police officers arrived, and they were only called to escort her from the air-side back to the pre-security area.

    I have no problem taking the TSA to task when they have done something wrong … and I do disagree with the ‘enhanced pat down’ … but in the case of the woman in Florida, the story is an outright fabrication. It was her attempt to attract more listeners to her politically motivated radio show.

    As for opting out of the new scanner … TSA says it has no intention to make the new scanner mandatory (http://bit.ly/cpyuah) … unfortunately the enhanced pat downs are the alternative.

    Happy Flying!

    -Fish

  • http://www.flyingwithfish.com Steven Frischling

    Chris,

    I have asked about the Fines for Interfering with the Screening Process a few times. Presently there is no defined policy for issuing fines to those who merely protest the pat-downs, however those fines have been in place for years.

    The fines tend to be issues to those who have been “denied entry” then refuse to leave the air-side area. I brought the issues of the fines up the day the enhanced pat downs went into place and have been trying to dig for a legal answer.

    I’ve had two lawyers who deal with DHS issues tell me the fines would never stick, another tell me that no one on site at an airport would want to deal with the required paperwork for issuing a fine … but no one has a concrete answer on this … but I’m digging around trying to find one.

    It is troubling.

    Happy Flying!

    -Fish

  • Ken Rahr

    So much for our first amendment rights as Americans. TSA keeps erroding our rights, and pretty soon we will have none left.

  • K

    My family has been weighing the options for our holiday travel, and trying to maneuver the whole family through the TSA checkpoint and not doing the scanner is included in the decision-making process. It is looking more likely that we will drive instead.

  • http://DontScan.me Wimpie

    The TSA has gone off the deep end. Your choices are to be viewed naked by strangers, or groped by strangers. When I travel into the city, I’m not groped and X-Rayed before getting on the train, or before going through Grand Central Terminal so why do airlines get to subject passengers to this treatment?

    In the future will they have Government Groping Stations at every street corner and at the entrance to every public building “for our safety?”

    This is insanity. It’s impossible to have complete and total safety, but it is possible to turn an entire society into a bunch of “Locos” jumping at every shadow and in constant fear for their lives.

    Click on my name above for more info or go to
    http://DontScan.us

  • Sean

    “and suggesting rather loudly that more people should object to the whole process because it was ridiculous and didn’t make us any safer.”

    That kind of action can and will get you into trouble. The Constitution is very clear that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater when there isn’t an actual danger. While wanting to protest individually or as an assembly in a correct fashion is completely legal, trying to insight a riot is not.

    While I don’t agree in general with the policy, I fly a couple of times every week, and I’ve never been asked to do a full body scan, nor an advanced pat down, but wouldn’t really have an issue if I were asked.

    I would like to see a fine for someone walking up to security with a laptop in their bag, various sizes of liquids strewn through out their carry on and not taking off their shoes. These rules have been in effect for a long time now, as well as posted everywhere. You being an idiot and either not complying out of ignorance or some sort of entitlement mindset is unacceptable and slowing me down in going through security. That’s where we should be fining people.

  • Dang

    May be there is a problem of perception of power trip by TSA agents. I travel around the world extensively and the security agents in others international airports behave very polite, respectful to the travelers and quite efficient.
    What is the difference ? The UNIFORMS and the way the security agents dress.
    Unlike the USA, they don’t have the police-look-alike uniform, they dress in very neat and handsome civil suit (ZRH, GVA, CDG, LHR, NRT, ICN…) with ties…women too. They speak very polite but firm and seems very well trained to me.
    May be the US TSA got an attitude because we dress them like cops… I don’t know, ask a psychologist.

  • Joe R

    Welcome to the Land of the Free*!

    (* as long as you do not exercise your freedom by infringing upon the infringement upon your freedom)

  • Mary Graham

    “These new screening rules and procedures have all but guaranteed that I will no longer fly unless there is absolutely no other way for me to get to my destination” I couldn’t have said it better Michelle. Only I must add to this by saying FEES. Geez, who in their right mind would fly these days unless they MUST (job, funeral etc.). Vacation close to home!

