Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Women Arrested For Refusing TSA Search of Children

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the tiniest-terrorist dept.

Security 1017

CelticWhisper writes "A Tennessee mother was arrested for refusing to allow TSA screening clerks to subject her child to a body scan or patdown. This comes in the wake of a promise by the TSA Administrator to make repeated attempts at non-physical screening of children, after which another video of a child patdown surfaced. This event may signify a tipping point in the public's willingness to tolerate invasive and inappropriate security procedures at airports."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting.... (5, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36755946)

"Think of the children" actually gets people to listen.
Not the groping, not the invasion of someone putting their hands on you (think about those that hate being touched, or fear of germs, etc), or 3d images of your body for all to see.
Nope, its fear of pediophilia and children being touched.
We have come far.

Not fear - disgust (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756150)

Nope, its fear of pediophilia and children being touched.
We have come far.

We have come far.

But the thing is, people groping children is utterly senseless and, to many people, disgusting. There is no way to defend or condone it.

That is why people are against it, not of some odd pedophile fear but because it's stupid and gross.

Re:Not fear - disgust (1, Troll)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756274)

Considering they use the back of their hands, it wouldn't call it 'groping'. The media likes to incite the locals with such terminology but the pat downs are pretty benign. In this case she simply didn't want to put her child through the scanner. As far as I can tell from TFA, she never even got to the point where they offered to do a pat down instead.

Re:Not fear - disgust (5, Insightful)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756326)

Considering they use the back of their hands, it wouldn't call it 'groping'. The media likes to incite the locals with such terminology but the pat downs are pretty benign. In this case she simply didn't want to put her child through the scanner. As far as I can tell from TFA, she never even got to the point where they offered to do a pat down instead.

Next time you are out in public, touch a woman in a sensitive spot with the back of your hand and see if she cares whether it was the front or back of your hand.

(and don't blame me if you get arrested)

Re:Not fear - disgust (1, Redundant)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756466)

Are you implying that these people go to the airport NOT expecting to be scanned or searched? This is hardly the same as walking up to a stranger on the street and they randomly grope you. They go to the airport, stand in line watching the hundreds before them go through the same process. You'd have to live under a rock as well as being blind to not know what was going to happen.

Re:Not fear - disgust (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756284)

While the risk of "terrorists" is vastly overrated, and the TSA clowns would have fuck-all chance of catching one even if they were silly enough to try a uber-retro precise replay of an earlier attempt, there isn't any particular reason why a child is a worse place to stash some contraband than an adult(other than size, of course.)

The whole enterprise of gaterape as a security measure is flawed; but it isn't more flawed in children than it is in adults.

Re:Interesting.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756160)

We hold the proverbial, innocent, child high here in the US. You can do all kinds of crazy shit, but if you so much as talk about children in a harsh tone, you're the biggest asshole ever.

Re:Interesting.... (2)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756230)

And, you know, children grow up. A lot of adults where sexually abused, raped, or molested at some point of their life. They now get to relive those events with full tactile sensation by yet another using their societally reinforced dominance as a means to isolate and control them. ...for their own good, of course. Hey, they asked for it, right?

So... (4, Insightful)

toxickitty (1758282) | more than 3 years ago | (#36755958)

Is everyone enjoying their freedom? You know that choice you have which you really don't...

Re:So... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756066)

You have the choice to believe that you can be free in a world with 6 billion other people in it, or not to.

The question is how will you Constitute limits on it?

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756406)

Actually, most people who board an aircraft that doesn't fly to US destinations aren't being patted on the fanny or squeezed by the buttocks and don't have to take off shoes, belts, open suitcases and have them rummaged, etc.

Still, the people who don't fly to the US are being hassled to some extent because of the common ICAO regulations pushed by the US. So, I'd say it isn't the 6 billions out there that are the problem, but the US government and its sponsors, who are milking the security theater for all it is worth.

