Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter | Hacker News Reader

Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter

techdirt.com

39 pointsnextparadigms26 comments

"Grope" is a pretty loaded word to use for what is actually just a pat-down. Grope has a sexual connotation, and I unless the typical experience is very different from mine, there is rarely anything sexual about TSA searches.

I'm sure things would have been fine if she simply refused. She and her daughter would not have been allowed to fly, of course, but she knew or should have known that well before she went to the airport. What she actually got arrested for being belligerent to the agents. This could have as easily happened if she got in someone's face about a french-fry order at McDonalds. Starting fights isn't OK anywhere.

I'm somewhat convinced that the new security measures don't really help much, but there are good and bad ways to deal with irrational policies. Yelling at a TSA agent isn't one of the good ways.

There's nothing overtly sexual about TSA patdowns, but I would not want to subject a kid of mine (if I had any) to TSA agents rubbing the back of their hands on their chests, legs, and tugging at their pants.

We don't know enough about the story to know just how belligerent the mother might have gotten, but TSA should offer some kind of special program for people that are frequent fliers, special needs, and flying with children that can skip such security measures and just go through the usual metal detector/bag xray if they opt-into background checks and such. I've flown a dozen roundtrips this year so far and have a flight in a couple hours I need to catch, and that would make me so much happier.

> Yelling at a TSA agent isn't one of the good ways.

There's just no great way to communicate with TSA so I can understand people wanting to take it out on the agents because they're right there, giving you lots of grief. At the same time, one has to realize the TSA agent is only doing his/her job. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone.

> I'm somewhat convinced that the new security measures don't really help much...

Every time I go through patdowns and realize that I never took my baggy of >3oz "medical" fluids and sprays out of my carryon luggage, I feel so safe.

The whole thing about the frequent fliers is a bit unrelated to this news piece. I haven't thought enough about your proposition to know whether I support it, but I thought that a trusted traveller program did exist in some airports where you could go through expedited screening.

> 3 oz baggy

I don't even take mine out of the suitcase any more. The worst that's going to happen is they catch me and make me put that part through again, but so far the expected value is time-saving. I can't say it makes me feel more in danger -- I think for the most part people don't really want to blow up planes, and even when they do, it's decently hard to get in a position to do so.

I think the program would be useful for parents with (specifically younger) kids as well as frequent fliers. Register ahead of time, don't have to deal with the hassle of telling your super hyper 4 year old to stand still in the scanner. Convenience, not just avoiding the scanner/patdown controversy.

As for trusted traveler programs, I don't think there really was a push until just recently for TSA to adopt their own, rather than dealing with 3rd party companies only at certain airports offering the service.

> I can't say it makes me feel more in danger -- I think for the most part people don't really want to blow up planes

I never ever want to do that, I just want to get to my destination. But I didn't mean my 3oz bottles of shampoo. I have a bag of that already. I'm talking about my second size-unlimited plastic bag full of medical liquids and aerosols that TSA almost never bats an eyelash at. I have travelled with 10oz bottles of contact lens solution and cough syrup this way that were in my carryon, undeclared, without being asked to take it out. My father, who is diabetic, takes bottles of soda/juice with him to the airport too and they never hassle him when he explains why (with a letter from his doctor as backup just in case).

The idea that someone could stick a prescription label on a bottle and take on liters of liquid if they wanted to without screening is kind of disturbing after all the TSA's hassle about 3oz liquids.

"Grope" is a loaded word, but it's not necessarily sexual in connotation. More, modern usage seems to have drifted toward a more broad, general invasion of private space of which the TSA pat-down certainly consists. That "grope" has shifted and is so often associated with the TSA would suggest to me that there exists a sub-critical mass of people dissatisfied with the State Security apparatus in place, deeply so.

I hear it used this way in the rarified world of tech journalism and internet message boards far more often than traditional journalism or real life. I think for most people the TSA is a mere annoyance. The ever-increasing droves of people flying would tend to support that point of view.

At any rate, Google still feels this verb has a sexual connotation (http://www.google.com/search?q=grope), so I'm sticking to my guns on that one. The title is meant to inspire outrage by using a loaded term rather than the appropriate one. This "news story" is actually a propaganda piece and isn't helping in having a rational discussion on the topic.

"The ever-increasing droves of people flying..."

Got any data to substantiate this?

This from a quick Google Search: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId.... If you need more, you'll have to find it yourself.

Why shouldn't she yell at a groper!?! Are you in favor of groping little children??! NO MEANS NO!