  • cjr

    “I’ve had two lawyers who deal with DHS issues tell me the fines would never stick”

    Considering what is happened to people who take pictures of buildings these days (See: Photography is Not a Crime blog), it won’t be long before somebody is fined, and it sticks.

    The terrorists are winning.

    “That kind of action can and will get you into trouble.”

    Your argument is flawed. Objecting isn’t causing a panic, nor is it causing a riot… unless the overzealous TSA decides to make an example of you, which is never out of the question.

    Nobody should subject themselves to legalized sexual abuse.

  • West Coaster

    Chris:

    Thanks for the article. I finally went through the scaner at LAX the other day. My guess, those complaining about the actual machines may be complaining more about what they think/feel than what is actually true. That said, I found the process surrounding the screening to be one that neither increased my sense of security or did anything to move people along! After going through the machine, each person was held up for additional patting. In some cases, a minor pat, in other cases something much more serious. Because the process was so slow, your scanned items were sitting out of your view for extended periods of time. Belts were required to be taken off, which proved to be an issue for some, who clearly need the belts to keep their clothing up. Bottom line, machines will eventually be fine. However, as TSA has chosen to use them, the process will do nothing to make passengers more secure and my guess, in the long run cause much more anger! Maybe if EVERY TSA/security/law enforcement agent who worked each airport had to go through the same process, we would get some common sense applications!

  • West Coaster

    Chris;

    One additional comment;under the new TSA search policies, I recently observed a young man (somewhere from 16 – 19ish) go through a FULL body search. (Which was done in full view of many people. I heard the agent tell him the search had to be in the roped area in full view, there was nowhere else to go.) He was clearly embarrassed by the intimate contact as where the others forced to witness. My thought, during the whole search–if in fact the young man was under 18 and I were the parent, I would have been screaming bloody murder and filing a lawsuit. Were a lesser level of contact by an adult to a minor happen in ANY other environment, that person would be in jail, etc. That type on intrusion needs to stop.

  • http://www.hiddenairlinefees.com Rob

    I would think that excessive protesting would fall under the “Non-physical interference” fine of $500-$1,500. Source: Enforcement Sanctions Guidance Policy PDF that is available at http://www.tsa.gov/research/laws/editorial_1504.shtm

  • http://www.phoenixjustice.com Phoenix Justice

    Chris,

    Let me be the voice of reason, though it will be a very lonely voice. We all dislike the TSA to varying degrees, but can we all agree that they have an impossible, not “almost” impossible, but impossible task? No, that impossible task is not to prevent a terrorist from boarding an aircraft, train or bus. Their true task is to give the perception that the government is trying to keep everyone safe while traveling.

    Right now, TSA is being, rightly or wrongly, perceived as an intrusive inconvenience. A major part of that perception is because they are forced to react to potential threats. Those reactions are perceived to be heavy handed at best, draconian at worst. Those reactions are also partly based on overt political pressures and of course, public pressures.

    TSA is the ugly duckling of government agencies, at that is saying a lot considering it has the IRS as a close second. For the good part of a year (if not longer) it had no official head, as their various nominations were held up and thus was leaderless.

    Now, can the TSA fix its perception problems? Not even if hell froze over because it can’t. The American people are too fickle and the politicians are even worse. No, all TSA can do is keep going about its impossible task and try not to squash too many toes along the way.

  • frostysnowman

    And besides, the terrorists are NOT being caught at security. They are being caught well outside the airports, by other agencies doing leg work, tracing money, following up leads, etc. “Good, old-fashioned” police work is stopping them where it’s most important, before they even get to the airports. As for the bombs recently found in the cargo areas of planes, they were set to go off with cell phone detonators. But we don’t hear one word about banning cell phones on planes. If the TSA decided to do that, people would be completely up-in-arms and there would be a huge public outcry. So why are so many people accepting these new procedures saying, “As long as it keeps me safe…”?

  • http://www.thetravelinggiraffe.com Crissy

    I will admit that I have no idea about this fine. I would imagine though that it’s similar to Obstructing Government Administration charges that exist in most places – where you keep a government employee from doing their job and can be fined or arrested. As long as this fine is saved for the .5% of people who misbehave, then I have no problem with it.

