Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamesaguilar | Hacker News Reader

"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.

View on HN

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com