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756320)

the right to travel freely in my country: GONE. if it means air travel, its gone. if it means driving and there's a 'mandatory roadblock' where they steal your blood against your wishes (not kidding, forced DUI checkpoints and they DO draw blood if they want to) then your freedom to travel unimpeded is gone.

why does the US government hate us for our freedoms?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756476)

The US government doesn't want people to be free, they want them to be under their control, US citizens or otherwise. That's why US citizens lose more and more freedom every day. It's also why the US government illegally invades and imposes the "correct" American way of living on other countries.

Uhh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36755962)

She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.

Re:Uhh... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36755994)

She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.

You're the problem, Mr. Authoritarian dumbass.

"belligerent" (5, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756030)

Another word for not being properly subservient to our masters.

Re:"belligerent" (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756088)

If she had calmly stood her ground the worst that would have happened would be refusal to board the plane. Instead, she went all trailer park on them.

Re:"belligerent" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756300)

Says Captain Faggot who will never touch a woman.

Re:"belligerent" (2)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756428)

If she doesn't touch them, it is her Right to give them a piece of her mind. They petition for redress of grievances differently in the trailer park. Remember, that's part of the Real America.

Re:Uhh... (-1, Troll)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756046)

She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.

Totally true. First, look at her picture.

Second, read the article: "...airport authorities say she was belligerent and verbally abusive to security officers..." and "...Abbott yelled and swore at Transportation Security Administration agents Saturday afternoon at Nashville International Airport..." and "After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail." and:

“I still don’t want someone to see our bodies naked,” Abbott said

Again, take a look at that picture.

And if you were still in doubt of this woman's poise and refinement: "At one point, Abbott tried unsuccessfully to take a video with her cellphone."

Re:Uhh... (3, Insightful)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756154)

Totally true. First, look at her picture.

You're right. Only good looking, smart people with tech skills deserve to have their rights respected.

PS - is your sig from the blurb to a low budget gay porno or what?

Re:Uhh... (0, Troll)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756228)

You're right. Only good looking, smart people with tech skills deserve to have their rights respected.

She just looks like the people who yell at the cashiers at Wal-Mart, that's all.

PS - is your sig from the blurb to a low budget gay porno or what?

That all depends on whether you get your rocks off reading Dr. Seuss.

Re:Uhh... (1)

toQDuj (806112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756380)

So you are sayingwe should not side with her because of the way she looks and because she was unable to record a video. For all we know, the latter was due to she being hindered by the airport staff to take a video. Or if she had a japanese cell-phone, I can completely understand it is impossible to get right.

Re:Uhh... (5, Insightful)

Demena (966987) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756050)

She was accused of this. By people who had just lied to her. I don't think their accusations hold any weight. Or should not.

Re:Uhh... (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756246)

Proper sign of respect for a pat-down?

Uncontrolled urination, in all directions.

They'll wish they had more than blue gloves...

Re:Uhh... (5, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756106)

She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.

And in an unrelated Slashdot story, it's the 40th Anniversary of the Stanford Experiment.

Re:Uhh... (5, Insightful)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756130)

She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.

1. TSA officer tries to fondle/irradiate children
2. Parent refuses
3. TSA officer insists on fondling/irradiating children
4. Parent gets upset
5. Parent charged for being "belligerent"

Offences like "resisting arrest", being "belligerent", "abusing officer" and so on are generally total b.s. - one in a thousand arrests for these things would be legit, the other 999 being tools for wannabe fascist bully boys to prevent people from asserting their otherwise legitimate rights.

I think a good law would be that unless the person arrested had actually committed a real crime (one that doesn't involve any of these 'police' crimes) then there should be no power to charge them with offending the sensibilities of the authorities. Dealing with hostile people is your job if you're a member of the police, TSA etc.

Re:Uhh... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756346)

There's also the fact that only "resisting arrest" is actually a crime. If done sufficiently loudly, belligerence or swearing at people may constitute some sort of disorder(or if done sufficiently chronically, may constitute some sort of harassment/stalking); but swearing at authority figures is legal, even actual cops and feds, not just TSA trash. They generally don't like it, and it often brings out the ugliest side of their "discretion" in upholding the law; but that doesn't make it any less legal.