    As for going through a checkpoint and making a big deal about how it’s an unreasonable search and seizure and against the constitution and blah blah blah. Whether the guy is right or wrong he’s just asking for trouble from the wrong people – the people who aren’t making the policy and would probably rather not have to deal with the BS that these body scanners are creating. Instead write a letter to your representatives and find other ways to bring attention. Harassing the TSA agent isn’t going to do anything but piss them off for when I have to go through the checkpoint.

    While I agree with his method of writing to Chris, I don’t approve of annoying the TSA agents as a statement, it’s a waste of time and energy.

  • Carver

    The title is a bit misleading. It appears to suggest that merely refusing a full body scan subjects one to a fine. Yet, the article makes it abundantly clear that is not the case. Its being disruptive that makes someone subject to a fine.

    And truthfully, not only am I fine with that, I applaud it. Millions of people fly daily. We have places to be and people to met. I don’t want to be caught up in your drama. Write letters, blog, stage an outside protest, but please don’t take it upon yourself to cause me to be delayed or miss my flight.

    Just as you exercise your right to alternative screening, I’ll exercise my right not be to co-opted into your protest.

  • http://www.AppelLawOffice.com DebbyNYC

    I wonder when the US will start picking up on the same security strategy as employed by El Al? As a frequent US flyer I found it fascinating to be “grilled” (ever so politely and discretly!) by the El Al security folks before I even got to the checkout counter. Profiling? Probably. Effective? Undoubtably. Intimidating? Invasive? Not at all. I would rather go through that procedure any day of the week than full body scans!

  • http://www.flyingwithfish.com Steven Frischling

    OK, so I woke up a bunch of people at the TSA this morning, Sunday morning, to get info on the SAN incident. These folks include Public Affairs Officers, front line supervisors and management analysts. Some have to give an official answer (PAOs) the rest give their open opinion (since they know I won’t name them).

    With most incidents the opinions tend to vary, with public affairs giving me an official statement and others often tending to disagree with the official TSA statements. Today … everyone was on the same page.

    As soon as the passenger informed the TSA screener he’d have them arrested, his language and demeanor suggested that he was directly interfering with the TSA’s execution of the pat down. Had this passenger simply said “no” and that he was refusing the pat down and left, there would have been no further ramifications.

    I tend to agree with this opinion. The person wanted a fight.

    The TSA should have told him he was free to go, when they were getting statements from others, because he was not being detained. I have a problem with that … but what occurred inside the screening area, that is standard operating procedure and he was directly interfering with it and threatening the TSO screening him.

    To date … no passenger has actually been fined for refusing the pat down.

    Happy Flying!

    - Fish

  • Christine

    The terrorists have won. They have fundamentally altered our way of life and made flying an excruciating experience. My husband had a knee replaced four years ago and flies at least once a week. What a nightmare! He will gladly tell you how invasive the “pat-downs” have become. The TSA is a joke!

  • Grant Ritchie

    Earlier today, I entered this post in the wrong thread… I’m a crotchety 60-year-old man who hates government intrusion as much as anybody. That being said however, the TSA is fighting a desperate battle to keep the mosque-eteers from bringing down the next planeload of infidel Americans. I, for one, appreciate and support their efforts. Wake up, people!

  • http://www.flyingwithfish.com Steven Frischling

    Grant

    In multiple conversations with DHS, DoD and TSA personnel, usually those directly engaged as terrorism analysts or anti-terror experts it repeatedly comes up that the current techniques deployed by the TSA front lines are ineffective.

    The scenarios that frequently come are ones that would allow those seeking to take over a plane to do it in such a way that nothing they’d be carrying would violate any carry on regulations.

    To that end, this morning a DHS anti-terror expert detailed for me how the current ‘enhanced pat down’ presently in place would not have detected the ‘underwear bomb’ that failed to deploy on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit this past December.

    On my site I started to detail gaps in air cargo security some time ago, pointing out how ineffective the “100% screening” was this past August … months before the large media outlets began to discuss it at the en of October.

    So I am wide awake … and I have been covering commercial aviation security as a journalist in one capacity or another since September 15 2001.

    There are better solutions, less invasive and more effective options … and hopefully these policies begin to come into place.

    Happy Flying!