I sincerely doubt that non-belligerent objecting would matter much. The TSA seems to have a "procedure is procedure and that justifys it" attitude, along with a strong solidarity inside the agent corps. In short, they're bully boys. Patting down 95-year-old cancer patients, detaching ostomy bags, etc etc.

At this point, we should acknowledge that the cost is not worth the benefits, and scrap the TSA.

In the real world, just like in forums, all rational talk halts once the yelling starts.

Which is why off-topic articles like this, that deal with hot-button political topics, should just be flagged and removed from the site.

I'm sure things would have been fine if she simply refused.

I don't believe this is true. You are subject to a civil fine of $10,000 for leaving a security area without completing it.

http://jalopnik.com/5690109/you-touch-my-junk-and-ill-have-y...

I wrote my senators and congressman in NM a while back about this. I fly for work, but my family hasn't flown anywhere (and most likely won't) since the groping and naked cameras started.

Instead we drive, which is quite a bit more dangerous, and mostly we don't travel very far anymore. Thanks TSA.

I am 100% opposed to the TSA's policies. I also think we have no obligation to treat TSA agents with respect.

Anyone who institutes an unconstitutional policy should be told so, flat out. Simply following orders or doing your job is no excuse, just like it wasn't for the Nazis.

I'm almost with you on this. Human beings deserve to be treated with respect, period. You can respectfully and forcefully decline and explain your reasons for doing so. Treating them poorly isn't going to help anyone, ever. Shaming them into getting a new job just simply isn't going to work.

This article is two layers of blogspam deep.

Here is the source: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110713/NEWS01/307130115/...

From that source: "...airport security screeners must try to avoid invasive pat-down searches of children."

Excuse me, what? Isn't this kindof instructional on how to successfully smuggle something dangerous onto a plane, then? Just strap it to a kid?

Strangely, though I've flown out of San Jose, San Francisco, and Chicago since these new rules were put in place, the only security I've been through has been the same old metal detectors and carry-on x-rays. Even though I've been departing from major airports at busy times (Thanksgiving, Fourth of July), the security checks have all been fairly quick. I'm really confused about how inconsistently the TSA seems to be doing this.

I'd be very confused if the TSA was either consistent or any good. I'd think I'm dreaming.

Almost all the smaller airports I've been to have them. I think they put them in the smaller places as a warmup.

I'd like a government guide on how to explain to my children that its ok for this uniformed guard to touch them in this manner but not for people in uniforms in other places.

"It's ok for people to touch you like that but only in airports" doesn't quite seem to cover it.

I find it interesting that so many people are highly concerned with keeping the image of their nude body from being seen (especially temporarily without permanent storage). Our bodies are all very similar. Especially as children. What exactly is the concern? That someone is going to snap a photo of your TSA security image and post it on facebook?

> What exactly is the concern? That someone is going to snap a photo of your TSA security image and post it on facebook?

Yes. http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-bo...

And if you're not concerned with an image of your nude body being seen, please put your naked photo where your mouth is, and upload one here.

I find it interesting that so many people are highly concerned with keeping the image of their nude body from being seen (especially temporarily without permanent storage).

Really, you find that interesting? Try to walk through a female locker room shower (assuming you're male) -- and you can note to all the women you have no recording device -- any view you get is only temporary, and frankly all women look pretty much the same to you anyways. Your explanation will turn out to mean very iittle.

And many of us would rather not take on any unnecessary radiation, however small the dose. Do you find that interesting?

Are you sure there's no "permananent storage"? Who has verified that?

Second thing: there have been numerous instances of TSA workers leering at the scanner screens as people (esp attractive women) walk through. There have definitely been instances of attractive women being "randomly" selected.

If you think petty bureaucrats should have the power to leer at a curve-revealing outline of you and your loved ones in private at their whim, I'm sorry but you're just too complaisant for a strong democracy.

On a related note, how do you feel about airport toilet/shower "security" cameras with a promise that the tapes are deleted every hour? You know, just to prevent people from smoking drugs there. Airport is a public place, so it should be ok to watch you at all times, right?

There have definitely been instances of attractive women being "randomly" selected.

I saw this two days ago at DCA. I always make a note of how much the new scanners are being used--the whole time I was in line waiting to have my ID and boarding pass checked, probably about 15 minutes, not a single person was sent through them. I actually thought, "Oh, good, they're not using them today." Then, an attractive woman who was right in front of me got sent through, and the TSA agent who selected her blatantly stared at her rear after she walked past him into the machine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com