A man suspected of being drunk posed as a security screener at San Francisco International Airport long enough to direct a couple of women into a private booth for pat downs before real security staffers caught on to him, authorities said Wednesday.
And nobody complained because the TSA's own procedures are functionally indistinguishable from sexual assault.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Fake TSA Screener Infiltrates SFO Checkpoints, Gropes Women
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 44 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Friday July 18 2014, @12:27PM
Sometimes real life is more surprising than a novel of fiction. If the procedures are "indistinguishable from sexual assault", then it is sexual assault. I can't wait for the first lawsuit to be files against TSA people for sexual assault.
However, according to bureaucratic logic, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be anything but a duck...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Lazarus on Friday July 18 2014, @12:48PM
They're not really indistinguishable from sexual assault unless you completely ignore the context, but this does illustrate how extreme these security procedures are, how lax security actually is, and I think it shows that the procedures should change to be much less invasive. The guy behaved criminally, and should be punished, but he accidently helped bring attention to issues with TSA, and for that I thank him.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pendorbound on Friday July 18 2014, @02:01PM
The context:
Someone using intimidation and threat of deadly force if I don't comply is going to touch me in ways that I would not consent to absent that threat of force. I have committed no crime, not provided any hint of probable cause, nor been subject to any kind of judicially overseen due process which would supersede my otherwise absolute right to autonomy over my body.
Tell me again how that context differs from someone walking up behind your daughter on the street, pulling a gun on her, and threatening to shoot her if she tries to run away or resists while he fondles her? I'm having a hard time seeing a distinction.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 18 2014, @02:43PM
Pfah, obviously, if she didn't want to be fondled she wouldn't be on the street! I mean, nobody is forcing her to leave her home and go into public. The ability to go from Point A to Point B is a privilege, not a right, Pal, and one that can easily be taken away.
Oh. Wait. It has been.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Sir Garlon on Friday July 18 2014, @03:03PM
It differs in that TSA agents are unarmed.
If you made a scene and refused a TSA pat-down, you would be arrested and hauled away in handcuffs. That ain't "deadly force." Deadly force would only enter into it if you did something extreme like overpowering three police officers and sprinting for the gate, in which case it would be reasonable to assume you were wearing a suicide vest and/or on a psychopathic rampage -- a danger to the public in either case.
Try looking past your persecution complex.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Common Joe on Friday July 18 2014, @03:17PM
Disagree. Just try to "freely walk away" from TSA and see if the guys with guns don't come. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.
Disagree. There will be escalation. If you try to walk away from TSA, they will become more aggressive until you cannot walk away. They will forcefully stop you. The only way to get away from the TSA is to engage in running or physical fighting. Then the guys with guns will come. I almost agree with grandparent. I'd reword it like this: "This is the same as your daughter walking in the street trying to go from point A to point B, but she must go through an man who will grope her under threat of armed (including gun) violence even if she tries to run away or resist."
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday July 18 2014, @03:36PM
As it happens, I hate authority, too. Power corrupts, and all that.
There are two possible I can see to read your position, and OP's for that matter.
Can you clarify which you mean?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by urza9814 on Friday July 18 2014, @04:56PM
You forgot option 3:
3) The government has no authority to violate its own laws. More commonly stated as: "Nobody is above the law."
I believe this entire thread started by asserting that the TSA's actions are illegal because they're indistinguishable from sexual assault and sexual assault is illegal. If they want exceptions, they need to pass an amendment declaring certain situations in which sexual assault is legal. And good luck with that...
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday July 18 2014, @10:40PM
I propose a new clause to the sexual assault law:
I think that's the loophole the government is looking for. No chance for that to get abused. Nope, no sir, the law is pretty clear here. I (your local friendly TSA agent speaking here) am the law, and you are beneath the law, and thus beneath me.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pendorbound on Friday July 18 2014, @05:32PM
Not sure which thread level you were querying, but my two cents anyways:
I wouldn't consider either of your two points entirely true as stated, but I'd consider point 1 closer than point 2. The use of force in imposing what the TSA does to travelers is somewhat tangental to my objections. I consider what they're imposing to be unconscionable. If what they were doing was otherwise reasonable, then use of force would be reasonable in cases where it was manifestly justified (held to the same standard as law enforcement in general). The issue I have is the degree of violation of personal rights that they impose versus the lack of any demonstrable greater good served by that imposition and the near complete absence of accountability, judicial oversight, or due process over the way that they behave.