Re:Uhh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756394)

Offences like "resisting arrest", being "belligerent", "abusing officer" and so on are generally total b.s. - one in a thousand arrests for these things would be legit, the other 999 being tools for wannabe fascist bully boys to prevent people from asserting their otherwise legitimate rights.

Do you have anything to back up those numbers?

Re:Uhh... (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756462)

The amazing thing is that it isn't obvious to very many nerds on here.

Come on guys, get out of mom's basement, this stuff should be easier for you.

Re:Uhh... (4, Insightful)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756134)

Being right is an absolute defense for being belligerent.

Re:Uhh... (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756144)

She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.

And?

That still does not make the TSA policy any less clear or enforced. Once you hand your drivers license over and boarding pass, and you pass through the little gate inside the checkpoint, you have passed the point of no return.

According to the law, and TSA policy you cannot refuse to complete the screening process. Note, I said complete the process. You do have the right to say that you will not subject yourself to A, B, or C, but there is no going backwards. You have to make a choice.

Failure to comply and attempts to leave the screening area, even to leave the airport, are offences that can allow you to be arrested. I know this personally. I did choose the pat down and crotch grab vs the 3D porno image machine.

Note, that I wholly disagree with the practice, but the fact they charged her with disorderly conduct is because they did not want to charge her with the other offence.

That is strategic on the part of the TSA. If she had been arrested for failure to comply with the screening or leaving quietly, there could be a court case. The TSA could be forced to hand over data under subpoena. They could lose and precedence would be established. When this case goes to trial she will be surprised that the screening measures will have practically nothing to do with her case, and the judge will more than likely not allow it to be presented as evidence, nor will the judge allow the TSA to be forced to hand over data and anything, and the whole thing might have everything to do with disorderly conduct. Basically, her court case will be about her behavior, and the airport and TSA will be irrelevant.

Same reason the IRS will usually choose to settle instead of going full on in court if they think they even have the smallest chance of losing. It is to deny the citizenry precedence in law to allow us to fight them effectively through the courts.

Don't be fooled because of the way she was charged. What caused the whole situation is that she did not want pornographic (that which can be considered obscene) images of her children and did not want her children touched and groped by another person. She had no choices her according to TSA policy and was backed into a corner. Golly jee willickers....... I can't possibly understand why she blew her top and got arrested for "disorderly conduct". You back anybody into a corner with zero options and that is what you get. Especially, when they feel their children are being harmed.

Re:Uhh... (5, Insightful)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756170)

She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.

You know, if someone (uniformed or not) insisted on touching my daughter I'd be belligerent too, at the minimum. An arrest would probably be necessary as well. You can keep your false sense of security and freedom America, I'm staying the fuck out.

Re:Uhh... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756306)

She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.

So, if she had been less uppity, and just known her place, none of this would have had to happen?

Think of the children! (5, Insightful)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 3 years ago | (#36755964)

The "think of the children" argument has managed to get all sorts of ridiculous legislation passed, so it's clearly an effective argument. It's about time we started using it to protect some of our rights.

Re:Think of the children! (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36755982)

lol. I came here to make the same post. Good one.

Re:Think of the children! (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756078)

How does encouraging underwear bombs protect your rights?

Think of the children falling from the sky.

Re:Think of the children! (0)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756184)

How does encouraging underwear bombs protect your rights?

Think of the children falling from the sky.

Yes, because reality is exactly as it is portrayed on FOX News....

Re:Think of the children! (3, Interesting)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756190)

Seriously?

The problem is you think that is a plausible outcome.

Why havent the scary scary terrorists placed a bomb somewhere else, you know someplace heavily populated and w/o the scanners?

Because there arent as many of them as you think there is.

Re:Think of the children! (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756210)

> How does encouraging underwear bombs protect your rights?

It causes potentially dangerous kooks to set their pants on fire. This makes them easy to spot.

> Think of the children falling from the sky.

I've got all perils insurance. It'll pay for the roof repairs.