    -Fish

  • Joe Farrell

    FORGET Karen Cummings or anyone else –

    Takhttp://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

  • Aaron

    Why aren’t the airlines stepping in? Why are they willingly allowing their customers to be treated like prisoners? Man, I wish we still had a complete passenger train network in this country…

    Aaron

  • Joe Farrell

    Fish – threatening to arrest someone who is sexually assaulting you is not a crime, nor is it a threat to the TSA staff.

    We have a problem here. The problem is that the actions taken by the TSA ARE sexual assault under color of authority. The TSA is claiming that they are entitled to an exception on the grounds that they are conducting a search. What is the justification for the search? Refusing to comply with another event which violates most state and federal voyeurism statutes and in the case of children violates the child pornography statutes.

    If you are going to tell me that the gentleman in San Diego needed to say: “I will file a criminal complaint if you feel my genitals” instead of “I will have you arrested if you feel my junk” we truly have moved on to the theater of the absurb.

    The stupidity of the people telling you that the TSA agents felt ‘threatened’ by the person threatening to have them arrested means that they must have believed that they were doing something wrong. If they truly believed that they are acting under color of authority and that they have the legal and moral authority to feel genitals and female breasts then they would have ZERO fear of legal repercussions.

    It is insane for the TSA to argue on the one hand they have the legal authority to force people to consent to body searches involving touching of ‘private’ areas an then some how assert that when someone objects to it on the grounds of sexual assault they have a fear of prosecution.

    Give me a break here. . . .they simply cannot have it both ways.

    If you KNOW that the current TSA techniques do not prevent access to aircraft by persons who have nefarious purposes, and you KNOW that senior TSA and federal security officials also KNOW that- you need to be screaming it from the rafters and forcing these people to testify. Not say that anyoen who refuses a meaningless search is somehow liable or deserves what they get. . . . it reminds of me of how the Tories used to challenge early American patriots who stood up to the truly stupid rules of the Crown because the King was always right.

  • http://badbadwebbis.wordpress.com badbadwebbis

    @Steven,
    I have to admit I wondered myself why the guy turned on the video on his phone BEFORE he went through the scanner. It looked as though he intended to cause a ruckus and wanted the proof of how bad the TSA is.

    And I don’t like the regulations and I certainly hope I don’t have the scanner or pat-down option in my future, but I also think that it’s not especially cool to go into an already tense situation with the intention of making a scene.

  • http://www.corporate-furnished-apartments.com/ furnished apartment rentals

    TSA provides us by the crooked. It keeps eroding our constitutional rights. That sort of act can get you into trouble. That kind on interruption should be stop.

  • cjr

    “I have to admit I wondered myself why the guy turned on the video on his phone BEFORE he went through the scanner.”

    Would you want it to come down to your word vs that of TSA?

    Considering that TSA released airport security video of another incident, yet only that one incident, it’s up to every individual to do what it takes to protect themselves.

  • Steve

    I agree with Carver that the subject is a bit misleading. If there are any cases of someone being threatened with a fine for opting for an enhanced patdown instead of the full-body scan, then I’m in total agreement that it’s worth going outraged about. But opting out of the scan and being disruptive are two different things (I will, however, grant that “disruptive” is highly subjective and that there’s a potential for overzealous TSA employees to accuse someone of being disruptive when they actually weren’t – but it sounds like Cummings herself admits that she was attempting to be disruptive).

    I have two other thoughts. One is that I don’t know why the airlines aren’t more concerned about travelers’ growing resentment of the TSA, since it will surely affect their bottom lines.

    The other is that I’m a little amused at the outrage on the part of business travelers who feel that their civil rights are being violated, when the rights of other people are routinely violated by police and other civil servants all the time. I’m thinking back to being a teenager and some of the things my friends and I experienced…like the night that my girlfriend and I were parked on the street in front of her house talking and were hassled by the police. (We really were just talking…if we’d wanted to do something else, we wouldn’t have parked under a streetlight directly in front of her parents’ house, LOL). A police officer came up, demanded our IDs, and told us we couldn’t sit there in the car. He couldn’t cite any law against us being there, but still threatened us if we didn’t either leave or go inside my girlfriend’s house. Stuff like that happened all the time to my friends and me (and none of us were troublemakers).