Given that:
and the further enumeration of those Rights through the Bill of Rights, I would consider the ability to choose who touches my body to be among those unalienable Rights. To be clear, I make a distinction with respect to intent and level of intimacy of the contact. IE someone brushing up against me accidentally as I walk in a crowded subway is a non-issue, but someone intentionally and sustainedly contacting my genitals or other intimate parts of my body is something I believe I reserve the right to withhold consent to.
I'm not an anarchist, and I recognize that the State has been granted the power by the People to infringe on certain individuals' rights (using force when warranted) in cases where there is a greater good concern and where the imposition upon those rights is balanced with the degree of danger to others and the likelihood of it improving the safety of others. When you are under arrest, a police officer has the power to search you to ensure that you don't have weapons that would enable you to hurt law enforcement officers or others detained in the same place. In that case, due process in the form of a history of widely agreed upon laws places reasonable limits on how and why your rights may be superseded by State authority. Additionally, there is a system of checks and balances on that power in the form of court oversight and a degree of public transparency where abuses of that power are (hopefully in most cases) swiftly brought to light, corrected, and abusers held to account for their actions.
The procedures that the TSA employs are not specified by law. The TSA is empowered by blanket congressional action to do pretty much what it pleases. Thus far, attempts have largely failed to apply judicial oversight questioning the reasonableness of those procedures. The degree of imposition upon individual rights (essentially groping in this case and other violations of privacy, personal autonomy, and basic human dignity in other cases) is very significant to many people. Admittedly persons of good conscience may differ as to how much that is an imposition. I personally believe that disregard by the State of an individual's preference that another person not touch their genitals is a significant violation of that individual's rights. That violation may be merited in cases where the likelihood of it avoiding serious detriment to others is extremely high and where there is good reason to believe that the particular individual has ill intent (IE a prisoner hiding a weapon).
I believe to date that the actions of the TSA have been repeatedly demonstrated to provide minimal increase of safety to anyone (IE Security Theater), and coupled with the lack of any oversight or personal accountability for abuses of their power, I'm left at a point where their actions are largely indistinguishable from thug criminals sexually assaulting people without recourse under law.
Ultimately it comes down to balance. "Randomly" selected for a traffic stop to check your license & registration? Pain in the ass, but a reasonably small imposition, well established police procedure, and reasonably good odds that it will identify people breaking the law and causing a danger to others. If not, you're on your way in a few minutes with no real indignity done to you.
"Randomly" selected for a full hands-on pat down of your entire body for trying to get on an airplane? That doesn't balance out for me. The percentage of people "ridin' dirty" in their cars far exceeds the percentage of travelers who seek to blow up airplanes. The imposition of checking my license and scrutinizing a sticker on my windshield doesn't even register compared to having a stranger juggling my balls.
I consider another person touching my genitals (through clothes or not) without my consent to be sexual assault. I don't believe that the State has a reasonable justification to override my belief in this case absent specific probable cause to suspect that I intended to break the law and cause violence to others. Given that the action is (in my opinion) unjustified, I would also consider any attempt to arrest me should I try to avoid that action to also be unjustified. Nonetheless, the State would do so and employ violence against me up to and including deadly force if I attempted to defend myself from this sexual assault.
That in short is what I have a problem with here. Not the violence, but the complete lack of balance between my individual rights and any reasonable expectation of actual greater good or due process for infringing them.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday July 18 2014, @07:09PM
We are pretty much on the same page here. I don't you will find anyone on Soylent who will defend the TSA.