Holy misinformation, Batman. (5, Informative)

DamnRogue (731140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36755988)

From TFA:

“No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”

The TSA scanners aren't comparable in any useful sense to cell phones or sonograms. (Cellphones are non-ionizing radiation and sonograms are pressure waves.) Is it any wonder that these guys don't get the benefit of the doubt?

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756000)

I was about to write exactly what you did. This is insanity.

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (-1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756098)

Flying your kids all around the country so they can complain about the smell in Grandma's house is insanity.

This is the system the greed-head airlines have put in place to help you do that.

No, it is NOT! (2)

PaulBu (473180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756248)

It is not the system that "greed-head airlines" put in place, it was put in place by Federal Government, namely DHS. If it were individual airlines putting the system together, we would probably have a wider range of options, and you could choose to fly the airline which offers screening on the level that you personally consider acceptable.

When this screening was first introduced (was not it in PATRIOT Act? And I though that more than half of /. HATED it, up until it was re-signed by the mechanical pen of their favorite President), I think it allowed for either DHS doing screening, or allowing individual *airports* make contracts with private security firms -- since then DHS fought that option, and is winning.

Paul B.

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (3, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756082)

Er, a sonogram is ultrasound and doesn't use radio waves at all.

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (3, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756136)

Er, a sonogram is ultrasound and doesn't use radio waves at all.

I, er, don't think he meant "radio pressure waves". But, er, I suppose you did.

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756366)

The point is a sonogram doesn't use radio waves at all.

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756452)

Yes, that was DamnRogue's point. Thank you for explaining it to us -- twice.

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (2)

Sipper (462582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756498)

The point is a sonogram doesn't use radio waves at all.

The point is that Airport scanners DO use radio waves, meaning that they have nothing to do with sonograms. This response the TSA gave the mother was one given out of ignorance of how the scanner actually works, and is sad, because you'd like to think the people operating the scanning equipment would have at least some form of clue as to its operation so that they could answer basic questions about it. What this really means is that they haven't been given any form of comprehensive training on the scanners, and are therefore unable to properly inform the public that they're used on.

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756220)

sonograms are pressure waves

Pressure waves [wikipedia.org]

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756410)

No shit. You know if you do real science for a living, you don't need to rely on Wikipedia for your facts. Make the connection between sonogram, sound, ultrasound and pressure waves. This will help you understand how radio waves have absolutely nothing to do with sonograms, unless of course you're talking about RF leakage from the unshielded electronics in the device, but I'm sure it's well within FCC limits. The TSA employee was parroting a prepared response, and I find it appalling that the TSA didn't even get THAT right.

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756110)

Agreed, that is troubling. Sono... sonic? Hello?

Still, the lady sounds like she was totally out of line.

Re:Holy misinformation, Batman. (1)

raluxs (961449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756186)

From TFA:

“No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”

.... if it is so safe then step in with me and my child , and any other person who gets scanned for that matter. You will be glowing by the end of your shift.

Is a body scan image of a minor CP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756004)

This device creates a picture of a child's body, for non artistic purpose.

Re:Is a body scan image of a minor CP? (2)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756272)

I would be surprised if the definition of Child Pornography is centered around artistic purposes. Medical publications likely have unclothed minors, and medical textbooks for GPs and Pediatricians probably do as well.

If anything, since artwork is often provocative and designed to stir the observer, art involving unclothed minors or representations of them is closer to Child Porn than body scanning images, which aren't designed to stir the observer. There's a classic painting in the Getty Museum in Los Angeles of an adolescent girl pushing cupid away from her, named something about a girl trying to resist love. I would be very much surprised if the subject was intended to be over eighteen, or if the painter's model, if there was one, was.

US security measures are bullshit anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756006)

No one saw the latest test ?

Where a local TV show performed a test with regards to security. Guards easily managed to pick out a forbidden (and extremely dangerous) bottle of water from a bag of luggage, but a potential dangerous explosive substance was easily overlooked.