  • John

    I’ll take an opposing view from that of most people that have commented. Not because I think that your views don’t have some validity but because I think your anger is targeted at the wrong place.
    Two points.
    First one is that these scanning and security techniques are referred to as “European” for a reason. They have been used in Europe for an extended period of time. One should also note that Europe has dealt with a threat from terrorism for years [From the 80’s and early 90’s: IRA, Bosques in Spain, Red Army in Germany. More recently, 7/7 in the UK, the Spanish train bombings and the Glasgow Airport bombing to name a few]. They also have a culture that is far more in tune with “human rights” than ours (a catch phrase that is used to defend just about anything in the UK to include both sides of the smoking ban). Interestingly, no one complains about these pat downs in the UK (since I don’t speak any of the Continental languages fluently, I can’t really comment on their feelings). Talking to friends that live over there, they honestly feel that the threat is very real and point out that you already consent to a search to enter into the secure area of an airport.
    Second point is that TSA lacks one of the key tools in the EL AL and European tool bag, profiling. While profiling is a dirty word in the US, most foreign governments use it to great effect. This is what keeps the 90 year old grandmother from being patted down while gives extra attention to people originating to Yemen. Since the TSA is specifically banned from using these techniques, it effectively means that everyone has to undergo the intrusive searches in order for them to use them on the limited few that should receive them.
    Basically, I don’t like the TSA but I think politicians have put them in an impossible position. They have to be as effective as El Al and European Security without using one of their key tools (El Al reportedly admits that profiling is their primary security tool).
    Ultimately, if you don’t like what TSA is doing, write Congress. Until Congress and the courts allow TSA to use all of the security tools that other countries use, we will all be forced to undergo more stringent security that we should have to.

  • BillieK

    Since it seems that the TSA personnel are folks who couldn’t get jobs anywhere else, applying for a TSA screener job sounds like the perfect position for a sexual predator who hasn’t been caught yet and has no criminal record. Their perversion would be Gov’t. sanctioned!

  • http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Flying/126801010710392 Mark
  • Joe Farrell

    @John – TSA is not banned from using profiling and effective security techniques by the courts- they are banned because of internal political decisions made by DHS and the Bush and Obama administrations. When the techniques they use now would not have with reasonable certainty detected the panty bomber – and they use that guy as the excuse for the enhanced techniques – its all just BS.

    There is ZERO reason why using behavioral, racial, appearance and intelligence profiling is unconstitutional. . .. if it is not against the 4th amendment to get searched when you enter a secure airport area, then why is is not also OK to use otherwise constitutionally barred reasons to determine if you should have a cavity search?

    We play stupid word games instead of actually being willing to say:

    99% of the threat comes from:

    Islamic males from certain nations between the ages of 16 and 45.

    These people have either traveled to certain nations, lived there or have family from there.

    They have certain characteristics that are known to intelligence officials.

    Why can’t we use THOSE reasons? International air transportation in the United States [the scope of TSA jurisdiction] has not been threatened by Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Bhuddist or any animist religion extremists. Perhaps we need to start intensifying the search of Saudis, Sudanese, Pakistanis and others who are known to be or harbor terrorist groups -and start ASKING people who apply for visas or travel from any nation to the USA outside the Western hemisphere what RELIGION they practice? Sure – people can lie – but it is a start. . .

    The procedures we have now are identical to a child being kidnapped by a white male in a white panel van and the police stopping black men in convertibles . . ..

  • John

    @Joe
    I’ll disagree with you on the panty bomber. I’ve read reports that say the opposite.

    I won’t disagree that profiling is banned mainly due to politics. Interestingly, I live & work near a major city that was sued by the justice depart for profiling and was/is under court ordered monitoring for it. It just happend that something like 75% of all crime in the city fell into one profile (that included a racial element) and since they spent most of their time concerned with people matching that profile, they were infriging on their rights. I would guess that the minute TSA started stating they were profiling, the lawsuits would start.
    Its sad since, as you state, the majority of the threat comes from one well defined profile.
    Oh and in the city I was talking about … they’d have to stop convertibles to make sure that they could produce the court ordered precentages.