Sounds the implied threat of deadly force is tangential to your real concern, which is that the TSA enlists the full authority of the state to violate our rights.
I see that as *totally* different from a from a stranger groping my daughter at gunpoint because the stranger at gunpoint isn't an institution, does not operate on an industrial scale of millions of gropings per year, and doesn't wear a badge. The solution to the stranger at gunpoint is simple: more policing. The solution to the TSA is complicated and without recent precedent: less of a police state. The stranger with a gun is not subverting the social contract of government. And in practical terms, I think he is actually several orders of magnitude more likely to actually shoot someone in any realistic scenario. The stranger with a gun is a greater physical danger to one person, whereas the institutionalized and offically-mandated abuse is a far greater danger to free society.
I also think intent matters. There are different kinds of TSA gropings. A reasonable person could be subjected to a very professional, clinical search and still experience a traumatic violation of their rights and their person. There is also the possibility that some pervert who gets off on groping other people has found his or her dream job at the TSA. The former, you could argue, is not really the same as a sexual assault because of the context. It does not need to rise to the level of sexual assault to be unacceptable, a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and an insult to the generations of American patriots who bled and died defending our freedom.
The fact that the TSA denies or ignores the obvious fact that being airport screener is a pervert's dream job just pisses me off.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Friday July 18 2014, @05:34PM
Hmmm... good point and good question. From my perspective, it's the abuse of the authority (which is backed by force) that gets me. So, I choose the first of your two options.
I just flew back to the U.S. to see family and returned home. (I live overseas.) Without getting into details, I'll just say that I had run-ins with security and TSA personnel at the airports in each direction that got my blood boiling. I also saw TSA violating their own security procedures (which are there, supposedly, for security). Of course, I didn't tell them anything, because then I'd be the one handcuffed. Not to mention everything is all smoke and mirrors anyway.
Something else to consider: I've been to a female doctor who told me to turn my head and cough. I felt less naked in front of her (and she saw and felt everything) than I did at those airports where I still had clothing on. The doctor's touch was necessary and professionally done. From her, there was no abuse of any kind. Some of the TSA people and TSA in general? Yeah. I felt violated because the touching was unnecessary. I will say this: so far, the TSA people who have touched me have been professional even if one guy a while back was a little more firm than he should have been. To me, though, it's still a sexual violation. Also, other people have not had agents as professional as the ones I've encountered.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Friday July 18 2014, @06:10PM
I know I'm replying to myself, but one other thing I thought of: I could have walked away from the doctor at any time. Not so with the TSA.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday July 18 2014, @04:38PM
People actually *have* been threatened at gunpoint for trying to calmly walk away from a TSA pat-down. By federal law it's a crime punishable by an $11,000 fine...
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday July 18 2014, @08:15PM
Wellll... there is a difference.
To my knowledge, they make it clear that once you start the process, that it cannot stop. It's 100% voluntary. At any time before you enter the line you can literally walk away.
I understand that it restricts a form of travel that can be seen to functionally restrict freedom, but I can't ignore that it's voluntary either. We can all elect with our wallets the values we want, and the simple answer is that everyone stops flying and puts their foot down about it. Of course, that requires that we cooperate or care.
It's a rare occurrence that I fly for this reason. If I go on vacation I tend to drive.
Since it's very much a choice to use the process, I don't feel sexually assaulted by the TSA agent doing the pat down. I think once the back of the hand hit my balls. While upsetting, I've had the same thing happen to me at The Men's Warehouse and I didn't feel like writing a petition on WhiteHouse.gov about it.
Maybe it's just me, but they all seemed really upset about having to touch me. It could have been job satisfaction too.
Also, I was pretty gosh darn certain that when they say "male pat down" that means that a male TSA agent has to deal with me. So women can't even be subject to sexual assault by a man. Yes, it could come from a woman too. The chances of that are roughly equal to some gay man that loves bears being responsible for my pat down too. I don't care to do the math and figure out the implications of transgendered people either.
It's voluntary, and there is a large number of safe guards in place to protect people. Except obviously, that the agent actually works there, and that female pat downs were being conducted by female TSA agents.