US security measures are hypocrite and only good for the ego's of the security guards themselves. Not for the public safety.

why private security don't work (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756058)

Because the overwhelming goal for the private company isn't security, it's the profit margin.
Replicating what the Israelis do costs real money; as in involves hiring intelligent people and training the said people how to spot real threats. That kind of thing cuts into profit margin and executive bonuses, and just absolutely won't do.

America is a fascist nation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756008)

Get used to it, you're the ones who voted for it.

Get scanned and get cancer (5, Informative)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756014)

Even the TSA workers aren't too happy about the possibility of getting cancer from the scanners.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/30/did-airport-scanners-give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/ [time.com]

Re:Get scanned and get cancer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756314)

They deserve it. I don't care how much you need a job, there are some things that people with morals just don't do. Those without morals deserve to die slowly and painfully.

Bravo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756020)

the man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.

gotta love those founding fathers.

Re:Bravo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756148)

the man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.

gotta love those founding fathers.

I do? Better comply, then.

Re:Bravo! (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756188)

Yeah, but you should love them for what they actually said:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin, 1775

Airport security was way beyond giving up essential liberties (search and seizure, anyone?) long before 9/11, and the safety gained from it is not temporary if it applies to every flight.

Re:Bravo! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756294)

All liberty is essential, and the safety gained by these measures is nonexistent.

Re:Bravo! (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756442)

He didn't say that either.

Arrested for disorderly conduct, not refusing scan (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756028)

Or, could be that she's a self-entitled prat.

She wasn't arrested for refusing to allow the screening, she was [...]"belligerent and verbally abusive to security officers"[...]"After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail"

Short version, she got her knickers in a twist and threw a hissy-fit without even a modest attempt at politely refusing. I'd be right behind someone with calm and rational objections, but immediately going on the offensive hardly qualifies.

Re:Arrested for disorderly conduct, not refusing s (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756064)

Short version, she got her knickers in a twist and threw a hissy-fit without even a modest attempt at politely refusing.

How do you 'politely refuse' someone who's demanding to grope your children?

Re:Arrested for disorderly conduct, not refusing s (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756204)

Short version, she got her knickers in a twist and threw a hissy-fit without even a modest attempt at politely refusing.

How do you 'politely refuse' someone who's demanding to grope your children?

Pretty much the same way you "politely refuse" someone offering to commit any other crime against you or your family. "I think I'll just take a pass on this mugging, sir. I wouldn't want to be arrested for disorderly conduct, you know."

Re:Arrested for disorderly conduct, not refusing s (3, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756080)

Or, could be that she's a self-entitled prat.

I think the old word for that was "citizen".

I also had to google "prat", you prat.

Re:Arrested for disorderly conduct, not refusing s (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756206)

Or, could be that she's a self-entitled prat.

She wasn't arrested for refusing to allow the screening, she was [...]"belligerent and verbally abusive to security officers"[...]"After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail"

Short version, she got her knickers in a twist and threw a hissy-fit without even a modest attempt at politely refusing. I'd be right behind someone with calm and rational objections, but immediately going on the offensive hardly qualifies.

I think more people should throw hissy-fits about the fascist police state. The developments in the US are outrageous and so should be the response from the populace.

Yeah, right... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756038)

This event may signify a tipping point in the public's willingness to tolerate invasive and inappropriate security procedures at airports.

I'll believe that when I see it. People bitch, but they comply. And only compliance is necessary.

YUO FAIL IT... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756042)

projEct returns insisted that year contract. Romeo and Juliet 'doing something' FUCKING USELESS

Good mother! (5, Insightful)

Jezza (39441) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756060)

This woman should be applauded, her sticking up for the health of her children (those backscatter machine REALLY safe?) and their dignity (because "pat downs" are degrading). She was willing to get herself arrested to stand up for her children. We need more people like her.

Re:Good mother! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756310)

I don't understand why she was arrested though... being told you can't get on the plane should be enough.