  • cali-gal

    I’m impressed that he had the guts to do the right thing. It’s not easy to be a trailblazer. I hope he lets people know if the suit does go forward. I also have to admit I am VERY impressed with American Airlines. They’ll be on my preferred list of airlines from here on out.

    As a young female, I am extremely nervous to fly and be subject to being touched so intimately. I won’t do the scanner for safety and personal reasons. And to not be allowed to leave the airport should I be singled out to go through the scanner should be illegal. What about the Fourth Amendment and searching without probable cause? Entering an airport is probable cause? Or does just the act of intending to fly allow the TSA to strip me of my constitutional rights?

    I agree with others who point out that other highly populated locales are also at risk but have never been subject to the humiliation sanctioned by the TSA. Sad to think that distant vacations, family visits and job functions will be curtailed in order to avoid the intrusive and embarrassing searches.

  • http://badbadwebbis.wordpress.com badbadwebbis

    @cjr –

    Let me rephrase that. It appeared to me that he turned it on before he even knew he was going through the body scanner (it was on in the bucket, and most of us put all of that stuff in before we get to the front of the line, which is where he discovered that he would be getting the body scan. But I could be wrong). It seemed very similar to what happened with that Megan woman who seemed also to want to challenge the TSA as much as possible.

    I guess my problem with it isn’t that a person objects to the scan. But if you do it in the line at the airport, and you announce that you are going to have someone arrested, and you come across as belligerent, the TSA is then forced to treat you as a potential threat. Be prepared for the consequences, is what I guess I’m saying.

    I’m no far of the TSA’s new scanner, and maybe my methods of objecting to it aren’t effective (letters, e-mails, etc.). But if I went to the airport and volubly objected to both the body scan and the patdown I would also expect to get detained.

  • Chicky

    @Joe: As usual, you hit the nail on the head. El Al knows who the likeliest suspects are, and so do we. It has nothing to do with hating Islam or Muslims. Those are the facts.
    I’m from the South and while I do not like it that we used to have Jim Crow laws and all their accompanying evils, I cannot deny it or pretend it didn’t happen. Same thing here. I know that 99 percent of practicing Muslims have no intention of ever hurting anyone. Most, in fact, are terribly upset by the actions of those who also profess the same faith. However, the fact is, those aforementioned males between 16 and 45 are the most likely actors.
    As awful as it sounds, profiling in the same vein as El Al is the only way to reduce the TSA frustrations and actually be assured that flying is safer.

  • Joe Farrell

    Hey BadBad = how can the TSA think that someone who threatens to arrest them for sexual assault is a threat, if they are doing nothing wrong? Its just BS, blather, drivel and meaningless words – or – perhaps they are not quite sure about the rules . . . . then, and only then, can someone threatening a sexual assault claim be taken seriously.

    The sheer stupidity of someone claiming that they have the RIGHT to ‘touch my junk’ being threatened by me then claiming to call a cop is insanity. Using that as a justification for finding him a threat can only be found in a security bureaucracy.

    The facts were simple: The protagonist claims he checked the TSA website for the presence of the nudeoscope at KSAN. The TSA’s website claimed they did not have it there. He showed up and yet, despite what the website said, they were using the nudeoscope and he was selected. He was selected for the nudescope – not because he alarmed but because the guy ahead of him opted out [apparently they DO have a quota even though they deny it.]. He refused the pat down.

    At that point the regulations are simple: he may leave the secured area. End of story. Yet. When he left the secured area [after offering to go through the magentometer and after conferring TSA refused] he was confronted by someone who claimed he could be have a civil penalty for refusing screening.

    The unspoken issue here is the TSA website – it was not accurate. Thus, how can the traveling public rely on any information on the website if the information they give out is not accurate in only certain areas? Do we want to allow a security apparatus of the government to threaten people after providing incomplete information on its public website? Forget the issues surrounding the search . . .

  • Joe Farrell

    @John – read the third paragraph of Steven Frischling’s comment above –

    http://www.elliott.org/blog/tsa-threatens-to-fine-passenger-who-refuses-full-body-scan/comment-page-1/#comment-53032

  • http://badbadwebbis.wordpress.com badbadwebbis

    @Joe,

    Well yes, obviously the guy isn’t a threat to have the TSA people arrested. But they are told to treat with caution anyone who seems belligerent or unstable. I teach at a uni, and we are told the same thing – we need to report a student who seems unstable, makes comments about self-harm, etc. There is usually a SOP that addresses such things – not that it makes sense, but institutions and bureaucracies don’t usually operate on common sense.