So it wasn't malicious oppression. Just idiot government workers bad at their jobs. Shocking.
I get upset when they want to access the data on my phone (in plaintext), do the same with my computer, and try to read my notes that i've written down. Not because they want my shoes off, which is just stupid really.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @10:48PM
Yes. The Greyhound station is around here somewhere. [boingboing.net]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 18 2014, @04:29PM
Unwelcome physical contact made under coercion is assault. When the assailant makes contact, or inspects parts of the body that are normally kept covered, then the assault is sexual in nature. Context be damned - if you make excuses for the government, then other predators are going to use those same excuses at the first opportunity. Yes, I did say "other predators".
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday July 18 2014, @02:15PM
That was just the submitter's opinion. A widely shared opinion, but none the less one that doesn't belong in a news summary. I would prefer if the editors excised such flagrantly biased commentary from the summaries. (I'm not saying I disagree with that assessment, I'm saying its presence in a summary makes S/N look like a bunch of crackpots.)
Happened [dprogram.net] twice [theblaze.com] that I could find in a quick search.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @05:17PM
> That was just the submitter's opinion.
But is it really? There is absolutely no question that the man's actions qualified under the legal definition of assault. And the two women so assaulted did not complain or otherwise report him to a supervisor. It seems entirely reasonable to say that their compliance was due to the fact that they believed the situation to be standard operating procedure.
Sure, they didn't spell it out, but actions speak louder than words.
(Score: 1) by pendorbound on Friday July 18 2014, @05:48PM
You could argue that their compliance was because they felt it was standard operating procedure and they were okay with it or alternatively that they believed that they had no better recourse than to endure the assault. IE it was the lesser of two evils as compared to being arrested, fined, violently hurt, etc.
"Either I'm going to rape you or I'm going to kill you." Not fighting back doesn't make it consensual sex. It makes it a value judgement that I'd rather be raped and live than be killed.
Enduring sexual assault in the guise of government authority instead of being arrested doesn't make it less sexual assault. On the contrary, that authority is the very thing that raises it to assault as it's what places you under duress.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday July 19 2014, @04:30AM
Some of the things Doctors do are also indistinguishable from sexual assault excepting the context, breast exams, pap smears are two examples. When the wife was in labour there were people doing all kinds of things to her that would be considered sexual assault in some circumstances.
(Score: 1) by deimtee on Saturday July 19 2014, @11:53AM
The difference is, with your wife it was consensual. If at any time she had said "stop that now", they would have.
They may have explained that it was important for hers or the baby's safety, but she absolutely had the right to stop them at any time.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @12:10PM
Furthermore, everything the doctors are doing is for the patient's benefit. The TSA's actions have zero benefit for the person being handled - there is no upside for the searchee to being searched. At best they can expect a neutral outcome.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday July 20 2014, @03:05AM
I'm as much playing devils advocate here as I'm quite anti-authoritarian.
There are times when a doctor (actually two and a judge) can force a person to take medical care and if it involves the life of a baby my wife may not have been able to opt out (it was a hard birth that would have probably killed both without medical assistance). It was actually touch and go whether her refusing a blood transfusion and going home would be allowed.
And of course it can be argued that people can opt out of flying and go to the airport well aware that they are likely to get groped. I myself have traveled 8000 miles at one point but have never flown (took 10 days vs 10 hours).
But really the point I was trying to make is that getting touched in private places does not automatically equal sexual assault as it depends on the motivation of the toucher and how professional they are. Of course as the AC points out, the security theatre is useless, unneeded and exists for making certain people feel more secure.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by nightsky30 on Friday July 18 2014, @12:48PM
Up to this point it was just a joke that even appeared on BBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d87ZCAWl01U [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @01:14PM
Given the local demographics, the odds are very much against any male groping any female at SFO.
(Score: 2) by mrider on Friday July 18 2014, @03:33PM
The funny thing is that someone that is both gay and a perv (and yes those are separate things Martha) could have probably gotten away with this longer. Seeing as how real TSA agents always do same-sex pat-downs.