They really need to figure out what they're doing (5, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756084)

Okay, I get it- they screen children, the infirm, and the elderly not because they expect these people to be terrorists, but because it would be possible to use them as mules to carry the payload for someone who themselves would definitely be screened. Many of us understand this. Thing is, in the case of children, they need to have actual medical staff like RNs and MDs on hand to handle children and teenagers. One RN per security checkpoint, one Doctor to every four or five checkpoints or per terminal or airport, depending on the size of the terminal or airport. But, that would probably be expensive in an era when we're short on doctors and nurses. I suppose that they don't have to be especially good doctors, but since they're inspecting the body, having someone trained in the body probably would be a good idea.

The trouble is, they really, really need to find a better way to screen, and they need to understand that paying low wage workers to do the screening isn't helping. They need employees who actually care and are fairly intelligent people, and they need enough of them to offset the grueling nature of the job. That probably means a four-fold increase in the payroll, with 1/3 going to wage increases and the rest going to doubling the number of workers. They also need to institute their own Internal Affairs, complete with undercover placing (which could easily be safely hidden by the sheer size of the organization through the use of random gate reassignments for employees as well as transfers between airports and cities) to help stamp out the current problems.

When I went through security in London Heathrow, about a week after the Christmas Underwear Bomber attempt, and I accidently set off the metal detector because of a foil-lined wet wipe in my pocket, their security was quick and intelligent. They didn't feel the need to extend their patdown into a bag search, and once they found the wet wipe manually in my shirt pocket they wanded me quickly again, passed me, and gave me back the wet wipe. It took something like a minute for the whole process. Granted, they were smart enough to leave enough space in the airport for security, which is probably triple what we have in the US, but their employees seemed to actually care about what they were doing, didn't joke around in a way that made me uncomfortable, and treated it all as important but routine. I didn't get the "guilty until proven innocent" feeling that I get in our own airports.

I've heard lots of good things about El Al, as everyone on here talks about. I really wish that our policy makers would stop thinking that the technological approach is the way to go and start thinking about the human interaction approach. I'd bet that we could go back to simple metal detectors again if security actually made conversation with passengers instead of treating them like cattle to be mechanically put through the processes.

Re:They really need to figure out what they're doi (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756162)

Thing is, in the case of children, they need to have actual medical staff like RNs and MDs on hand to handle children and teenagers.

Ok, I'll bite. Why? What is inherently medical in nature in a TSA search that requires the skills of an RN or MD to do it?

Re:They really need to figure out what they're doi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756354)

Legal right to touch a minor I think is the theory here. And in theory it's correct, police officers even have special officers trained and legally sanctioned in touching a minor versus an adult. Security Guards are by-and-large warned flat-out "DON'T TOUCH MINORS, EVER!" by many larger security-guard companies I've worked under over the years.

Re:They really need to figure out what they're doi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756396)

A registered nurse or a medical doctor has been taught how to handle those regions, whereas a TSA agent would probably tug on them or try to stick a finger inside to "check for bombs".
"It's what I do to check myself every night, and it feels good, too!" or "I know that they like a finger in there, I saw a video online one time about it!" would probably be the excuses given, and, of course, the TSA behind these horny "agents" who said that stripping an old, cancer-ridden grandmother of her diaper was A-Okay would probably give the same overarching "our agents said to do it, so it must be for the security of our nation" spiel.

Re:They really need to figure out what they're doi (1)

raluxs (961449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756232)

Who?, the TSA? , naaah, we are the goverment, we can do anything. Now, papers please ...

Re:They really need to figure out what they're doi (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756438)

...Thing is, in the case of children, they need to have actual medical staff like RNs and MDs on hand to handle children and teenagers. One RN per security checkpoint, one Doctor to every four or five checkpoints or per terminal or airport, depending on the size of the terminal or airport.

Er, considering that quite a few parents would agree that any sort of patdown down by a stranger is more of a psychological impact than a physical one, how exactly is your solution going to help at all when the child is still standing in the middle of a damn airport with thousands of people around them, all impatiently waiting for the good "doctor" to get done with their screening?

Sorry, but in the big picture, even a lollipop ain't gonna help. This bullshit needs to stop. When attacking the obscenities against our Rights, it's best to go for the throat, or root cause in this case, which is questioning why in the hell we even need the continued "support" of the TSA.