    Anyway, I also think the screeners are over the top, and for the most part I haven’t had any trouble with security. But then, the worst that has happened to me is having the underwire in my bra set off the metal detector.

  • Dr Bill Toth

    Readers would do well to brush up on history…especially the history of poland and germany in mid to late 1930′s

  • Duke Nukem

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it once more:

    Welcome to the United States of Soviet Amerika, comrads!

  • http://www.readwhatisee.com Pedro Alfonso

    TSA is nothing more than another abuse of power victimizing the American people. Some of you will say that we need it because of 9/11 and I will say to those to wake up and stop believing that hoax.
    Visit the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth website, don’t be the last fool to find out the truth.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    Even Geraldo from Fox News just admitted last Saturday in his show that he now questions the official report.

  • steelmouse

    The TSA doesn’t care what we think about their searches, but they care very much what the Congressmen and Senators think, I urge you to contact your rep. ASAP.

  • S. E. Wells

    @Phoenix Justice and others:

    My main issue is that this particular search is it’s done without reasonable cause. As far as I’m concerned, air travel is a public accommodation, TSA is a government agency and as far as I’m aware, you cannot waive certain rights under those circumstances. Even if right now you can, I do not believe it constitutional to waive my right not to be unreasonably searched nor have my property confiscated without due process.

    Having a person look at my naked body or intimately feel me or my children up violates our Constitutional rights and basic dignity. I would not have a problem with the scanners or an enhanced patdown IF:

    1) A computer program analyzed the images first for anomalies, and human being never looked at the image unless the program finds an anomaly. Anomalies cannot be secretly triggered or have their sensitivity adjusted by TSA operators, and the algorithm for detection should be independently reviewed by experts on a regular basis.

    2) I am behaving in such a way to cause reasonable suspicion.

    3) A same-sex employee and full screening out of sight of any other passengers or TSA employees but the one conducting the patdown is required for a patdown, and the passenger is allowed to bring their choice of witness with them. If there is a concern about fairness then two same-gender TSA employees can be present.

    4) Children under the age of 12 are not required to go through the scanner and cannot be patted down around breasts, buttocks or between the legs

    5) Teen minors must have a parent or legal guardian present for any patdowns

    6) There is a clear, easy to access posting BY the security area, with forms for complaints in the case of inappropriate touching or other procedural complaints, and passengers who consent to search and pass it are not interfered with or noted on their future travels if they do complain. Furthermore complaints should be addressed promptly and courteously once all travel by the passengers is completed.

    7) Recording of any patdown procedure by the passenger’s or passenger’s legal guarian or choice of witness is expressly allowed for that passenger’s own personal record.

    A lot of you people are confused about what profiling is. The Constitution bans, for example, race-based profiling. So you can’t legally stop (or shoot) someone for driving (or running away) while Black, though cops will do it anyway. The Israeli screening process takes into account behavior, demeanor, documents, origin+destination, luggage, etc, and the screener asks questions and is trained to detect when someone is lying or agitated. They let thousands of Muslims through the security lines, so it’s not just about religion. By the way there are plenty of violent Jewish extremists in Israel, if you’ve been reading the news.

    Furthermore if the US Gov’t were all that concerned for its citizens’ safety, they would not cordon off large numbers of people in the security lines, often very near the entrance to the terminals, where just anyone could pull up to the curb, get out of their car, run in and detonate themselves in the middle of the crowd. My information is that El Al does not do this; instead they separate people into smaller groups/rooms, and divide the security procedures up among agents.

    By the way, Grant Ritchie and Pedro Alfonso, telling people to “wake up” is annoying and rude, and totally ineffective. I’ve read that so many times by people of all political flavors it makes me want to reach through the Internet and slap everyone who types it. Who the hell are you to think you are the only one around with a clue? How do you know you’re not the one who’s “asleep?” Or could it just be, that we’re all at least partly right, that we all have valid concerns and may actually want the same goals, but disagree on how to get there?