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 1) by deimtee on Saturday July 19 2014, @12:51AM
I often see signs/documents that say you can insist on a same-sex inspection, but is there any ability to insist that it is not same-sex?
eg. What if I have a religious objection to another man touching me, can I insist the patdown be done by a female agent?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday July 18 2014, @02:12PM
Let's be clear - the guy who did this (assuming it all occurred as reported) is a complete pisscavity.
Unfortunately, I seem to be having a hard time not respecting his Chutzpah. Nonetheless, he's a pervy shitgargler. With balls of steel. But a total arsevoid.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 18 2014, @04:33PM
You do have a way with words. +1 eloquent should be a mod option
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @07:57PM
Well, yeah, but he didn't call him a jerk or "a real knee biter". That would have gotten him another +1, for sure!
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Friday July 18 2014, @04:43PM
Drunk balls (aka extremely poor judgement disguised as bravery exhibited while under the influence) != Chutzpah
Would you still respect his Chutzpah if he did this to a woman on the street?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday July 18 2014, @05:19PM
Drunk balls (aka extremely poor judgement disguised as bravery exhibited while under the influence) != Chutzpah
So... do you think he put on the TSA uniform before or after getting drunk? This required planning, and I suppose if he's a hardcore alcoholic it could have all be planned under the influence but I think it's more likely that at least part of this crazy plan was conceived and executed sober - especially when you consider that while apparently drunk, he was evidently not so drunk that he couldn't pass for an on-shift airport security employee.
> Would you still respect his Chutzpah if he did this to a woman on the street?
If he dressed up as a police officer[1] to do it, then blatantly did it in front of other police officers... then I would have to admit that it takes some nerve.
I acknowledge your anger, and I hoped in my OP I'd made it clear I'm not trying in any way to defend this idiot, but apparently that wasn't enough: I AM NOT DEFENDING HIM. HE'S AN AHOLE.[2] All I'm saying is... it took some fucking nerve.
[1] I know, TSA are not police, but I didn't choose the "street" metaphor, OK?
[2] Assuming he's guilty
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @09:30PM
> So... do you think he put on the TSA uniform before or after getting drunk? This required planning,
Perhaps this is not the first time that he did it. That he's done it before and just didn't get caught. Maybe being drunk caused him to be less attentive so he was too blatant and got himself noticed.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Friday July 18 2014, @07:25PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @02:14PM
The article says the only reason the man was caught was because he was doing this without a female present. So all you need are one male uniform, one female uniform, and a female wanting to grope, or watch you grope women. No one will catch on.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @02:23PM
Thats kind of scarey.
What is even more scarey is you could use this to circumvent the line all together... You could so very easy use it to smuggle whatever you want onto a plane.
security theater at its finest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @05:10PM
> So all you need are one male uniform, one female uniform, and a female wanting to grope,
> or watch you grope women. No one will catch on.
Or just a wig, a stuffed bra and some perfume -- just enough to superficially pass as a woman.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Friday July 18 2014, @02:20PM
Why didn't he just apply for a job? He sounds like top TSA material to me.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday July 18 2014, @02:28PM
Last I heard, TSA procedures required the groping to be done by a same-gender agent. So unless he got his jollies by fondling 55-year-old men, he's not likely to get what he wanted that way.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Frost on Friday July 18 2014, @02:58PM
But if he were an actual TSA agent then he could fondle more women before getting caught, and get in less trouble for it. Oh, and also get paid for doing it!
(Score: 1) by dak664 on Friday July 18 2014, @02:53PM
Moreover he have prevented a terrorist attack. Not today they may well have said, it seems additional security has been put in place.
(Score: 1) by clone141166 on Friday July 18 2014, @04:33PM
I wonder what would have happened if during his groping he had actually found a gun/other weapon stashed on someone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18 2014, @09:33PM
He would have confiscated it for himself, and then told them he was just going to let them off with a warning.