Trying to figure out a more polite way to fondle my child in order to board an airplane is not the answer.

Appalling. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756104)

There is no such thing like groping the balls of people, or manhandling children or elderly regularly in the most repressive regimes of the world.

what's needed for you americans to actually stand up to this ?

Re:Appalling. (2)

agm (467017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756252)

Boycotting traveling by plane would do it.

Re:Appalling. (1)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756290)

Yeah, America is much more fun :)

Re:Appalling. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756372)

Someone needs a healthy dose of -RTFA-.

Hey, pedophiles need a job somewhere... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756122)

'nuf said.

I'm appalled! (0)

Medevilae (1456015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756200)

Sensationalist headlines on /. ? Nooooo! Never.

Sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756216)

cos she's freaken ugly

TSA (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756240)

We have to stop invasive TSA procedures, whether x-rays or pat-downs. This is unconstitutional.

Re:TSA (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756412)

how do we fight back? what weapons do we have (that they care about)?

we are powerless, here. its depressing.

sadly, I see no peaceful way to settle this. and sadly, I don't see americans standing up for themselves re: 1776 again.

RIP america. worked pretty well for 200 some years. but now we've gone to the dark side and fear continues to keep us there.

What a bunch of BS.... (2)

skr95062 (2046934) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756256)

Why is it that if you or I were to do this we would be charged criminally with either sexual assault or child molestation. Yet, it is perfectly OK for a TSA employee to sexually assault an adult or molest a child and be able to fall back on "I was just doing my job". That shit did not work for the nazi's when they used the "I was just following orders" so why do we let them do this shit now? As Ben Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." We have given up liberties for security and look at where we are at now. We are NOT any safer than before 9/11 and IMHO we do not deserve to be.

Re:What a bunch of BS.... (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756448)

wow, you've jut godwin'd, ladwin'd and franklin'd this thread!

triple play. score!

Another misleading summary (0)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756270)

The summary is typically misleading. She was not arrested for refusing to let her children be scanned. She was arrested for making a disturbance. Disturbing the peace, they call it.

It's like saying someone was arrested for driving a car when the truth was he was driving a stolen car at 100MPH down a residential street. It is more sensational to read about the guy who was arrested for no apparent reason than to actually say what the reason was.

Now, the TSA person who lied to her like that should be fired, yes indeedee doo. And THAT would have made a good headline, focussing on the stupidity/ignorance/deceitfullness of the TSA.

! search == ! fly; ! search != arrest (1)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756278)

The above statements are true in C, C++, C#, Perl, Java, Ruby, Python etc. but not the USA.

That's why they should teach programming in grammar school.

This event may signify a tipping point (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756286)

nope, sorry. the will of the people don't matter anymore.

we lost our country to our own appointed goons. the goons have control and won't give it up.

soap box? election box? they have not worked for us...

Re:This event may signify a tipping point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36756404)

I disagree slightly. The will of the people matters if people will vote with their pocketbook.

Unfortunately, there to too many sheep and not enough people.

Windmill Tilting (1)

Vengance Daemon (946173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756318)

It does no good whatsoever, but it is nice to see the very few brave people that stand up and say "no" to the TSA's searches and seizures. Rosa Parks would know just how these people feel.

duh!! hello!?!?!? (1)

kemp0master (1117575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756382)

they're not doing this to catch fucking terrorists.. they thought that woman was using her kid to ferry "contraband". SURE!!! they're looking for terrorists - but that's not all they're looking for, they found a great way to perform illegal searches. now wtf are you gonna do about it? ######subliminal#suggestion#of#armed#and#bloody#revolution#######

This Woman is a Hero (5, Insightful)

cffrost (885375) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756414)

If enough Americans had the balls this woman's got, we might have a functional fourth amendment.

So this is what its come to (2)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36756464)

Okay so if i dressed my daughter in tights and a sleeveless leotard she still would have to be scanned and or searched??

Somebody with a handy lawyer needs to try an experiment and then

SUE THE TSA (and the airport and the airline and anybody else) if they try.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?